I share the concerns of others about the inadequate financial support of the Exchequer, which has inevitably set limits on what we, and our partners in Government, would have liked to do. The Irish Government should also provide additional funding because they, as well as the British Government, have a responsibility to this part of Ireland. We must also be responsible for gathering taxes, and determining how they are spent. That is another important element of the notion of sovereignty. Economic sovereignty must be a key goal for the immediate future.

It is also critical that the Executive have the power to target resources and investment to those areas and people at the greatest disadvantage. There is a great deal of inequality and poverty in our society, and both must be eradicated. That means that the Assembly - and it is notable that not too many of those Members who protest are here - must be able to channel investment to specific areas. Unless measures are put in place that actively encourage investors and investment into areas that have suffered disinvestment, discrimination and disadvantage, people will justifiably ask where the benefit and the peace dividend are.

In the weeks ahead, therefore, there will be an opportunity to discuss the programme, to identify its merits and, perhaps, to advocate change. We need an open and constructive debate on all those matters. Above all, the Programme for Government reflects the widespread desire for change throughout society on this island. We must make that change a reality. That means building a society based on justice and equality, where we are all committed to good, honest and transparent government that defends, protects and assertively advocates political, civic, social, economic and cultural rights for all as we move into this new era.

Health is mentioned time and time again. It is perhaps one of the most critical areas in our society. We all know from personal experience and from the experience of Committees that health is, to use a cliché, on a life-support machine. One of the key priorities of the document 'Well Into 2000' was to ensure that the policies of all Departments contribute fully to improving people's health, well-being and quality of life. That document recognised that health and well-being are not the sole responsibility of the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. Many of the factors that have the greatest impact on health lie outside the control of the Department. In attempting to reach a consensus, each Department, especially the revolving Departments, has the onerous responsibility of ensuring that people's health and well-being - the bedrock - are prioritised, and that mechanisms are in place to ensure that the health of the community is protected, guided and guarded.

The Ministerial Group on Public Health (MGPH), chaired by Tony Worthington, drew its membership from across Departments such as Education and Environment and was charged with the development of an interdepartmental public health programme. That group is now in abeyance. We ought to bring it together again. Structures and mechanisms should be put in place to monitor and health-proof the policies and strategies of Departments and their agencies to ensure that they contribute to the health and well-being of the population. There is a collective responsibility on the Executive to ensure that.

It is important that it should not be simply a paper exercise whereby recommendations for policy alteration by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety can later be ignored. Any Department not complying with the audit requirements or adopting its recommendations must seek a resolution of the issue with the full Executive in collective mode.

Several options could achieve that integrated approach. One is the reconstruction of the MGPH. A priority, however, should be the establishment of an audit unit in the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and mechanisms to deal with interdepartmental co-operation on health in the Six Counties. Once functioning effectively, interdepartmental public health could become an area for cross-border co-operation within the remit of the Council of Ministers.

Does the Minister agree - and this is not a political point - the expansion of North/South co-operation could aid economic development? I refer, for instance, to the fuel crisis. It could give significant benefits in savings and service delivery. Will the Minister make a statement on the actions, measures, targets and commitments in the Programme for Government that build on the contribution that North/South co-operation can make to our economic and social well-being?

Does the Minister agree that concerted action is needed to eliminate the unequal distribution of resources and investment west of the Bann? That area was shamefully neglected over the last 30 years. Will he make a statement on specific actions, measures and commitments in the programme aimed at directing investors to areas such as my constituency of Mid Ulster?

I recognise the restrictions on a more ambitious Programme for Government that are created by the insufficient block grant from the British Exchequer. However, there is a collective commitment to press the British Government for a fairer allocation of funds, and it is the collective responsibility of the Executive to address that forcefully with the British Exchequer.

Due to the financial restrictions that are placed on the Executive by the block grant, there are clear limits on our ambition to make a difference. If we are to address the legacy of underfunding and poor comparison with our neighbours, a substantial increase in the money that is available to the Executive is urgently needed. I ask the Executive, and the Minister, to address that as urgently and as comprehensively as they can.

I welcome today's democratic debate, and I hope that our Ministers will continue to listen to constructive criticism from Members.

Section 4.7, sub-priority 5, of the draft Programme for Government recognises that there are financial, cultural and geographical barriers that discourage many people from taking up education and training opportunities. Those are fine words, but my constituents and I will judge them on outcomes. Once again, I remind Members that my constituency has no further education campus. The technical college in Larne was closed and demolished, and the sale of the excess land has not been completed. The people of Larne do not have a permanent focus for further education. If educational opportunities are to be improved, that difficulty must be overcome. Consultants for the CORE group of district councils have highlighted the unacceptably high proportion of the population in Larne and Carrickfergus who have NVQ level 4 qualifications or lower. I have no doubt that that is a result of the lack of further education opportunities in my constituency.

There has been little expenditure by the Educational Guidance Service for Adults in East Antrim, despite the absence of a further education college. If we are to improve education and training opportunities, the Programme for Government must provide practical outcomes. The Programme for Government acknowledges that 24% of adults fail to reach the basic international standards for numeracy and literacy. That happens in East Antrim, as it does in other constituencies. At present, the system fails to provide educational opportunities in my constituency. I would like to see clear action to follow the fine words and improvements in opportunities for basic and intermediate level education in East Antrim. Such action would target social need and would be an important factor in improving the economic competitiveness of Northern Ireland plc. Many people included in the 24% figure may be in work, and others may be seeking employment in a diminishing pool. I hope that the number of people with poor numeracy and literacy levels will decrease. We must improve the quality of our workforce to remain competitive internationally.

I welcome the Programme for Government's commitment to revising the school support programme, improving performance in low-achieving schools and revising the literacy and numeracy strategies and the Northern Ireland curriculum. Parts of the educational system that fail our children must be addressed. Education must motivate children; it must be appropriate. Children must be switched on to it. Many children pass through our schools and do not get as much as they should from the system.

Section 4.3, sub-priority 1, outlines the commitment to provide, by March 2003, one year of pre-school education for every child whose parents wish it. Again, I am pleased with the commitment to increase provision from 85%, but that must not be simply a grand statement from Government; it must be realised practically. I have highlighted the difficulties that small pre-school playgroups face because of the Department of Education's current policy. If a plan such as that highlighted in the Programme for Government is to work, creating opportunities for everyone in Northern Ireland, the current criteria must be reassessed. Geographical distances must be practical for the childminders, grannies and granddads who look after children, but who may not have a car.

It is inappropriate to require that there must be eight children in the immediate pre-school year for playgroups to qualify for funding, irrespective of the recent report by the Education and Training Inspectorate and irrespective of the long-term sustainability of a particular group. I know of playgroups with high quality assessments and numbers that are sustainable in the long-term that were about to be dropped because they did not have eight children. Fortunately, because of the closure of another group, the playgroup that I was involved with was able to continue. However, the questions about the process affect the rural community in particular. Why should the criteria cut people in such areas off from that opportunity? It is not always possible for children to travel from outlying villages into towns to get to pre-school playgroups. If we are to offer the service to everyone, we must follow the Scottish example - that system offers flexibility in areas where parents have little choice.

Paragraph 3.6 addresses the modernisation and improvement of hospitals and primary care services. Why have Health Service quangos and bureaucracy not been tackled before? There are no public representatives on the health boards and trusts as of right. The members are all appointees - it is a quangoland. I do not understand why a review must be delayed until an overall review of public administration begins. I see the benefit to be gained from removing a layer of bureaucracy as soon as possible, and I see even more benefit in shortening lines of communication and increasing transparency.

When money is put into the system, we should be able to see what the output is, who is delivering the service and how effectively they do it. At present, no one has a clue about what happens to the money that goes into the system. I have limited experience in the world of private business - I do not claim to be a business guru - but I know that basic business principles require short chains of command and clear lines of responsibility. People should know what happens to the money, who is making mistakes, how to correct them, and whether value for money is being achieved. None of those questions can be answered by the current system. We will not save huge amounts of money only by reforming the boards. The benefits to the citizens of Northern Ireland of transparency, accountability and an understanding of how effectively the system works will be huge. I hope that that will proceed as soon as possible.

Other areas of the Health Service, such as occupational therapy, are failing badly. We are talking about providing effective care and treatment of patients, but I have been shocked to learn from recent constituency enquiries that priority-assessment occupational therapy cases were referred in May. What sort of priority is that? The idea of a two-week priority system, which is in the detail of the Programme for Government, is a million miles from what is happening. We are not delivering what should be delivered. From my knowledge of the current structure of the board, I can see that we are witnessing an outworking of the inequality in the funding of the community care sector in different parts of Northern Ireland. That board structure must be reformed. Irrespective of how many hospitals there are in an area, people should be entitled to the same level of community care as people elsewhere. My constituents did not decide what form of hospital service would exist in their area; central Government determined that. Likewise, the community care service in my area should be equal to the service in other areas. I was recently informed of a shortage of basic wheelchairs, even though statements are made about the availability of electrically operated wheelchairs. Those who need a basic wheelchair ought to get it without delay.

Has there been any assessment of the value for money of each part of the system? The current convoluted system does not allow such assessment. There are too many chains of command and bureaucracy, little power bases and empires. We are not getting the value for money that allows us to do more for patients. There must be reform.

There is a poor standard of community care in my area. I have been advised that services could be cut next year because there is less money than before, despite the fact that my area has the lowest level of per capita funding. There is something badly wrong with that. We must deliver timely and effective care and treatment for all patients and not just talk about it.

Those are the challenges that face Ministers, Committees, and Members. I assure the House that I will continue to harass and embarrass when necessary to get value for money. In my work with the Committee for Employment and Learning and the Public Accounts Committee, I will do my bit to improve the quality of life for all our citizens, and I hope that we will be successful.

I apologise to Members for my absence at the beginning of the sitting. I had to attend a Committee that otherwise would have been inquorate. I may have to leave after my contribution, and I also apologise if my remarks duplicate anything that has been said.

I have read the draft Programme for Government with interest. The additional commitments are welcome, particularly on disability, education and equality. I welcome the commitment to improved co-ordination between Departments, agencies and local government. That is an important aspect of policy and programme development and will provide vital links and partnerships between the statutory, voluntary, and private sectors and local communities.

The pledge to implement improvements to the delivery of social security services for people with disabilities and the elderly is a step towards promoting social inclusion for the most vulnerable people. It is commendable that there is a commitment to tackling inequalities in healthcare that recognises the particular problems faced by those with a disability, a mental health difficulty, or a chronic or terminal illness. That will enable such people to achieve a reasonable standard of living and integration in society.

We must give recognition, support and funding to hidden and rare diseases. Carers play a vital role and deserve a level of support that reflects their invaluable work. Without them, the pressures on an already overburdened system would be impossible to cope with. Carers are often left with the sole responsibility for the care of an ill or disabled person, and they can become isolated and suffer from low self-esteem and low self- confidence. Caring should be recognised as a profession and not taken for granted as a family responsibility. Carers often give up their careers - or put them on hold - in order to care for a sick relative or friend in need. There must be a cross-departmental initiative to address some of the issues relating to carers. Such people deserve our respect, recognition and support for their invaluable contribution to society.

The right to choose is also vital. People with disabilities and their carers should have as many choices available to them as possible. They must be allowed to take control of their life and achieve a level of independence commensurate with their condition. Every individual is a part of the community and has the right to develop a social network within that community. I welcome the commitment to equality and choice for people with disabilities and their families or carers. Choice in matters such as direct payments, day-centres, respite care and employment is vital to decisions about what is best for an individual's needs. We must ensure that people with disabilities, and their carers or families, have a good quality of life. In order to achieve that, people with disabilities and their families should have as many options as possible available to them. That allows them to take control of their life rather than having others decide what is best for them.

The joint initiative by the Department for Employment and Learning and the Department of Education to provide disabled access in schools and colleges of further education illustrates the positive effects of interdepartmental co-operation on such issues. I welcome the improved access to public services, but it is not simply a question of physical access to a building through the front door. The key issue is access to all the facilities and services inside that building.

The review of school funding is an important measure that will ensure equality of opportunity between school types and will better target social and educational need. I welcome the holistic approach to education, with the assurance of a continued increase in pre-school provision and out-of-school learning opportunities. The review of the 11-plus, local management of schools funding and the curriculum will promote a broader-based approach to our children's education and will include their social and educational needs. To ensure a high standard of education for all pupils, we must consider the state of the schools estate. Too many schools depend on sub- standard mobile accommodation, which has a detrimental effect on pupils and staff.

The problem of underachievement - especially among socially disadvantaged children - must still be tackled. That issue has been given a high level of priority, but we must work pro-actively to maintain the support programmes for underachieving schools. I welcome the pledge to continue with the reading recovery programme and the support for small primary schools.

Teachers are one of our most precious resources. They are an intrinsic part of the education system, and they are entitled to equality. Our teaching force is of the highest quality. I have said previously that entrants to higher education institutions for teachers in Northern Ireland require 21 points at A level, while the English equivalent is only 13 points. The teaching force is highly trained and motivated, and the slavish duplication of English solutions to English problems merely exacerbates the problems faced by Northern Ireland teachers. The Department of Education argues that it must maintain parity with teachers' pay in England and Wales. Teachers in Northern Ireland should have financial parity and be given the equivalent resources on a pro rata basis. Surely the point of devolution is to allow us to use our wit and intelligence to spend the resources better, without sacrificing the parity-at-least principle espoused by the General Teaching Council for Northern Ireland.

In pursuit of providing a safe learning environment, attempts to eliminate bullying and disruptive behaviour continue to be high on the agenda. We need a policy to deal with the issue fairly and ensure that schools have guidelines for dealing with problems as they arise, if we are to safeguard the rights of all our children.

The progress on the appointment of a commissioner for children and on the children's fund is laudable. It reflects the general opinion that it is important to involve children in decisions that affect them, if we are to promote social inclusion. It also shows children that their opinions and beliefs are respected and will be taken into consideration in the planning of Government policy and legislation, thus giving them parity of esteem. We need a strong, visionary children's strategy, alongside the work of the commissioner for children.

I am concerned about the lack of care places for children, especially those under 16 years of age who have had to leave home because of family breakdowns. Many of those vulnerable children end up living rough on the streets or they become involved in antisocial activities. The lack of suitable accommodation contributes to the cycle of poverty and social exclusion.

The Promoting Social Inclusion report has opened up the debate on travellers. The report itself has several flaws, the main one being a lack of true statistical data. The working group also neglected to include representatives of local government who have delivered traveller services for many years and who have a wealth of experience in travellers' issues.

The Programme for Government has committed the Assembly to introducing a single equality Bill by 2002. The initial consultation was conducted recently. Issues such as race relations - taking account of the Equality Commission's proposals for changes to Northern Ireland's existing race relations legislation - sex discrimination, equal pay and recommendations by the disability rights task force should be included in the Bill. That will put Northern Ireland ahead of Great Britain in equality legislation, and, although there cannot be total harmonisation of all issues, there is scope to look at features unique to each kind of discrimination.

The commitments made in the Programme for Government demonstrate the Executive's willingness to promote a socially inclusive society in Northern Ireland and to reflect that inclusion in future policy-making.

The Committee of the Centre sent its initial views on the Programme for Government to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister in July, and the Committee's detailed response to that office's element in the draft programme was sent on 10 October. In July, the Committee agreed that the priorities set out in the Programme for Government were relevant and should not be changed.

The sub-priorities most relevant to the Committee of the Centre are: promoting equality of opportunity and human rights; improving community relations and tackling the divisions in our society; addressing the needs of victims; protecting children's rights, meeting children's needs and including children's voices; tackling social need and social inclusion; developing effective links in Europe; and developing effective representation in, and relations with, North America. Members will be aware of the importance that the Committee attaches to those areas.

The Committee is about to undertake an inquiry into our EU policy, and it hopes to give some direction to the Assembly's current EU policy. There appears to be a great deal of confusion about which Departments have EU responsibilities, and because of that we may be losing out. The Committee is determined to get to the bottom of those issues and, where possible, to assist in the development of a more strategic EU policy.

The Committee of the Centre is committed to ensuring that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister delivers on its promise to vulnerable groups such as children and victims. Chapter 7 of the draft Programme for Government, 'Working Together', is not categorised as one of the five priority areas. The sub- priorities most relevant to the Committee in that area are modernising government, making government more accessible, and the reform of public administration. The Committee has already registered its concerns about the ability of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to deliver on its Programme for Government targets, particularly those relating to the children's commissioner. Funding has not been set aside for the children's commissioner - a post due to be established in June 2002. The argument coming from the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister about the children's commissioner is that it is unable to say what the appropriate level of funding should be. Nevertheless, we have not sought to have funding at this stage, and only marker bids have been put down. There is serious concern in the Committee about that issue.

The reform of public administration was promised three years ago. When the Assembly was set up, the people of Northern Ireland were promised that quangos would get the chop and that there would be a major reform of public administration. We were supposed to examine local authorities and consider whether we really needed 26 local councils, with 26 chief executives and all the related personnel.

Yesterday, the Minister of the Environment told Mr Shannon that some of the things that he was asking for were premature. Perhaps the Minister was premature when he announced at his party conference one and a half years ago that there would be a review of public administration. We have not had a description of what the review should be about, and no finance has been put in place for it. It will take a lot of money to conduct the review. Such matters must be considered.

The implementation date for the cross-departmental community relations strategy is given as the end of 2002. That date has already slipped considerably from the original target for implementation, which was given as "by 2002". The Committee asked whether that should not be taken forward more quickly, given the ongoing tensions and difficulties in many communities. The junior Ministers have stated that every effort will be made to complete the work as soon as possible. We remain to be convinced. We will wait and see.

The date for the implementation of the victims' strategy is shown as the end of 2001. The Committee asked how likely that was, given that consultation on the strategy closed only on 9 November. The junior Ministers told the Committee that they still hoped to have it in place by the end of the year. The Committee hopes that that will be the case, because the expectations of victims' groups have been raised by the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. The Committee is concerned about the implications for victims if the cross-departmental strategy is delayed.

In a letter to the junior Ministers on 10 October, the Committee commented on the lack of specific or measurable targets for several areas within the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. The Committee was also concerned about how performance would be monitored against targets. In reply, the junior Ministers advised that the draft public service agreements were strategic documents and that the service delivery agreements would set out how the objectives and targets would be achieved. We were told in February that the annual service delivery agreements would be published for all Departments and agencies, setting out the levels of service that the public could expect. Where are they? When will the Committees see them? Is the Assembly expected to sign off the Programme for Government without seeing those key documents?

I am sure that Members will be surprised to learn of the junior Ministers' response to the Committee's question about measurable targets. They advised that, given the nature of the work of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, it might not be possible to have quantifiable, time-bounded targets in every case. Members will have their own view on that approach to planning. One of the objectives set out in the draft Programme for Government for the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister includes a commitment to improving public services. Perhaps that approach to planning helps to explain why even the most fundamental aspects of the review of public administration have not been sorted out.

I hope that OFMDFM does not apply the same approach to other aspects of public service that affect its own planning. The Committee sent its detailed response on the draft Programme for Government to OFMDFM on 10 October. On 5 November, the junior Ministers wrote to the Committee about today's debate. On 6 November, the junior Ministers responded to the Committee's detailed letter. On 7 November, a few hours before the weekly Committee meeting, the Committee was sent an invitation to a seminar on the Programme for Government to be run jointly by OFMDFM and the Department of Finance and Personnel on 14 November in Armagh. The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister may consider that submitting a response to the Committee four working days before such an important debate is sufficient. I do not. Perhaps OFMDFM and the Department of Finance and Personnel consider that five working days' notice is sufficient for Committee members. I do not. If this is indicative of OFMDFM's approach to organisation and planning, that will do little to increase the Committee's confidence in the ability of that office to meet its objectives and to deliver its targets.

I will discuss briefly a few other matters in the Programme for Government, as a constituency representative rather than as Committee Chairperson.

The first is a health issue, which several Members have covered. Sub-priority 4 states:

Many Members tell the public that things have improved dramatically since devolution, and that if it were not for devolution, things would be much worse. I will raise a few issues about what has happened in regard to health since devolution.

Hospital wards have been closed in my area. Old people have been removed from hospital wards as a result of cutbacks, and some have been put in homes. Others have been put out of homes to accommodate those who were put out of hospital wards. That has not improved our Health Service.

We have a new casualty unit that was paid for by property that was sold off in Lisburn, and the Chairman of the Finance and Personnel Committee objected to that. It is common for people to wait for four to five hours for treatment in that casualty unit. That is not satisfactory and the situation has not improved since devolution.

Constituents have contacted me recently to say that their parents in nursing homes have been asked to come up with £15 per week to supplement the service, because the homes do not have enough finance. One individual who came to me is on social security, living on the minimum wage, and cannot afford £15. She is concerned that her mother could be dumped on the street because she has not got £15 to pay the nursing home. The Health Service has not improved in that regard.

The Programme for Government refers to reducing waiting lists, and has attempted to do that by directing additional resources towards the Health Service. What has happened? The latest reports show that waiting lists have increased. I spoke to the Province's leading cancer surgeon who said that he was having tremendous difficulty in carrying out operations because there were not enough intensive care beds. He had to go to patients, after they were prepared for surgery, apologise, and tell them that their operations were being cancelled because no intensive care beds were available.

We have a growing list of patients who require heart treatment. What has happened since devolution? One of the Province's leading heart surgeons has left the Province because of the incompetent way in which the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is run, and the fact that nursing staff are not available to treat and care for heart surgery patients. Heart surgeons in Northern Ireland cannot conduct their work to full capacity because nursing staff is inadequate to deliver on the ground. No nurses are available, because some people in management thought that it was a good idea to not accord nurses the grades that reflected their responsibilities in the belief that management would keep the grades down and still get the nursing staff. However, the nurses looked to other careers with the result that a crisis in nursing has arisen. Young people are looking elsewhere. The people of Northern Ireland have had a raw deal since devolution as regards healthcare.

The Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development spoke on Sunday about the benefits of having a local Agriculture Minister. She expanded on how well the foot-and-mouth disease situation was handled. However, considerable credit for the handling of the foot-and- mouth disease crisis has to go to the Chief Veterinary Officer for Northern Ireland who advised the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development throughout that crisis. Northern Ireland benefits from having someone of his ability, who is recognised as an expert in his field, not only in the farming community but in the veterinary world and further afield.

Will the Member give way?

Yes.

Does the Member accept that the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development took a strategic decision when she decided to close the ports at the start of the foot-and-mouth disease crisis?

I accept that that was a strategic decision taken on the basis of the advice that the Minister received from her Chief Veterinary Officer. She would have been foolish not to accept that advice. Similarly, a direct-rule Minister would have been foolish not to heed the advice of the Chief Veterinary Officer. However, the political punch was required this time last year when the opportunity - [Interruption].

Order. I ask the Member, as I have done with other Members who have spoken for a similar length of time, if he would draw his remarks to a close. The number of Members that are due to speak means that we shall be sitting late this evening.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I shall draw my remarks to a close.

When the Minister had the opportunity to have the BSE ban lifted, she really needed to move and she did not. This time last year, there was an opportunity to have the BSE ban lifted. Farmers are still suffering as a consequence.

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I shall be as brief as possible. I apologise that due to previous engagements I shall be unable to stay until the end of the debate.

The draft Programme for Government is, in the round, a well-intentioned document. The constraints imposed on it are budgetary, and the House is aware of those constraints. There is no point in continually restating the obvious. Our challenge is to work together to create stronger cross-cutting initiatives and to prioritise effectively.

The draft Programme for Government can be described as modest in many areas. However, the fact that, in ways, the Executive have not worked together cohesively, or have not worked at all, points to the DUP's failure to involve itself in the Executive. My party looks forward to the consolidation of the Executive, because our society needs fundamental change. As we now bed down the process, there is a responsibility to improve and build on the foundations, not least in improving the level of financial resources at our disposal.

Chapter 5 of the draft Programme for Government is, entitled 'Securing a Competitive Economy'. The Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment held an inquiry into 'Strategy 2010', at which many related issues arose. There should be greater emphasis in chapter 5 on the depth and extent of current economic problems. There is a need to outline the poor performance and the fundamentally flawed, heavily subsidised and uncompetitive nature of the Northern economy with its associated poverty and disadvantage. The failure of past policies and bodies and the detrimental effect of partition must also be highlighted. That is reflected by the large subvention that is required to keep the North's economy afloat.

The difference between what is spent by the Government and what is raised in revenue is around 30% to 40% of GDP.

Sub-priorities in this chapter should also state that the Government are working to create higher, more sustainable rates of economic development involving a more equitable distribution of the fruits of greater economic growth, and to fundamentally restructure the economic base that is the legacy of decades of political and military conflict. That will involve a fundamental shift in economic resources from conflict-related to useful, social and productive economics.

In the chapter that deals with the need to create employment, there should be greater emphasis on the need for good wages and working conditions. There is a need to counter low pay and poor and exploitative working conditions and arrangements. The role of trade unions in the workplace must also be recognised explicitly. We do not want to be a low-wage economy with the erosion of workers' rights.

Greater emphasis must be placed on the Government's commitment to adequately deal with and eradicate long- term unemployment, to seriously tackle the unemployment differential that adversely affects young Catholic males, and to ensure that TSN and policy appraisal and fair treatment (PAFT) policies are implemented. There is a need to recognise the involvement of local communities in economic policy formulation, given that they should be the beneficiaries of economic policy. That would be in line with the opening sentence of chapter 5, which outlines the Executive's aim of achieving a cohesive, inclusive and just society - an aspiration that receives no further mention.

There is also a need to emphasise that the creation of a more competitive economy must promote a more equal, just economy and society. People's lives should be improved through economic development.

Only passing reference is made in the draft Programme for Government to the work of InterTradeIreland. That body's work must be explicitly recognised, as must the benefits of an all-Ireland economy.

The new investment agency must be fully accountable, and must be an improvement on bodies such as the IDB and LEDU, which, it was widely accepted, failed. There must be a shift in industrial policy away from the failings of the past. In that regard, I look to the recent loss of the manufacturing base in my constituency of Upper Bann. Factories and companies that had been in business for a long time and that were accepted to be "good payers" have been affected. Companies such as Courtaulds, NACCO Materials Handling (NI) Ltd - which used to be Hyster (NI) Ltd - Interface Europe Ltd and Glendennings, a textile factory, face redundancies and closure. Inward investment policies and the granting of large amounts of public money to large companies must be closely scrutinised and monitored.

The draft Programme for Government does not place enough emphasis on energy. The Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment is reaching the end of an energy inquiry. One of the big issues for a competitive economy is high energy costs, particularly those relating to electricity. Issues such as the creation of an all-Ireland energy strategy, the promotion of renewable energy, how to eradicate fuel poverty and how to ensure that there is fuel diversity need to be examined.

I am concerned by the Programme for Government's general thrust in favour of privatisation, or, in more user- friendly terms, PFI and PPP. The Executive need to look seriously at the Committee for Finance and Personnel's report on PPP and PFI, and especially at its agreed conclusion that the preferred option for financing public services is through public funding. Go raibh maith agat.

Many aspects of the Programme for Government are encouraging. However, the sole subject on which I wish to speak fills me with horror and dismay. Every Member who has spoken has mentioned it - the Health Service. I was disappointed by last year's Programme for Government, so it will come as no surprise that I am equally disappointed by the latest document.

Once again the Executive have failed some of the most vulnerable in our society. They failed the ill, the elderly, people with learning difficulties, those with mental health problems - the list goes on. The health proposals are inadequate to address the problems that our system faces annually and the problems posed by diseases that are far too prevalent, especially during the winter months.

The draft Programme for Government does not promise to tackle the waiting lists. Instead it includes a commitment to contain waiting lists at current levels, by maintaining levels of nursing and other front-line staff. Nurses, doctors and ancillary staff are at breaking point and can take no more. Is that the message that the Executive want to send out to the people of Northern Ireland? I certainly hope not.

In his statement yesterday on the September monitoring round, Mr Durkan stated that

I agree with those priorities; at least we are making slight progress. In his concluding remarks, the Minister said that

He continued:

"The Executive will not shirk this responsibility". - [Official Report, Bound Volume 13, p.5].

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>