Order. I do not think anything of the sort. There are matters of common courtesy here. If we expect Ministers to come and do the House the courtesy of making their statements, then we should expect Members to be here if they want to ask a question - at least in some part of the statement. Otherwise, we could have a situation, as happened in another place, where Ministers started to make their statements outside of the House. On those occasions, the Speaker said to the relevant Minister "Fine. If it is made outside of the House you do not need to make it again here. We will take it as read into Hansard and move straight to the questions." However, there is a question of proper courtesy to the House.

The Member raises the question of Committees choosing to meet during the time of the plenary. The time of the plenary is absolutely clear. The Standing Orders make it clear that the appropriate time for the plenary is on Monday and Tuesday, and the appropriate time for Committees is Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. If Committees choose to meet during the proper time of the plenary, they are perfectly at liberty to do so - but they cannot then make demands as to how matters will be conducted in the plenary. If the Member is not in a position to ask questions for his constituents because he was elsewhere, that is a matter for himself.

That is not something that I have simply dreamt up. It was fully consulted on through the usual channels. There was a general feeling that too many Members were touring into the Chamber and asking questions which had nothing to do with the statement, and that they had not done the House and the Minister the courtesy of being available for the statement. If the Member on this occasion has been caught in that, then that is unfortunate. I do not say that he is the major offender in respect of those other misdemeanours, but there is no point in my saying that it can be fish for one and flesh for another. All Members must fall under the same rubric.

The Member has done the House the service of bringing the matter not just to the attention of the Business Committee but to the attention of the House as a whole. It is now placed in Hansard for everyone's edification and education.

Game Preservation (Amendment) Bill: Further Consideration Stage

I beg to move amendment No 1: In page 1, line 20, at end insert

I believe that copies of the Marshalled List of amendments were not available earlier today in the Rotunda. However, I thank the Business Office for acting speedily to make copies available when that was pointed out.

I would also like to thank Mr Jim Wells, who assisted me in drafting this amendment, and those other Members who have supported it.

When we discussed the Bill a fortnight ago, I referred at some length to the research work done by Dr Karina Dingerkus, whose PhD was on the Irish hare and the threats to it. I thought that in some senses the matter was then closed, since a number of amendments were tabled and fell on that occasion. I was somewhat surprised shortly afterwards to receive a letter that was sent to the Committee for the Environment and copied to me, from Prof Montgomery, the professor of animal ecology in Queen's University and the head of the School of Biology and Biochemistry there. It was Prof - then Dr - Montgomery who supervised Dr Dingerkus's project in 1997.

I will not read the whole letter, though lest the Minister think that I am quoting it unfairly, I will emphasise the fact that a number of points made in it refer to habitat protection, which are outwith the purposes of this Bill. However, Prof Montgomery does say that

and that,

This is clearly a matter that not only gave the student that he supervised in 1997 cause for concern, but with which the professor himself remains concerned.

The final paragraph of his letter reads as follows:

That is the view of the most appropriately qualified representative of his profession in Northern Ireland - the professor of animal ecology.

This should be taken in conjunction with the 'Northern Ireland Species Action Plans', that I referred to last time, which the Minister's Department has not yet taken action on. It lists one particular responsibility to

Action is due on this by the Environment and Heritage Service (EHS) and Department of the Environment.

I do not propose to speak on this amendment in as much detail as I did last time, but the position is clear. We have a species action plan for the hare, but the Department is not implementing it. We have heard the professor of animal ecology express concern about any threat to hare numbers. We also have a Minister who has told the Committee on a number of occasions over the last year that as the law currently stands, he cannot refuse to issue a license to take hares for coursing. If that is the situation - if the Minister is genuinely concerned and if his Department proposes to take action as set out in its own species action plan - then the position is clear. The Minister should welcome this amendment with open arms, because it gives him the power to refuse licenses to take hares for coursing until it is established that the species is not under threat. It is as simple as that.

The Minister has said that he has not got the power, and that he therefore cannot respond to concerns expressed by the Committee on numerous occasions in the last year. This amendment gives him that power. It simply makes it clear that no license should be issued to take hares for coursing unless it is established that it would not endanger hare populations in Northern Ireland or any part thereof. I trust, therefore, that since this amendment is assisting the Minister in the concerns that he has expressed to the Committee over a great period of time, he will accept it in the spirit in which it is made. We will then ensure that the Bill is amended in this appropriate way.

As the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment, I want to remind the House that the Committee has, for over 12 months, been questioning and opposing the Department of the Environment's practice of issuing licenses for the capture of live hares for hare coursing. The Committee continues to have serious concerns about the acknowledged decreasing hare population throughout Northern Ireland. Prof Montgomery's recent letter to the Committee confirms that the hare population is vulnerable and questions the permission to take hares for sport.

However, the amendment to the Bill before the House today was not considered by the Committee during its consideration of the Bill, so as Deputy Chairperson, I cannot speak on the Committee's views on it. However, as a Member, I fully support the amendment, because it would make it unlawful to net hares for coursing if the taking of hares would endanger the hare population in Northern Ireland or any part thereof.

I thank Mr Ford and Ms Hanna for their statements on the protection of hares. This subject had a respectable airing at the last meeting. It was discussed fully. I am concerned about the endangered species, but the figures given last time suggested that there is no great danger to hares from the coursing we have at present. The habitat of hares is the biggest problem, not just the coursing. The amendment tabled by Mr Ford, Mr McCarthy and Mr McLaughlin proposes to amend section 7D of The Game Preservation Act (Northern Ireland) 1928 to ensure that in granting permits to take hares from the wild, the Department is satisfied that this will not endanger the hare population in Northern Ireland or any specific area of it. Even if we were to take this literally, we would not be able to find out how many hares there are in any particular area. We do not believe that there is any scarcity of hares in Northern Ireland as a whole.

This amendment will not make any significant contribution to protecting Irish hares, particularly when the ecological evidence shows that the main factor limiting the hare population is the availability of quality habitat, and that is the issue. This matter received a full airing during the debate at the Consideration Stage of the Bill, and I reiterate the views I expressed then. I am aware of the need to keep the hare population under review and have already detailed to the Assembly the measures I propose to take. These include the development of a species action plan for Irish hares as part of the wider biodiversity process and will include a repeat survey of the numbers of hares here. My Department already knows the approximate number, but we do not have detailed information on hares in any particular part.

Were this amendment to succeed, my Department would have to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that any local population would not be endangered, however that might be defined. That information could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. It would also place an unreasonable statutory duty on my Department, with no proven gain to the conservation status of the hare.

Finally, if the amendment is aimed at hare coursing, it will not prevent the practice, since the majority of hares used for coursing here are brought from outside Northern Ireland, and we should note that. These issues were discussed thoroughly by the Assembly after Mr Ford's and Mrs Bell's amendments were tabled at Consideration Stage. The Assembly did not accept the need for Mr Ford's various amendments at that time, and circumstances have not changed since.

Mr Ford mentioned Prof Montgomery. The professor is only stating an opinion. There is no further data on which this opinion depends, and we have nothing definite to confirm what Mr Ford has said. Consequently, I am not prepared to accept the amendment proposed by Mr Ford, Mr McCarthy and Mr McLaughlin to Clause 1 of the Bill.

If I was not confused before, I am most certainly confused now. The Minister said this morning that the Department does not believe that there is any great danger to hares. He also said that he does not have detailed information. Does that not prove the point of this amendment? The Department does not know what the situation is, but thinks that everything is OK. We are expected to believe the Minister rather than Prof Montgomery. I am sorry, but if it comes to the detailed ecology of Irish hares, I would sooner believe Prof Montgomery than the Minister and his civil servants.

Indeed, the Minister has just said that Prof Montgomery was only expressing an opinion. I shall repeat a point from Prof Montgomery's letter that I made earlier:

That is not an opinion. That is a statement of fact, from a person who appears to know significantly more about the issue than the civil servants who so badly advised the Minister. The Minister's response is proof that the amendment is clearly needed. The House should make the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Assembly proceeded to a Division.

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister does not appear to have Tellers for his side. I understand that the amendment should therefore be made.

We do have Tellers.

I welcome the Minister's declaration on the Game Preservation (Amendment) Bill - specifically on partridge shooting - and the changes that he has introduced. I also thank the Committee for its work. The benefits as a result of those changes, which include the extension to the partridge shooting season, will be significant - [Interruption].

Order. It is difficult to hear Mr Shannon.

The Minister's extension of the partridge shooting season will bring direct benefits to the countryside. We all know the possible economic benefits - the matter was well debated last week. We welcome the fact that the changes have taken place, and we welcome -

Is this in order?

The motion is that clause 1, as amended, stand part of the Bill, and the Speaker indicated that Mr Shannon would be allowed to speak.

I asked the Speaker beforehand, and he told me that it was in order. If the Member had asked him, he would have known that before he asked the question.

The amendments that the Minister has made to the Game Preservation (Northern Ireland) Act 1928 will bring tourism and economic benefits to the entire countryside. Jobs will be retained and opportunities will be created. We recognise the contribution that the shooting organisations - which have spoken to each of the Members here - have made to the countryside. We are also aware of the contribution that landowners, farmers and countryside enthusiasts make to the betterment of the countryside. The proposals in the Game Preservation (Amendment) Bill do just that. The legislation will bring opportunity and benefits to the countryside.

That concludes the Further Consideration Stage of the Game Preservation (Amendment) Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

TOP

Programme for Government

I beg to move

I am pleased to present, on behalf of the First Minister and the Executive as a whole, this Programme for Government to the Assembly for approval.

Sir Reg Empey and Mr Mallon first presented the Programme for Government to the Assembly in draft form for consideration on 24 September. At the same time, a wider consultation process was launched on our proposed priorities and actions as set out in the draft programme and in our resource allocation plans contained in the draft Budget. We have now reached the end of that period of scrutiny within the Assembly, and of wider consultation, and have revisited the Programme for Government in the light of the points made in the Chamber, in Committees and elsewhere. Last week we presented the Assembly with a revised Programme for Government for its approval. Today provides an opportunity for the Assembly to debate and endorse this programme.

I want to focus on the importance of the consultation to the development of the Programme for Government, on the work that the programme sets for us and on the role of the programme. Before I do that, however, it would be helpful to Members for me to explain how the Programme for Government has evolved and developed since we presented the first draft programme to the Assembly in October 2000.

In this, the second year of the Programme for Government, we have been working to develop our approach to planning. We have defined clearly the policy issues that face us and focused our public services agreements on outputs and outcomes. We are in the process of identifying the actions required to deliver these outcomes in new service delivery agreements. Each Department should by now have provided a draft service delivery agreement to its Committee for consideration. We are keen to have the views of the Committees on the progress made to date and on areas for improvement.

Within the programme, we have also refined our priorities. Following last year's consultation we have, for example, given a much better focus to social matters, including that of the treatment of older people. The issue of housing and its important contribution receives a more significant description in this text. Of even greater significance, we have started work to tackle the issue of community division, seeking to integrate this more clearly into our process, preparing for the outcome of our review on community relations.

The Programme for Government cannot be, and is not, developed in a vacuum. Its development is influenced by a wide range of factors, including many that lie beyond the control of the devolved Administration. The Programme for Government sets out how we will work to make a difference to society. However, the priorities and policies it contains are shaped by the society and the world in which we live. They reflect, for example, the current economic conditions we face.

Over recent years our economic performance as a region has been strong, with several key indicators consistently performing well. Our employment growth, for example, has been at a much faster rate than Scotland and Wales, and we were outperformed only by London and the south-east. We have seen a 35·7% increase in manufacturing output over the last six years, compared with a UK average of 4·1%, and a dramatic improvement of 36% in labour productivity.

A key challenge for the Executive will be to build on those successes, and the Programme for Government restates our commitment to securing a competitive and sustainable economy.

The events of 11 September and their aftermath present a real challenge. The severity and duration of their impact on the global economy is still uncertain. However, although some impact has already been felt in the aviation and tourism industries, there is evidence that Northern Ireland should be able to weather an economic downturn. The relative importance of the public sector and, in particular, the buoyancy of the local labour market should stand us in good stead. In delivering the Programme for Government, the Executive will work in partnership with business and the trade unions to ensure that the prospects for growth are realised.

Economic factors influence, and are influenced by, social conditions. Too many people depend on benefits. For example, almost 18% of children under 16 years of age live in homes that are in receipt of income support. Our health record is not good either. Our life expectancy compares unfavourably with the European average, and there are huge differences in health status between the best off and worst off. It is vital that our priorities and policies respond to those social conditions.

The development of the Programme for Government will also be influenced by another important factor - the work that is under way in the Treasury in preparation for the spending review in 2002. That is the next major spending review, which will set out our expenditure limits for the three years from April 2003.

Turning to the consultation process, a key piece of feedback that we received from the experience of developing the first Programme for Government last year was that more needed to be done to encourage and facilitate engagement in the process. That includes engagement with the Assembly, with our social partners and with the public. Engagement happens only if people believe that it is a two-way process, and that their views and suggestions will be listened to and considered. These days much is heard about "consultation fatigue", and many consultation exercises are under way. However, it is important that we in Government hear not only the views of those involved in the delivery of public services but also the views of the public who receive and depend on those services. It is important that the views of people help the Executive and the Assembly to make a difference, and that all responses are considered carefully.

I reassure Members and others that the Executive take their views and suggestions seriously, and that in turn they influence our thinking. The Programme for Government is a single document on which the Executive consult. It is significant because it is the context within which all other public policies are developed and implemented. It is well worth engaging with the Executive on its development, and we are ready to listen and respond.

With that in mind, we made several changes to our consultation arrangements this year to facilitate a wider debate on our plans and priorities, and on the resource allocations that are required to support them. We began the process as long ago as June, when we presented the Executive's position report on the Programme for Government and the Budget to the Assembly. That drew out many of the main features of the programme and its resource implications and equality aspects. It provided a structured starting point for discussions in the Assembly and beyond. We built on that during the consultation period. As well as circulating the draft Programme for Government widely, we organised a series of seminars that allowed for debate on the draft programme and the draft Budget. That included events in Armagh, Antrim and Derry that involved local councils and their social partners. We were also represented at an event arranged by organisations representing older people to consider the draft programme. Those seminars provided us with an opportunity to discuss and listen to views on the equality aspects of the Programme for Government and on our approach to assessing the equality impact of the policies that are set out in it.

We also received detailed and constructive responses from Assembly Committees and from many organisations and individuals. We had the opportunity to listen to the views of Members in the debate that took place on 13 November. Together, those contributions helped to shape the programme that we have presented to the Assembly for approval.

Of course, it has not been possible to include every suggestion that we received. Many proposals that were put forward during the consultation will require further, more detailed thought. Some have significant resource implications. However, I reassure all those who contributed to the process that the shelf life of their responses goes beyond the closing date for the consultation. The ideas and suggestions in those responses must be considered by Ministers and their Departments to ensure that the future development of the programme and the policies that it contains are well informed.

Consultation means hearing what people agree with, as much as hearing what they disagree with or would like to see more of. The Executive were pleased with the level of support - in the Assembly and in the wider public - for their priorities and sub-priorities. We also welcome the support for our work in developing public service agreements and setting targets, and for our commitment to reporting publicly each year on progress towards implementing our Programme for Government commitments.

The Executive have also considered areas in which it was felt that we could do better. We have set out more clearly the steps that we will take to support older people. A key concern that emerged through the consultation was that we should do more to support older people, including the provision of free nursing care. We have now been able to respond positively, and, as I explained in the Budget statement, the programme has now been changed to include a commitment to introducing free nursing care for the residents of nursing homes from October 2002.

The programme also commits us to providing many more community care packages than we had planned in September. The Executive will now deliver an additional 1,000 fully funded community care packages, targeted mainly at older people. Those packages will not only provide support for some of those most in need, but also, in many cases, help to obviate the need for hospital treatment. In other cases, they will allow people to return home from hospital much earlier.

The programme also restates our intention to modernise and improve hospital and primary care services. It commits us to new measures that will deliver better health and social care. Since September, we have considered, in the light of the consultation, what more we might do to improve services for those suffering from cancer, heart disease and renal failure. The Programme for Government now commits us to improving access to cardiac surgery, strengthening treatment processes for cancer sufferers and providing additional dialysis sessions for those with renal failure.

The Executive have also set out more clearly how the new agency, Invest Northern Ireland, which will be established in April 2002, will help deliver our goal of promoting entrepreneurship, innovation and creativity. We have highlighted new actions to improve our energy infrastructure.

I have outlined the main changes made since September. We must also remember that the Programme for Government contains many other important commitments that demonstrate our determination to work together to identify and develop approaches that respond to local needs. The programme, once approved, will commit us to delivering in many areas that fundamentally affect the lives of people in Northern Ireland. It commits us, for example, to appointing a commissioner for children by next June and developing a comprehensive 10-year strategy for children and young people.

It confirms new action that we shall take to renew disadvantaged neighbourhoods and build community participation. That action includes a new regeneration initiative under URBAN II, which will be targeted at inner north Belfast. An additional 1,500 volunteers will be recruited through the active community initiative.

The Programme for Government also sets out our commitment to put in place a cross-departmental strategy during 2002 that can effectively promote improved community relations. We have recently taken the initiative in north Belfast and we shall continue our efforts to improve community relations and tackle our society's divisions. We must also recognise that community relations policy must encompass good relations between all communities, including the growing ethnic minority community.

The programme underlines our commitment to targeting social need and promoting equality of opportunity. The new targeting social need (New TSN) policy aims to tackle social need and social exclusion. It applies to a range of policies and programmes across all Departments and throughout the Programme for Government. We have published New TSN action plans that show how Departments are redirecting efforts and available resources to those in greatest need. Those plans are currently being updated. The programme contains a specific commitment to ensure that the plans are fully implemented and that annual progress reports are published.

The programme also highlights the core principles and values of equality of opportunity and human rights, which are fundamental to our work. We remain committed to promoting equality and human rights through strong legislation, as well as through effective public policies and strategies. We are determined that no section of our community should feel excluded.

The programme commits us to implementing new actions that will provide good health and improved services for those who need treatment and care. In light of the Hayes report, that work will include development of our plans for a modern acute hospital service that meets local people's needs.

The programme commits us to introducing proposals by next September on the future structure of post-primary education. Those proposals will be shaped by the current consultation on the Burns report. The programme also sets out important commitments on underachieving schools, literacy and numeracy, and the introduction of a citizenship programme. It confirms our plans to extend third-level education, to provide new student support measures, to implement a new basic skills strategy and to provide additional help for the unemployed.

We have also included important commitments that will preserve cultural and information resources, and make them available to the widest possible audience. Those include the commitment to complete the electronic libraries project, which will link every public library to the Internet and open them up as electronic and information centres. The measure will ensure that people who do not have that technology at home are not disadvantaged.

We are committed to completing all parts of the trans-European network from Larne to the border south of Newry in the coming years and to extending the gas network to make natural gas available to at least half the population of Northern Ireland. We shall also publish a Belfast metropolitan transport plan by December 2002 that will set out a 25-year vision for transport in the Belfast area. We are committed to increasing the number of new businesses and to securing more inward investment by knowledge-based industries.

The 'Vision for the Future of the Agri-food Industry' report has been published. The Programme for Government commits us to begin implementing an action plan arising from that report. Recognising the importance of developing all policies in line with our commitment to sustainability, we shall introduce a new sustainable development strategy by next October.

The Programme for Government also sets out important commitments that reflect our desire to become a more outward-looking region. Real progress can now be seen in the work of the North/South institutions and on an east-west basis, as indicated in my earlier statements on the recent North/South Ministerial Council and British-Irish Council plenary meetings. We will continue to build relationships on this island and between the two islands, and we will maintain and develop our relationships in Europe and North America. Our new office in Brussels will open shortly, and the Northern Ireland Bureau's move to new offices in downtown Washington, DC earlier this year has helped to create a defined and more clearly articulated regional voice for the Executive. Both offices will play important roles in delivering our commitment to developing effective links in Europe and effective representation in North America and to presenting a positive international image of Northern Ireland.

Those are just a few of the commitments made by the Executive. It is a challenging work programme, and we are committed to realising it. It will result in real progress in each of the five priority areas identified. However, we also recognise that other factors will influence our progress. It is essential to gain a better understanding of the needs of people here and of the effectiveness of our current policies in addressing those needs. For that reason our work programme for next year includes the completion of initial needs and effectiveness evaluations on our main spending programmes in health, education, training, housing and support for industry. Those major pieces of work will give us a clearer sense of the rationale for Government intervention and of the effectiveness of our policies and programmes. They should help us to develop a sound evidence base for future policy interventions. The work will also assist in pressing our case for a fair allocation of resources to Northern Ireland based on need.

The work programme for the year ahead is important, but so too is the process of refinement and development of the Programme for Government, which will continue year on year. In the coming year we must use the Programme for Government as a programming tool for the entire Executive. In one document we have a clear road map of the challenges we face, together with all the key policy areas. Such policies as need to work together to achieve sub-priorities and real change have been brigaded carefully. We need to improve only the means whereby Departments and agencies can work together across their boundaries to deliver those priorities and sub-priorities more effectively.

Departments working in isolation cannot pursue the work programme I have outlined. Members have frequently referred to the problem of a silo mentality, in which we can all too easily become trapped. Unless we have a clear description of the related policies and can see how we link together to achieve wider objectives, it is difficult not to be caught in a silo. The challenge is not only for Ministers but for everyone in the Assembly, and it can only be met head-on if we have a wider vision of why we are in Government and what we want to achieve. The Programme for Government can give that wider vision.

Systems must be set up to allow policy issues to be examined from the perspective of the Programme for Government as well as on a departmental basis. The exact mechanisms are under consideration. At official level, several interdepartmental groups work across those boundaries and seek to take a broader view. For example, the task force on the long-term unemployed, under Dr Seán Farren, seeks to draw together a wide range of policy issues from childcare to transport to social security, so that a real impact can be made on those who are caught in long-term unemployment.

We will also establish a new interdepartmental steering group, to be chaired by Peter Robinson as Minister for Regional Development, to oversee progress on the regional development strategy and to ensure that the implementation of the key cross-cutting strategy is managed and monitored in a co-ordinated way.

The evidence shows that we will be most effective only if we take the broader view. A Department can do excellent work, but unless we have support for all aspects, we cannot make the real change that we want.

We will drive the change from the top by developing at ministerial level Executive sub-committees that can provide leadership and strategic direction to ensure a cross-cutting approach to policy development. That approach has been effective in the ministerial group on drug and alcohol misuse, but we need to extend and formalise the range of policy issues on which there is joint work at Executive level.

In the next few months, therefore, we will work to ensure that we have a programming process that facilitates the development of a more effective approach. We want to see whether, for example, we can start to focus on clearer sets of policy priorities and outcomes that can help us to give expression to the vision that is set out in the document. The task is a complex one, and we realise that the process will take some time to develop. The need to learn to walk before we run was very much in our thoughts as we built the Programme for Government. We have developed the document further, and we will, with the assistance of the Assembly and its Committees, continue the development process.

I note that there is an amendment to the motion that invites the Assembly to not approve the Programme for Government. I am disappointed that such an amendment was considered necessary at the end of such a lengthy consultation process.

The Executive are clear that tackling division and inequality is central to their work, and I referred to those issues in my statement, in respect of several aspects of the programme. They devoted a section of the programme entitled 'Growing as a Community' to address that range of issues. We are clear that division and inequality will not be eliminated in one year or in one Programme for Government. However, we are putting in place the necessary framework to tackle those issues on a long-term and sustainable basis through actions that include the development and harmonisation of anti-discrimination legislation, cross-departmental strategies to tackle gender and racial inequalities and the current review of community relations policies.

Divisions continue in our society as evidenced by the Holy Cross situation and other recent incidents. The Executive have tackled manifestations of these problems, for example, through an initiative that was specifically targeted at north Belfast, but they are also tackling the cause of the problems. The programme stresses

However, to successfully address these issues we must work together across Departments and across boundaries.

In the debate on the Programme for Government of 13 November, Mr Ford, who has tabled the amendment, welcomed the fact that the Executive had addressed some of the concerns about community relations and tackling divisions that were raised in earlier debates. He also welcomed the fact that progress had been made. He even tried to take credit for the establishment of a cross- departmental group. Unfortunately, in the subsequent debate, no real practical suggestions came from that source to match his party's rhetoric, but we look forward to such constructive input to the review of community relations policy as is covered in the Programme for Government.

The management guru, Peter Drucker, once said that

The Executive are committed to ensuring that their plans, as set out in the Programme for Government, are not merely good intentions. As an Administration, we all have much hard work to do to ensure that our policies and programmes address people's needs. The Assembly has a key contribution to make towards ensuring that that hard work is done. We are ready for the hard work that is needed, and we look forward to working with the Assembly and our social partners in that task.

I commend the motion to the Assembly.

I intend to continue with the debate until 2.30 pm, break for Question Time, and resume at 4.00 pm.

I beg to move amendment No 1: Delete all after "Assembly" and insert:

I move the amendment, more in sorrow than in anger because the Alliance Party feels that it must clearly state its concerns about the Programme for Government that has been agreed by the Executive. Steps have been taken but, unfortunately, the sad fact is that Northern Ireland society continues to be defined by its deep divisions and inequalities. This programme, like its predecessor, compares favourably with those that have come forward from the Scottish Executive and the Welsh Assembly Cabinet. However, thankfully, those societies do not have the problems that permeate Northern Ireland. Therefore, despite the Executive's constructive proposals on social, economic and environmental issues, it is progress in healing our divisions and reducing inequalities that will be the ultimate test of the success or failure of the Executive.

To be credible, the Executive need to place the tackling of divisions and inequalities, as the Minister stated, at the heart of the programme. However, they fail in that. Instead, promoting equality of opportunity and human rights, and improving community relations and tackling the divisions in society are stated only as sub-priorities, under the heading 'Growing as a Community'. This is not good enough and it is the reason for the Alliance Party's amendment.

The Executive have made the task of addressing community disputes in north Belfast a priority. However, this is fire fighting rather than fire prevention. It costs much more, in time and resources, to address the violent manifestations of our problems than to address them before they flare up. It is not only in the area of health that prevention is better than cure. One of the paradoxes of the peace process is that society is more segregated today than at any other time in history. Segregation can be most clearly seen in the area of housing, both public and private.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>