Resolute action to create and maintain mixed workforces through fair employment legislation has had significant success. It is now time to address how we live. No one is suggesting that people should be forced to live in certain areas. Mixed housing should be proactively encouraged, yet it is not even mentioned in the programme.

Attention must turn to the barriers to mixed housing which begin with the control that paramilitaries still have over certain areas. The painting of kerbstones; murals that glorify the deeds of paramilitary organisations, and the illegal erection of flags, turn too many areas into ghettos. The message being sent is that such areas are the exclusive preserve of one or other side rather than being common civic spaces. People get the message, directly or indirectly, that they are not welcome in them. That occurs throughout the year, not just at sensitive times, and is felt not just by the perceived minority, but also by the perceived majority in these areas. This can be clearly seen in my area of North Down, yet everyone feels powerless to respond because the system does not work. It is therefore incumbent on the Executive to be proactive in that rather than merely pay lip service to the problem. My Colleague Kieran McCarthy has proposed having an Executive inter-agency working group, if that has not yet begun. The Department for Social Development should be mandated to work with the Housing Executive to pilot the creation and maintenance of mixed housing estates.

For historical reasons, it has become the norm for children to be educated in segregated schools. Despite the fact that integrated education is the norm in almost every other western European democracy, it is still regarded only as a peripheral alternative here. Only 4% of children here attend integrated schools, and it is a constant battle to get new schools built and existing schools to transform. A recent report by the Mixed Marriage Association stated that 68% of couples in mixed marriages would prefer integrated education. Where do their children go?

Children have a human right to be educated in mixed schools, but the Executive are only tinkering around the edges rather than actively encouraging such schools. Indeed, as education resources are already overstretched, surely it makes sense to encourage a sharing of built resources and the freeing up resources for investment in teachers and pupils.

There was talk of the need to recognise that a community relations policy must encompass good relations between all communities including our growing ethnic minority community. Those are great words, but past and present practice has been to assume that we are a society of two communities, rather than one community with great multicultural diversity and pluralism. That was never so clear as with the Assembly designations, but we await progress on that.

Action on improving community relations has been deferred pending a review, and no specific measures have been proposed. Many of the myths about community relations still prevail today. It is now common for policies to be proofed against all sorts of criteria. Equality-proofing, rural-proofing and TSN-proofing are necessary and welcome. However, the Alliance Party would like to see all Executive and Northern Ireland Office policies proofed for their impact on promoting sharing rather than communal separation, a criterion that could be described as part of the past.

It is also incumbent on the Executive to realise the potential for advancing Northern Ireland as a distinct region in many aspects of work. The more we do that, the more we help to create the notion that all the people of Northern Ireland are working towards a common, rather than a separate, set of objectives.

Unless we begin to address seriously and directly the deep divisions in society, the very survival of the agreement will be under threat. We seem to reinforce the notion of a society of two separate but equal communities in an uneasy co-existence requiring constant skilful conflict management. In the absence of a meaningful strategy to improve community relations and promote sharing, it will be all too easy for communities to go their separate ways after a crisis - no doubt with substantial violence. We accept that it will be a long process, but a band-aid approach is not sufficient. We must address problems head-on, make substantial progress a priority and not sweep them under the carpet or treat them as side issues. I agree that we must meet the challenges, but we must meet them first on those substantive issues. We hope that the Executive listen and respond to our well-meaning comments. I support the amendment.

I am pleased to contribute to this important debate. I covered most of the key points, including the need for education to be a central priority, in a debate a few weeks ago. I welcome broadly the Programme for Government, but will outline several of my Committee's outstanding concerns.

Our first concern is that numeracy and literacy targets for 14-year-olds have now been revised downwards in the Department of Education's public service agreement. The target to be achieved by 2004, for mathematics and English, has been reduced from 75% to 72%. I am sorry that the Minister of Education is not in his place. My Committee has argued that those targets should not be revised downwards, and we are disappointed that the Executive have done so. Too many children leave school with inadequate levels of numeracy and literacy. The targets have now been reduced twice, and that is simply not good enough.

Recently, I wrote to the Minister of Education about the issue. He replied:

He added:

The purpose of public service agreements is not to set targets for a three-year period and then revise them downwards each year if we are not doing well enough. I believed that the whole purpose of the Programme for Government and public service agreements was to identify the key priorities of the Executive, and to set targets accordingly.

The Budget allocations reflect the priorities in the Programme for Government, and the Department of Education, strongly backed by my Committee, has received substantial funding aimed at meeting this priority - most recently from the Executive programme funds. We are allocating more money to fulfil that key priority, yet targets are being reduced again. If, next year, the 2001 key stage results do not indicate that there has been satisfactory progress, will the targets be reduced for a third time? I will seek an assurance from the relevant Minister that that will not be the case.

My Committee also believes that rather than reduce targets for 2004 as soon as it appears that they will not be achieved, the Department of Education should identify the reasons for the lack of progress and take appropriate action to address the problems.

I want to highlight the commitment in the Programme for Government to continue to invest in the quality of our teachers and principals. My Committee recommended the inclusion in 'Investing in Education and Skills' a target to carry out a review into the pay levels, the salary structures, the workload, and the conditions of service for principals, vice-principals and teachers. Unfortunately, it was not included, the stated reason being that it would have been premature to do so, given that discussions on the matter were ongoing. However, my Committee believes that such a target ought to have been included in the Programme for Government because it would have indicated properly our commitment to principals and teachers.

One sentence, with no target or timescale, is not an adequate reflection. Principals and teachers, who are the cornerstone of our education system, feel overworked and undervalued. For a long time, morale and motivation have been extremely low. One teachers' union has initiated industrial action, and others have indicated their intention to do likewise; therefore it is not premature to include a target to address that long-standing problem. Indeed, a commitment in an important document such as the Programme for Government might well have eased the problem.

The Minister of Education said that he intends to include proposals for the implementation of the Burns Report in next year's Programme for Government. I welcome that, but it is important to stress that they are proposals and not legislation - I will seek the Minister's confirmation.

I welcome the launch of a comprehensive review of public administration by spring 2002. That is particularly relevant for education, which received £60 million of public money for administration costs. The Education Committee would like to know the completion date of the review as soon as possible, in order to include it in next year's Programme for Government.

I congratulate the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and, indeed, their predecessors, for conducting such a transparent and wide-ranging consultation process on the formulation of the Programme for Government for 2002-03. As the document shows, the Assembly and its Committees have had the experience of a full year of debates on policies, and it has been an invaluable learning experience. Despite some criticism in the media, the policies outlined in the Programme for Government are evidence that the devolved institutions and locally elected Ministers can deliver stable government and implement measures that shape the social and economic directions of our society.

The current Programme for Government is a development plan for progress, to point us in the right direction. I welcome the objectives outlined in the public service agreement (PSA) of the Department for Regional Development. They will shape the region's long-term strategic development.

During the years of direct rule, the North's infrastructure developed on a very uneven basis and was concentrated on the north-east, which led to social exclusion for some parts of the region. Now that we have devolved power, the improvement of Northern Ireland's infrastructure must take place in a balanced fashion throughout the region, so that urban and rural citizens have equal access to roads, transport and water and sewage services, and the competitiveness of the economy will be enhanced.

I am pleased that the upgrading of several key strategic routes is regarded as a priority. For example, I welcome the Programme for Government's commitment to allocate £40 million from the Executive programme fund for infrastructure to complete all the parts of the trans-European transport status (TENS) route from Larne to the border, south of Newry. However, I remind the Executive and the Minister for Regional Development that other important TENS routes, such as Dublin to Monaghan and Omagh to Derry, should also be upgraded. The upgrading of these routes is vital in helping to attract inward investment, enabling local firms to expand and enhancing safety for motorists.

It is therefore essential that when the 10-year regional transportation strategy is adopted, it marks a radical departure from what we have experienced to date. All too often, those of us who live west of the Bann have had to make do with totally inadequate roads and a limited public transport system. This has had a detrimental effect on the local economy and the quality of life of rural residents. Therefore, we must invest in a safe, efficient and integrated transportation infrastructure.

The regional transportation strategy must be placed in the context of European Union and North/South transport planning, with particular reference to the Irish Republic's national development plan and the national spatial strategy. In the Executive, the principles of joined-up government must guide the implementation of the new transportation strategy. The Executive must work collectively to ensure that transportation policy is formulated with reference to economic development and the development of Northern Ireland's energy and technology infrastructure.

Recently, the Committee for Regional Development held a formal meeting in the Guildhall in Derry and heard strong representations on the transport difficulties of the north-west area. In particular, there was a fully agreed and presented position from Derry City Council, the North-West Region Cross-Border Group - involving Limavady Borough Council, Strabane District Council, Derry City Council and Donegal County Council - and the business community. The position was that capital investment in the TENS roads and the railway system was vital for economic development in the counties of Derry, Tyrone and Donegal. It is extremely important that the regional transportation strategy, being finalised, must be sufficiently determined and developed so that it dovetails smoothly and effectively with the recently agreed regional development strategy.

In relation to the Department for Employment and Learning, I particularly welcome the additional expenditure designed to increase the number of further and higher education places and the target of achieving a total enrolment of 35,000 full-time students in higher education. I also welcome the objective of increasing enrolment in further education colleges by 5% in the key areas of tourism, catering, computing, engineering and construction.

Given that Northern Ireland's unemployment is above the UK average, and given our high dependence on the public sector, the enhancement of the skills level of the workforce is important in creating a vibrant economy. However, it is also important to ensure that resources are properly targeted and that people such as the long-term unemployed are not exploited. Therefore, I welcome the Minister's recent decision to close the individual learning account (ILA) scheme, which was open to exploitation, ahead of the planned suspension date. As many adults in the North lack basic literacy and numeracy skills, it is important that we implement a skills programme which encourages lifelong learning, which is properly resourced and which targets those most in need. The ILA system must be primarily promoted and managed because of the net benefit it can bring to client trainees who require up-skilling and personal development.

With reference to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, I welcome the targets of achieving growth in export sales and net employment, and also the commitment to attract 75% of all first-time investment projects to new targeting social need (New TSN) areas. The new single economic development agency, Invest Northern Ireland, provides the opportunity for a new approach to attracting inward investment and delivering a more effective range of services to entrepreneurs. To meet this requirement, it is essential that the new agency maintains offices that are geographically spread throughout Northern Ireland, not just primarily located in Belfast.

If the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment is to be able to live up to these commitments, it is important that the Department be properly resourced. I am concerned that, given the current economic slowdown, planned expenditure for 2002-03 will decrease by 1·3%. Nevertheless, I am pleased to read that the Executive have given a clear commitment to significantly increase investment should the need, or some particular opportunity, arise.

I also want to take the opportunity to welcome the commitments given in the Programme for Government to complete reviews of promotion and recruitment to senior positions in the Civil Service and Government office accommodation. That will include an examination of the possibility of decentralising Civil Service jobs. Over the past two years, my party has consistently lobbied for the decentralisation of Civil Service jobs. We believe that the Executive should lead by example and relocate entire sections of Departments from Belfast to the main towns. Such a policy would help to achieve more balanced growth beyond the Greater Belfast area and bring government closer to the people.

This is an ambitious and imaginative Programme for Government, geared towards addressing the social and economic damage done by almost three decades of direct rule. It is an example of what can be achieved if we work constructively in the Executive, the Assembly Committees and beyond, and it has given many people the opportunity to make an input. It demonstrates that the Administration listen to the concerns of ordinary people and that they are determined to make a difference.

We have a difficult task, but the 2002-03 Programme for Government - guided by new TSN, the statutory equality legislation and the public service agreements - will build on the progress that has been made in implementing the first Programme for Government. It provides the opportunity to deliver real change through stable, effective and transparent government and create in Northern Ireland a cohesive, inclusive and economically vibrant society.

It is important that our Programme for Government should develop our economy and, over time, tackle the social problems of unemployment and poverty, so that everyone feels that devolution can bring net benefits to individuals and the collective community. I endorse the finalised Programme for Government: we should support it and help to build a better Northern Ireland and a harmonious community.

Sub- priority 8, headed "We will work together to regenerate the rural economy", is the main area of interest for the Committee in the chapter on the economy. One of the main commitments made in that sub-priority is the publication of a plan of action for the strategic development of the agrifood industry. That plan will emanate from the vision group's report on the industry's future. That commitment is welcome, especially as several of the vision group's recommendations are consistent with those that have already been made in the Agriculture Committee's reports. However, members of the Committee remain deeply concerned that none of the additional funding identified in the Budget has been allocated to the matter. It will be extremely difficult for the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to translate a plan into tangible action, especially if the Department recommends a new direction. The Committee has raised that issue in its Budget deliberations and will continue to do so.

Another commitment by which the vision group and others have set great store is the introduction of what is called "rural proofing" as part of general policy implementation. Over a year ago, the Committee welcomed the proposal for rural proofing, but had concerns that it was little more than a concept, rather than a matter for action. According to the current Programme for Government, a ministerial-led group to carry out rural proofing of Government policies should have been established by April 2001.

Sadly, when our Committee met on Friday 8 December, eight months after the target date for setting up that important group, the Minister remained unable to update the Committee on its establishment. Rural proofing has been heralded as being vital to ensure a fair deal for all rural areas. The commitment to rural proofing is reiterated in the document that we are debating today. It must, like the action plan, be progressed urgently from concept to reality if the commitments are to mean anything. Members will be disappointed that that has not been taken on board, but will watch with interest to see how the Executive ensure that all relevant agencies work together, as set out in the third paragraph of section 5.10.

The third paragraph of section 5.11 sets out plans to introduce regulations covering the storage of silage, slurry and agricultural fuel oils, which are the waste products of farming. It is unfortunate that, although the Department of the Environment has already put forward its proposals for regulations, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development's bid for Executive programme funds to help to establish a farm waste management scheme was not included in last week's announcement. Extra money could have provided well-targeted funds to enable farmers to meet their obligations under the new regulations. With farm incomes at such low levels, it is unreasonable to expect farmers to fund major improvements themselves. The Committee reissues its call for close co-operation between the two Departments involved to ensure that there is action proportionate to risk and to take affordability into account.

In the Committee's written response to the draft Programme for Government, it pointed out that the sub- priority on the rural economy did not mention the sea fisheries fleet or the communities that rely on the fisheries industry. Members who have been taking note of what is happening in Europe must be flabbergasted by the drawing of a dagger that will strike at the very heart of the fishing industry.

My Committee decided that we had better go to Europe, with the co-operation of the three MEPs from Northern Ireland, to talk to Commissioner Fischler. If the figures that we have seen are correct, and if Commissioner Fischler acts according to the proposals, that will mark the end of the fishing industry in Northern Ireland. The fishing industry cannot afford to have £1·7 million deducted from its total income.

Those are matters of deep concern. The Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development has the full backing of the Committee on the fisheries issue. She has expressed her happiness that the Committee will be standing with her in her fight to salvage something from the disastrous proposals that are to be put forward in Europe next week.

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I support the motion. I reject the amendment on the basis that, as the Deputy First Minister said, the matter has been debated considerably. This is the second year of the Programme for Government. The document is moderate in its ambitions, and many measures could be described as being vague or, in some cases, ill-defined.

The Programme for Government has been developed against a fairly difficult background. This is the institutions' first term, and there have been serious political difficulties in the past couple of years. Therefore, the Programme for Government maps out the way forward, albeit in a moderate way. As other Members have said, it is the result of a great deal of work by the Executive and many of the Committees. There has been a fair amount of consultation on and input into the Programme for Government. The programme has established new priorities in health, education and other areas that are of concern to constituents. Members have raised those concerns on numerous occasions, both inside and outside the Chamber. The programme has already been described as developmental and work in hand.

The year 2002 will be one to watch. The Programme for Government is worthy of the Assembly's endorsement insofar as it is work in hand. It will be interesting to see how many of the reviews and developing strategies will make an impact. Sub-priority 1 of the section titled "Growing as a Community" describes the strategies that will be introduced in 2002 to bring together the anti- discrimination measures. It also mentions how the Executive propose to deal with gender and racial inequalities, the reviews into the workings and needs of the travelling community and the critical area of the overall complexion and working practices of the Civil Service. I look forward to seeing how those completed studies and strategies will impact in 2002.

Sub-priority 4 of the section titled "Working Together" deals with how the Executive will find new ways to finance public services. I am grateful that the Department of Finance and Personnel and the Executive will announce the results of the review into public-private partnerships (PPPs) and private finance initiatives (PFIs). I remind the House - and critics outside the Assembly - that the Committee for Finance and Personnel took the lead when it held an inquiry into PPP. The work that we put into that inquiry, in co-operation with the Department of Finance and Personnel, is testimony to the fact that Assembly Members from all parties recognise that PPP is a big issue.

There have been critics outside the Assembly. Even in the past week or two, some people from the trade union movement who did not even bother to participate in the inquiry, despite the fact that it was publicly convened, have been critical. Some parties in the Executive have concerns about PPPs. However, the Committee for Finance and Personnel treated the issue seriously enough to have an inquiry. That inquiry took up much of the Committee's time and effort. It held sessions here, in Dublin, in London and in Leeds. I look forward to the findings of the review undertaken by the Executive's working group.

I am concerned about the rates review, which Members are now advised will not conclude until the end of 2001. That means that any action taken will not be implemented until 2003 or 2004. I have never suggested that there are any easy fixes, but it would have been helpful if the rates review had been conducted and completed earlier so that some of the inequalities could have been addressed. However, I welcome the fact that the rates review has been conducted, and I look forward to its recommendations.

I am encouraged by the intention of the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, and its Minister, to promote greater respect for cultural diversity, et cetera. However, I have heard criticisms levelled at the Minister on what appears to be an emerging partisan approach by his Department to certain political commemorations. I hope that the Minister has taken on board some of the criticisms that were levelled recently - I do not intend to repeat them today. Again, I welcome the intentions in the sections of the document that relate to the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure. I hope that it works out in an equal way in the future.

I echo some of the concerns raised earlier by Danny Kennedy about the public service agreements. It is my understanding that they will, in effect, be binding contracts between the Departments and the wider public. Some of them are ill-defined and rather vague and have again involved slippage. That is a matter for concern.

By and large, I support the Programme for Government, despite the fact that it is a moderate document - I would not say that it is ambitious. However, it is useful and important, and we will have to watch how the strategies and reviews affect the issues that many of us continue to address. I support the Programme for Government, and I reject the amendment. However, I certainly do not reject some of the concerns expressed in the amendment. Others will undoubtedly support the Programme for Government.

I welcome the fact that we have this document - it is work in hand. We will have to use this first term of the Assembly to try to get our systems right, and we are moving in that direction. By the end of term I hope that we will be able to demonstrate to the wider public that these institutions are worth having and that they will have a clear impact, particularly on socially disadvantaged and excluded areas and peoples.

I find it gratifying that the Chamber is able to debate the second Programme for Government reflecting the benefit of locally elected politicians working together to enhance the standard of living of all of the people in Northern Ireland.

In the previous debate on this Programme for Government, I focused on my Department's contribution to the first one. Today I wish to highlight some major actions in the 2002-05 Programme for Government that my Department will undertake. Yet again, these actions reflect the importance that the Executive, the Chamber and the public place on environmental issues. Clear evidence of this is the fact that my Department's funding for 2002-03 has increased by 10% to almost £111 million. Clearly we must continue to take actions that safeguard the environment and contribute to improving the health and well-being of our people.

It is with these objectives in mind that my Department is considering consultation responses on a road safety strategy for the next 10 years. The document sets out in some detail how the various Departments and agencies involved in road safety are seeking to improve our road safety record. It also proposes challenging road casualty reduction targets and a strategy for achieving them. In March next year my Department will publish a strategic plan that will take account of the comments received from the consultation exercise.

Waste management is another major issue that we need to continue to address. Recycling and market development for recovered materials are key elements of the waste management strategy, and my Department will be working closely with the Waste Management Advisory Board on a public awareness campaign to promote both waste minimisation and recycling.

We will also extend the waste and resource action programme in Great Britain to Northern Ireland to assist in creating a stable and efficient market for recycled products. I particularly welcome the Committee for the Environment's call for economic development agencies to be involved in this. There is a clear need for us to work together on this, and my officials will be working with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and key business sector representatives on the Waste Management Advisory Board to develop the market programme.

I am keen to see openness and transparency in the planning process. For that reason, on 1 November, my Department introduced a number of measures to achieve this as part of a commitment given in the Programme for Government. Some of the key elements of these changes are: letting people know the reasons for a planning decision; making available representations on planning applications, including objections; making available details of consultations with district councils; and enhanced access to the planning application files.

A leaflet that explains the planning process to the public has been produced. These measures significantly enhance the customer focus of Planning Service and should help the public to understand better the importance that the planning process plays in protecting our environment.

My Executive Colleagues and I recognise that the integration of sustainable development principles into society in Northern Ireland presents a challenging agenda. We need to obtain the ideas of as many sectors, groups and individuals as we can, and not just those of Government. For that reason my Department has plans to consult widely, early in the new year, on proposals for a Northern Ireland sustainable development strategy.

I am also pleased that the Executive were able to restore the £2 million of provision for my Department's resources grant to district councils. That is most welcome. It will avoid the need for a reduction in the grant, and it will ensure that full assistance can be given to the poorest council areas.

I intend to build on the actions that my Department has taken, and those that it intends to take in the coming year, and I look forward to working closely with the Committee for the Environment to take forward the many challenging objectives that have been set in the Programme for Government.

I support the motion and agree with most of the content of the Programme for Government. I would appreciate clarification on a few points, one of which is in relation to the Health Service. Having said that, I welcome the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety's commitment to bring about improvements in the Health Service, particularly in primary and acute care, in the coming year. I note that the Department has committed itself to publishing plans by December 2002 for the modernisation of our acute hospital services. We are all well aware of the problems in the Health Service and especially those in relation to acute services. I do not want to rehearse those problems here, but it has to be said that the crisis in acute hospital services is growing. Indeed, many people would pose the question "Why do we have to wait for another year before decisions are taken about that important sector?" While we are waiting, services at many of our local hospitals are being whittled away, and we know that that in turn leads to larger hospitals being unable to cope with the extra pressures that are placed upon them.

Many consultations have been carried out on the future of acute hospital services - the most notable being the recent one carried out by the Hayes review group. That group was both independent and representative, and it made specific recommendations about the way forward. Many people are now fed up with consultations, and the view is that it is time to take decisions about future hospital services.

What does the statement on page 29 of the Programme for Government mean when it says:

Are we now being told that the Executive are embarking on a further consultation on acute hospital services? What does that statement mean? Will it result in further delays in implementing a plan or will the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety deliver the long-overdue decisions on the way forward by December 2002, as indicated in the Programme for Government?

I welcome the commitment to the reform of public administration and the development of a plan for the decentralisation of Civil Service jobs. I note that consultation will continue from spring 2002 to November 2002. As a representative of a constituency with high levels of economic deprivation - and most people are aware that the Fermanagh area has lost 1,000 jobs over the last four years - I am in no doubt that the decentralisation of Civil Service jobs can improve the economies of such areas. Constituencies in deprived areas should be given special consideration in the decentralisation programme.

I welcome the work that is to go ahead over the next year, and I look forward to the plans coming to fruition. However, I would like some specific information about relocation. On the foot of the work that they have outlined for next year, do the Executive expect to be able to take decisions about relocating Government jobs at the end of next year, or do they have a later date in mind?

On 13 November, as Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment, I drew the attention of Members to an important paragraph entitled 'Promoting sustainable living' on page 8 of the draft Programme for Government. The Committee for the Environment noted the designation of sustainable development as a key theme, cutting across the five priority areas in the Programme for Government. However, the draft document fell seriously short in reflecting the Executive's commitment to promoting sustainable living in their priorities and sub-priorities.

I detailed several of the Committee's recommendations in an attempt to rectify that. Unfortunately, the document before us reflects only a few of those recommendations. For example, on page 69 there is now a reference to being "conscious of environmental issues" in seeking to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of public service. In the same paragraph it states:

If the Minister had been listening to the Committee's debate, he would have found that it is most anxious to have effective, efficient and quality local services. However, even at this late stage, I again implore the Minister and the Department to agree with the representation that was made by the Committee to implement best value on a voluntary basis and not on the legalistic approach that the Department has indicated. I have the full backing of the Committee to make that request.

An implementation plan to improve public procurement is referred to immediately below the statement:

I trust that the implementation plan will fully demonstrate that there is, in practice, a significant commitment to sustainable living by developing environmentally sustainable Government procurement policies across all Departments.

Government action on environmentally sound practices could dramatically impact on the development of markets for recycled and recoverable materials, thus boosting the prospects for the successful implementation of the Northern Ireland waste management strategy.

On page 69 there is a commitment to:

That is a long-awaited and badly needed statement. I ask that a timetable for the urgent implementation of that review be drawn up and brought before the Assembly for debate as soon as possible.

The Committee for the Environment is currently taking a keen interest in the progress of the development of effective waste management plans to underpin the waste management strategy for Northern Ireland. In the opinion of the Committee, progress on that and on other important areas of the strategy has been too slow. The Committee notes, therefore, the new commitment on page 54 of the Programme for Government that the strategy

I trust those are not just fine words and phrases, and that action will be taken to deliver on that commitment and to reach an agreement with the waste management advisory board, by June 2002, on a public awareness campaign to increase waste minimisation and recycling.

The Committee notes that on page 48 of the programme the word "sustainable" now describes the business start programmes. I hope that that is met in every sense, through the commitment to achieve 6,000 new sustainable business starts over the period to March 2005.

The Committee is disappointed that the Executive have not improved the reference to the environment in the overview to 'Securing a Competitive Economy' on pages 42 and 43. The Committee has suggested a more ambitious approach to the integration of environmental themes into economic policy. In the context of sustainable development, the environment should no longer be viewed as a constraint on economic activity. The environment and sustainable development represent opportunities to support and develop new economic and job creation activities.

On page 43 it is stated that

Members of the Committee would agree with those words but would like a clear outline of the action that will be taken by the Department of the Environment to protect and enhance our natural and built environment. There are concerns that our natural and built environment have been under threat on many occasions, and that no action has been taken.

The reference to renewable energy on page 45 could have been widened to take account of sustainable economic development opportunities for new technology, research, development, production and export.

Finally, the Committee notes that the Department of the Environment's public service agreement target for river pollution is:

Why was a more ambitious target not set, bearing in mind the number of instances of serious river pollution over the past year?

I trust that the relevant Ministers will answer these questions.

As I said during the debate on the draft Programme for Government last month, the Committee for Social Development is most concerned with two sections - section 2, 'Growing as a Community', and section 7, 'Working Together'. The Committee made representations on those sections.

The foreword to the Programme for Government acknowledges the feedback from Assembly Committees, and suggests that

It continues:

The Committee for Social Development welcomes that assurance and will watch those developments with interest.

The Committee continues to be content to endorse the priorities and sub-priorities in the two sections that I mentioned earlier and remains broadly satisfied with the associated actions and commitments. However, the latest version of the Programme for Government does little to allay the Committee's concerns about the precise way in which social need is to be tackled and how the needs of those in poverty will be addressed in practice. No doubt, there will be those who say that the service delivery agreements (SDAs) are the place for detail.

The Committee will meet with officials from the Department for Social Development to discuss those SDAs and will reiterate that the decision to change the format and presentation of the Programme for Government is short-sighted. Those changes deny the Committee and the public at large the opportunity to compare performances year on year.

Last month, the Committee pleaded for a bold, bottom-up approach towards calculating the Budget based on the cost of funding particular priority programmes rather than setting a broad-based agenda and then facing the dilemma of assigning resources for too broad a range of programmes. That plea has gone unanswered. I am already on record as saying that we are in danger of promising much but delivering little, that the jam has been spread too thinly and that we run the risk of underachieving. I continue to hold these views.

The Department for Social Development deals, in the main, with some of the most marginalised people in society. The Committee has urged the Minister for Social Development to extend the scope of the warm homes scheme to accelerate its progress. The Committee does not deny the cost implications and the competition for funding but, as the Committee has said all along, the costs associated with the warm homes scheme are indisputably one-off capital payments rather than a recurring drain on public resources.

The early eradication of fuel poverty would not only ease the recurring financial pressure on the health budget, but would also positively contribute to the health and well-being of people who are among the most marginalised. However, people who are over 60 with a small occupational pension continue to be excluded, as do families with young children.

That is not to say that the Committee does not appreciate that the sums available for the warm homes scheme will apparently be doubled to £8 million. However, last month the Committee for Social Development welcomed the inclusion of a reference in the Programme for Government to supporting people and the proposed introduction of a new scheme for funding housing support costs by 2003. It will undoubtedly be necessary to plan for and train staff in advance of the introduction of the new scheme. The Committee raised concerns about how the scheme is likely to be financed as there appears to be no reference to it in the draft Budget, but the Committee has had no reply.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>