Members who had the opportunity to look at this afternoon's 'Belfast Telegraph' will have seen that a major report has been published in the UK called 'Monitoring Poverty and Social Exclusion'. That report is the result of a large-scale survey carried out by the New Policy Institute and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. It responds to the UK Government's ambitious programme for eradicating poverty and shows that results relating to 24 out of 50 indicators improved last year. That is the good news. Results for eight of those poverty indicators have become worse, and the rest have remained steady.

The report goes on to say that there are still four million children and a total of 13·3 million people living in poverty, which it defines as less than 60% of the average household income.

The report's conclusion is that the UK Government have made a slow start in their ambitious programme, but at least they have made a start. I would have thought that, on opening the Programme for Government, we could see what kind of start we have made in Northern Ireland. After the publication of the first Programme for Government, I asked whether the Executive had a research base for the indicators for child poverty - if not for family poverty - in Northern Ireland.

I still ask that question. Despite the Programme for Government's targets, we will not know in Northern Ireland whether we are doing better, staying steady, or getting worse, unless we can come to some answers, in the way that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the New Policy Institute were able to do by evaluating the ambitious programme set down by the Government at Westminster. Until we have that information, we can continue to set different targets in each new programme, but all we are doing is monitoring different things each time. The questions that I often ask are: what is in it, and what is not in it? I will continue to ask those questions until there is some indication of whether we are going up, staying steady or going down.

Despite the excellent report from the Committee for Finance and Personnel, reliance on private finance initiatives is being put forward as the only way forward. There should have been some criteria in the Programme for Government stating that that may not be the most appropriate way to proceed and that partnerships could be sought elsewhere. I would like to have seen a greater emphasis on private, public and voluntary partnerships, rather than the argument that private finance initiatives are the only way to proceed in Northern Ireland. We have learnt a great deal from the partnerships that have existed with regard to the social economy. However, there is little with regard to that in the Programme for Government.

The programme makes a sweeping statement on external relations, suggesting that Northern Ireland is a model for conflict resolution. I am not convinced that we have even started the process of conflict transformation. The Executive of Northern Ireland are targeted with conflict management. Through the management of that conflict, Northern Ireland may have become a good model for elsewhere. However, if we are ever going to achieve conflict resolution, we should be mindful of what we have not done well. What is happening on the streets and in the communities of north Belfast, for example, shows us how far we still have to go.

The duplication of services and lack of integration in Northern Ireland increases the amount of money that we spend each year - whether it is to provide separate facilities for housing, education, or health, depending on the location of local health surgeries. If we are to address genuinely the problems that we have faced in the past 30 years, that should have been an interdepartmental theme in the programme. The Civic Forum made a good point when it stated that the section titled 'Growing as a Community' should have been titled 'Tackling Inter-Communal Division'. The alternative is the promotion of equality and inclusion.

I agree with Iris Robinson about the problems that we still face with regard to health. Despite the extra finance that the Health Service in Northern Ireland has received, there has been no real increase. Therein lies the problem. The percentage of the block grant has remained at 40% this year; it will go down to less than 39% next year, and it will be just over 38% the following year. That is a major issue that should be addressed. It is good to see that the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has increased its targets from eight in the draft programme to 22 in the revised programme, because it has the highest departmental budget.

However, if the percentage of the block grant remains at 40%, the Health Service will not do well. Free nursing care for the elderly has already been put forward as an example of a promise that was held out and then pulled back, and then restored, but only with effect from October 2002.

I am enormously concerned that the Personal Social Services (Amendment) Bill, which should have been considered by the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety, has not been introduced. The Executive should have explained in the Programme for Government why that is so. The public do not know that, unless the legislation is passed, we may be unable to give out that money next October. To date, no member of the Committee has seen the legislation.

The personal social services legislation is now going to relate only to nursing care, and not to personal care. Those in the communities that came here today, particularly the elderly, are extremely concerned that the Executive held out a promise that they are unable to deliver until October of next year. The promise carries a large health warning - the legislation may not be in place by next October.

Once again, mental health services have not been prioritised. Professionals working in that sector have come here to talk about the troubled mind and the impact that 30 years of conflict have had on children in Northern Ireland. That could have been an integrated theme for cross-departmental work, yet it is barely mentioned in the specific programme on health.

The new regional maternity hospital, which will be located in Belfast, is not mentioned in the Programme for Government either. The dire consequences are that the main regional neonatal hospital must turn children away because there are not enough cots or intensive care nurses to cope with children who are seriously ill after birth.

Unfortunately, in the Programme for Government, childcare is simply mentioned and then passed over. The message from programmes in other regions of the UK, and the Republic of Ireland, is that a child out of a nursery is a woman out of a job. Until that ceases to be the case, numeracy and literacy levels will continue to be poor because children fall behind if they do not get a head start - both in education and care. I pay tribute to John Dallat for raising the issue of numeracy and literacy so many times in the House.

It is with some concern that I address the Programme for Government. It is not enough to talk about investing in education and skills, or about working for a healthier people, when, throughout the programme, insufficient attention is paid to cross-departmental projects and programmes. On reading the document, one must ask which particular project has truly been highlighted for implementation on a cross-departmental basis.

My final concern is about where our legal obligations under the European Directives are addressed in the Programme for Government. Have specific targets been set? We have fallen far behind in meeting targets, particularly in environmental policy. Will we have to pay money because those obligations have not been met? If that were the case, what would the Executive's intentions be to actually meet some of their obligations in the next few years?

I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate and to address some issues in the Programme for Government that my Department is responsible for.

The proposed amendment asserts that the Programme for Government does not adequately or satisfactorily address the inequalities and divisions within our society. Obviously, the programme does not provide all the answers in relation to those areas under my responsibility, but, nonetheless, many initiatives for which I am responsible are specifically directed towards addressing some of the inequalities, lack of opportunities and divisions within our society.

I take very seriously the whole issue of social justice. A profound sense of social justice must inform our entire approach to the Programme for Government and its implementation. As we prioritise the particular initiatives in the various Departments' responsibilities, high on the list must be the needs of the most disadvantaged in our society - those who have least resources and opportunities. Insofar as resources, initiatives and programmes can meet their needs, disadvantages and lack of opportunities, we must be seen to do so effectively.

On the theme of investing in education and skills, considerable progress in several respects can be recorded on the targets and initiatives that have been set, and some degree of positive achievement in making a difference can be identified. That whole theme is highlighted in the key priorities of the Programme for Government. It makes it clear that the Executive are determined to ensure that people in all sections of our society have the opportunities for education and training that will equip them to participate in the labour market in ways that will enable them to gain worthwhile and fulfilling forms of employment. In developing those initiatives and programmes, the Executive will ensure that people will be able to realise their personal potential with respect to their talents; that they will be supported to the best of our ability; and that no one will be marginalised or ignored.

One of the important initiatives currently under way is the work of the task force on employability and long-term unemployment. I trust that Ms McWilliams will note that it is clear evidence of a cross-departmental approach to key issues. The task force was established in the spring of this year, and it has been engaged since then in a wide range of consultations with many sectors in our society, from employers to trade unions and voluntary and community groups.

Does the Minister accept that the public and some Assembly Members - although welcoming the task force on employability - might be disappointed that a genuine partnership, as was suggested in the Programme for Government, was not really built among those in the various sectors who deal with the issue of unemployment daily? Instead, the Minister chose to use officials from Departments, albeit - and rightly so - from across all of the Executive Departments. However, professionals and the unemployed themselves were absent from that task force.

I am happy to address that point. It is not a point that has been made to us by the various groups that we have met. This morning, in co-operation with the Northern Ireland Association for the Unemployed, I had a very useful and positive meeting with a group of long-term unemployed people drawn from across Northern Ireland, and they were able to tell me of their own experiences. With them I was able to identify some of the initiatives and action plans on which our recommendations are likely to be based when the task force reports, early in the new year, I hope.

The range of community organisations that my officials and I met was such that we have had a most comprehensive form of consultation and engagement. The Department received a significant input and response from across the sector. Therefore, I can assure Ms McWilliams that the engagement that she suggests is necessary took place as recently as this morning. I trust that when the Department comes to make its final report, it will have an effective set of recommendations and action plans to put to Colleagues in the Executive and the Assembly.

The initiative on student financial support has received much public attention. At a further education college recently, I spoke to students who had benefited from the implementation of the first stage of the new package of financial support. They told me that were it not for the benefits that are now available, they would have found it impossible to avail of further and higher education. The group that I spoke to included women who had left school many years ago, some leaving with no formal qualifications. They can now avail of new opportunities to acquire qualifications and skills because of the new childcare allowances and the remission on fees. The residual threshold has been raised from £17,000 to £20,000, thus enabling many more students to avail of those opportunities because they no longer have to make the contribution to fees.

Together with the provision of additional places in higher education, the first benefits to widen opportunities are being put in place. In particular, that helps those from low-income backgrounds to participate in higher education and provides opportunities for more students to avail of higher education in Northern Ireland rather than having to migrate elsewhere.

From next September, bursaries will be available via maintenance support for low-income students. Those bursaries will further strengthen the support that has been made available since the review reported and the package was put in place earlier this year.

Frequently, there are complaints that some reviews take a considerable time to see the light of day and to be acted on. I am pleased to say that this review was undertaken in a short time frame, and action was taken within 12 months of its commencement.

Having met those in the initial cohort that have benefited from the new package, I take considerable satisfaction from having helped to put it in place. This is just a beginning; much more must be done, and much more could be done with resources that are not available at present.

The third issue relates to the wider provision of opportunities for lifelong learning. Many Members have been exercised by this. The individual learning accounts programme has been successful but, due to circumstances outside our control, it had to be suspended. The programme will be redeveloped in a more targeted way. However, notwithstanding suspension, almost 40,000 people have been able to draw down individual learning accounts and avail of additional or new forms of training and education which many of them would not previously have had access to.

Members will have noted that learndirect centres are being opened in their constituencies - they are being opened across Northern Ireland. We have established nearly 30 centres, and 32 will be open by March 2002. These will provide access to over 12,000 online courses.

Members who are familiar with the provision of learndirect will know that the centres are located on high streets and have the appearance of shops. They are easily accessible and provide an innovative and imaginative approach to the provision of lifelong learning opportunities. When I visited the centres I was struck by the range of people from different backgrounds who use them. Young, middle-aged and older people are using the programme. I trust that Members are encouraging their constituents to avail of the opportunities that learndirect offers.

We provide adequate lifelong learning opportunities. However, courses for those who need to improve their basic literacy, numeracy, and information technology skills must be provided in addition to this. Tribute has been paid to my Colleague, John Dallat, for frequently raising the problems associated with inadequate literacy and numeracy skills. I am aware of the needs that must be met. Many programmes are already in place, but from early next year, the new strategy for basic skills will be set up. Thereafter, we hope that provision will be made in a much more comprehensive and coherent way. This will involve the further education colleges working with community and voluntary organisations. We must reach out to all who, regrettably, have the types of numeracy and literacy difficulties that have been highlighted. It is important to note the tremendous contribution of many employers and the trade union movement in assisting us and in developing their own initiatives to tackle problems with their employees and members. I trust that, together with the various agencies, we will be able to make such progress that that problem will become one of the past, rather than one of the present.

The recent publication of the Burns Report has highlighted another important area for cross-departmental co-operation. I assure the House that my Department is in close consultation with my Colleague the Minister of Education's Department, particularly in respect of those aspects of the Burns Report that touch on further education. Members will be familiar with the general proposals on co-operation between further education and second level education for pupils over the age of 16. However, I am aware that many Members have highlighted the need for a much more vocational dimension to the final years of compulsory schooling - in other words, schooling for 14- to 16-year-olds.

We are addressing all of those curricular and structural issues in close consultation with the Department of Education. We want to ensure that, in future, all young people leaving school will meet the minimum standards they need to confidently enter training and further and higher education programmes, and thereby equip themselves for full and worthwhile participation in the labour market. That is the joint aim of both Departments' work on the issues that have arisen from the Burns Report.

I will briefly touch on several other specific issues that are in the Programme for Government and that must be highlighted. If we are to achieve the economic progress that is essential to our society and have a workforce that is adequately prepared, equipped, trained and qualified, then we must ensure that our training and further and higher education institutions are as up to date as possible with respect to information communication technology, both at infrastructural level and in the provision of courses to equip students with those skills and qualifications.

I am pleased that, in line with the Programme for Government, considerable progress has been made on ensuring adequate provision for the further education and university sectors. Outside investors who come to Northern Ireland to assess the support that we have available never cease to be impressed by the provision that is there to produce trained technicians and graduates. As Members will be aware, there are not enough properly qualified people here, and we have worked hard recently with employers in several leading enterprises to establish fast-track training programmes to ensure that the people with the skills and the qualifications are available.

Although there is still a long way to go, the infrastructure and courses are there. We may need a turnaround in curricular focus in our schools to ensure that interest is developed in careers other than those that have been pursued up to now through further and higher education. Again, that highlights the need for closer co- operation between my own Department and the Department of Education. More importantly, an adequate career guidance and counselling service is needed. In line with the contents of the Programme for Government, we hope to be able to put that in place early in the new year when the Fulton Report has been finalised and decisions taken on it.

I argue to the House that, in attempting to meet my Department's general targets, progress is being made. The progress that can be made, and, indeed, should be made will never end. Some issues on which progress might have been made more rapidly are tied to the availability of resources.

I accept Prof McWilliams' point on Northern Ireland and conflict resolution. I have raised that issue frequently with our further and higher education colleges. More often than not our schools become the focal point for encouraging a greater sense of awareness of conflict resolution. The responsibilities fall to those who will be among the leaders in our social and economic sectors. We tend to say that only schools should address issues related to cross-community understanding, respect, democratic citizenship, and the responsibilities that are associated with those general concepts.

Our further education colleges and universities have an even greater responsibility. Too often we focus on particular disciplines and look for excellence - rightly so - in those disciplines. However, there is also a wider responsibility to challenge our students' understanding of democratic citizenship, and the rights and responsibilities that that concept implies. Issues that relate to conflict resolution, such as promoting respect and understanding of different traditions, can assist co-operation. Some of those challenges are not put to our students as directly as they should be. If they were, our young graduates and those who qualify from our further education colleges might develop a greater sense of responsibility. That point must be taken up by all in the Assembly and specifically by our institutions.

The issues that have been addressed fall into two broad areas. The first is the Health Service, which the Executive are supposed to have made a priority, and the second is the divisions in our society. Nobody who has spoken has been satisfied with the provisions for health services in the future. Most notably, the contributions from Mrs Iris Robinson and Ms Monica McWilliams, who backed Mr Kieran McCarthy's concerns, made it clear that a great deal remains to be done. Almost all the additional money was redirected to acute services, even though the Hayes Report has not been implemented because no conclusion has been reached.

There has been very little on community care and virtually nothing on psychiatric services and childcare. Even in community care, we have had sight of the promise of free nursing care for those who require residential nursing home places, but nothing on free personal care - a matter that is of considerably more consequence to more people. There is great concern that the people of Northern Ireland will be left behind - certainly behind Scotland and to some extent behind Wales - in that process as it goes on during this year. If the Executive were serious about tackling the real needs of the many elderly and disabled people in Northern Ireland, they would look at free personal care and not just at free nursing care.

In his opening remarks the Deputy First Minister said that the divisions in our society were dealt with in the section 'Growing as a Community', which, he said, was about tackling divisions in society. However, I can find only one sub-priority that deals with divisions in that section of the Programme for Government. If the Executive were so concerned about such divisions they should have devoted a chapter to them. Indeed, there are only three action points, and they are not terribly specific.

Sub-priority 2 speaks of

However, when my Colleagues and I write to Ministers about graffiti, kerbstone painting and the flying of illegal organisations' flags, we are fobbed off with "it cannot be done at this stage" and "community consensus is needed". Why is there no coherent action plan? We have instead

This, I suspect, means that it will be 2004 before anything is done. If the Programme for Government intends that something happen this year, I should like to hear from the Minister who will respond. I take it by his presence in the Chamber that Dermott Nesbitt will have that pleasure.

It is unfortunate that the First Minister was not present at any stage during the debate on the Programme for Government, and there was a relatively limited input from the Deputy First Minister. We should at least be grateful that Dr Farren has made a speech and remained in his place. He has shown some of his Colleagues what good manners are when dealing with the Assembly.

In his opening speech the Deputy First Minister said that I had welcomed some of the Executive's proposals. As usual when I find myself being quoted by Ministers, I checked Hansard, and it is only appropriate that I read for the record what I did say on 13 November. I talked about the concerns that Alliance Members had last year about tackling divisions:

I may have welcomed their addressing some of the concerns, but we should remember that it took them over a year to recognise that our concerns were genuine. However, we should always be grateful for late converts to a necessary cause.

We should not allow Mr Durkan to suggest that this is anything other than my recognition of those conversions, following the passage in the House of Mr Kieran McCarthy's motion that more needed to be done to tackle issues such as flags and graffiti. At least they have responded to that. Therefore I claim a share of the credit, because that only appeared in the Programme for Government this year after an Alliance motion was accepted. If that offends the Deputy First Minister, I apologise, but it is factually accurate.

Dr Farren spoke as Minister for Employment and Learning. At the start of his speech, he clearly stated the concerns that he had for social justice in his Department. I welcome that statement. However, the issues that we are highlighting about divisions do not fall to his Department alone.

There is nothing in this Programme for Government, as it currently stands, to suggest that there is serious cross-departmental action by the Department for Regional Development, the Department for Social Development, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, the Department of the Environment and his Department. If those signs were apparent - and perhaps Mr Nesbitt can respond to that effect - it might give us some reason for believing that the Programme for Government is meaningful on tackling divisions. Currently, it is not. The public service agreements do not tie through to show serious action at departmental level. However, I am always an optimist. I wait to be reassured that there will be something coming in the winding-up speech.

I want to deal with what two or three other Members said. I was particularly interested to hear the speech of Alex Maskey. He is the Chief Whip of one of the Executive parties, and therefore I presume that he speaks with a degree of authority for at least one of the Executive parties. In suggesting that the amendment should be rejected, he referred to the document as "moderate". I can only presume that coming from a member of Sinn Féin that is not a compliment. He also said that it was vague and ill-defined, which would not be a compliment coming from anyone. Yet he said that it should be accepted because of the difficult background, and it should be endorsed as a work in progress. Let us hear from Mr Nesbitt that it is a work in progress. Let us hear a few more specifics. If that is the official view in an Executive party, I would love to hear a little more as to how it is work in progress, and a bit more about the details.

Will you vote for it then?

Let us hear what the Minister has to say. Let us hear the Minister's assurances. I always have an open mind in this Chamber, unlike many Members who sit to my left.

Similarly Mr Cobain, when he spoke on behalf of the Committee for Social Development, made it clear that the Committee doubts the ability of the programme to deliver on many of the concerns that it has expressed. Mr Poots, as Chairperson of the Committee of the Centre, made clear his concerns from his Committee's perspective. In particular, the community relations strategy and the victims strategy have badly slipped on their proposed timetables.

Mr Durkan asked me earlier about the practical steps that Alliance had suggested. I have outlined one or two of those. I find it a rather interesting concept that the Deputy First Minister, with the resources of Government, expects the opposition party to produce the practical steps. Those steps have so signally failed to come - unless Mr Nesbitt is going to pleasantly surprise us - in the course of the presentation of this report, the debate on the draft programme and debate today.

As for practical steps, how about specific commitment to promote steps to make it easier for schools to transform to integrated status? It is clear that there is a demand for that. It is clear from what happened to Glengormley Primary School in my constituency last week that that demand can carry through, but it can create enormous difficulties under the current procedures with a group of parents who have divided loyalties on such an issue. If there is a commitment to promoting integrated education and to overcoming divisions, the transformation process must be made easier. That does not require legislation, but it does require Executive action. It is something that we should look to them for.

Let us see more specific proposals from this inter- departmental group. Let us see the Minister spell out, as he winds up this debate, the justification for the belief that his party and the other major party of Government appear to have that this amendment should not stand. Let us hear the specifics that will flesh out the paper as it currently stands to persuade us that we should be supporting their motion and not our amendment.

I thank Mr Ford. He must have mentioned me at least six times, and I am not sure what I felt. It reminds me of something that he said some months ago. He requested that the proper Minister be in the Chamber to allay his fears. The then Deputy First Minister, Mr Mallon, was answering the question. Mr Mallon told him that he was sorry that neither Denis Haughey nor I were there, but that Mr Ford would have to deal with the mere Deputy First Minister. Today Mr Ford is looking for the Deputy First Minister and the First Minister, and I am sorry that he has to deal merely with me.

However, that addresses a very important point. Mr Ford said that there were two matters that he wanted to be addressed and that the second was the divisions in our society. I speak not only on behalf of Mr Haughey, but also on behalf of Mr Trimble and Mr Durkan. I represent an Administration that is cross-community in composition and in its articulation of policies. That is important when trying to heal those divisions. The Programme for Government tries to ensure that areas of need are appropriately targeted, tries to create employment and tries to make sure that we rural-proof what we are trying to do in Northern Ireland. Through the vehicle of the Assembly, of which the Executive is a part, we are trying in our small way - and I accept that it is a small way - to heal the divisions in society. I am glad that Mr Ford made that point, and I do not wish to belittle it by pointing to specific sub-entities and sub-priorities. The Assembly is trying to heal those very divisions. It is what we are all about here.

I listened with interest to the debate on the amendment and to the winding-up speech. The amendment asks that the Assembly

My Colleague, Seán Farren, other Colleagues and I represent the new beginning of the Good Friday Agreement. Therefore I contend that this document goes much further in trying to achieve a cohesive, inclusive and just society than any other single document. The whole document plays a part. We have been debating the Programme for Government, and it contains a clear vision of:

That is what the Programme is about. It is important that any Programme for Government be a visionary document. However, it must set out how that vision will be translated into reality. Our Programme for Government endeavours to do that. It includes priorities and sub-priorities, and it also includes specific actions that will be taken with public service agreements and new service delivery agreements. They are specific and measurable.

The programme makes clear our commitment to tackle division and reduce inequalities. It sets out the actions that we will take to promote equality of opportunity and human rights for all. It recognises that some of the deepest divisions and inequalities exist between those in the poorest and most geographically diverse areas.

At the outset I mentioned rural proofing. Every aspect of the Programme for Government is aimed at ensuring that there is equality of opportunity, in rural and urban areas, among males and females and in every section of Northern Ireland society. The divergence and diversity of Northern Ireland is the reason that we restate our commitment to targeting social need. That is part of our attempt to heal the divisions in Northern Ireland. I have latched on to the precise phrase that was used by Mr Ford: "overcoming divisions" in our society.

The Programme has sub-priorities that cover the needs of victims of the troubles, committing us to improving community relations and tackling the divisions in our society. We are also committed to reviewing our current community relations policy, and putting in place in 2002 a cross-departmental strategy and framework for the promotion of community relations. We will also ensure that there is a co-ordinated and effective response to sectarian and racial intimidation.

There are problems in our society. We have recognised those problems, and I hope that together we will combat them, wherever they may be found. However, it is vital that we do not regard community relations as a simple, stand-alone issue. The priorities and actions throughout the programme are designed to tackle the deep and painful divisions that so clearly persist. I will refer later to our work to improve health. The implementation of every aspect of the programme that I mentioned in my introductory remarks - to help our children to do well in school, to help people to find work, to strengthen the economy - would help us to tackle the deep divisions and inequalities in our society.

I am therefore disappointed that although the document was with the public in draft form for so long - between the end of September and the end of November - the Alliance Party did not present the Executive with detailed proposals that could be implemented. I recognise that that was part of your winding-up - in the sense of a speech.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>