Does any Member believe that under direct rule we would have achieved an almost 60% increase in health spending - over £1·1 billion in four years? Since devolution, the Health Service has received £300 million more than it would have done under the Barnett formula. Therefore, we have allocated more to health than it would have received under direct rule. Does anyone believe that under direct rule the student support package would have seen the light of day in its original form or been expanded, as announced today in the draft Budget? Does anyone believe that the reinvestment and reform initiative - an initiative knocked by people who are now considering it in their plans and programmes - would have been developed under direct rule? Does any Member believe that without a devolved Administration, Ministers would be able to even talk to the Treasury about the difficulties of the Barnett formula?

Enormous strides have been made over the past four years. However, this is just a sound beginning: it must not be put in jeopardy. We have to build on progress made, because, as democrats, Members must stand ready to finance and deliver the types of commitments contained in the draft Programme for Government. They have given such commitments to the people, and the people have the right to expect the Assembly to fulfil those commitments.

We want to make sure that our proposals are effective, evidence-based and able to bring about real and positive change across the economic, social, cultural and environmental responsibilities of the Executive. The draft programme is about improving our public services, hospitals, schools, transport and rural development. It is about strengthening our economy and providing better opportunities for everyone. In short, it is about improving the quality of life for everyone; it is about making a difference. That is what the community expects of its democratic politicians, and, therefore, it is relevant to all Ministers and the Assembly. That is why the Executive need the Assembly's help. The Assembly's scrutiny of the draft Programme for Government will help in proofing, improving and sharpening the content before it is returned to the Assembly for final approval.

I look forward to the Assembly and the Committees playing their part in scrutinising the draft programme, and to Members playing their part in today's debate. People not only look forward to scrutinising and improving the draft Programme for Government but also to its implementation and delivery as the institutions remain stable and go forward in the interests of the entire community.

I have received the names of those Members who wish to contribute to the debate. Due to the large number of those wishing to participate I ask Members to limit their contributions to eight minutes - at least in the first round.

I welcome the launch of the draft Programme for Government. As my Colleague Mr Durkan has said, the benefits of devolution can be seen in the draft Programme for Government and in Minister Farren's draft Budget. I am especially delighted that the draft programme reaffirms our commitment to building North/South links. It is essential that those links be built upon to ensure that Northern Ireland becomes an outward-looking region and one that will never be allowed to return to its old introspective and majoritarian ways. Our people refuse to live that way again.

One of the benefits of devolution has been the opportunity to question the approach of Departments and to witness the increased transparency of their actions. If this work is to continue it is vital that we have a reformed and more innovative delivery of our public services. I am pleased that the review of public administration will be pursued vigorously and that we will spare no effort in the pursuit of effective value-for-money initiatives. Will the Minister confirm that, during the lifetime of this Programme for Government, and with the decentralisation of Government, Departments will be more actively pushed and that local partnership, rather than central control, will become the dominant approach?

I support the proposal to develop plans for a more long-term policy for Northern Ireland, to promote sustainable development and continuity in the delivery of services. That is particularly appropriate with the advent of the reinvestment and reform initiative and the potential that it provides for access to significant resources over the coming years. The commitment to produce a report that will monitor and evaluate the Executive's performance each year is commendable, and that is what transparent and accountable government is about. It also gives us the opportunity to reassess and prioritise targets for the following years, thus making them more realistic.

Focus on the reinvestment and reform initiative challenges public sector finance and provides more efficient use of resources. The emphasis on the four main areas of investment in the future - improved service delivery, tackling poverty, social exclusion and partnership - is commendable. By focusing on those areas, the Programme for Government will improve service delivery and increase efficiency. Within improved service delivery, there will still be a need to improve the delivery of social security services for people with disabilities and the elderly. Promoting social inclusion for those people is a step in the right direction - some people are still slipping through the net.

With regard to partnerships, there is still a need for improved co-ordination among Departments, agencies and local government. It is an important aspect of policy and programme development, and it will provide vital links and partnerships between the statutory, voluntary and private sectors and the local community. We need the right resources to improve the Health Service. It is no use funding a system that is inadequate and unable to cope with the demands placed on it, such as shortening waiting lists.

The strong emphasis on equality is an important aspect of the Programme for Government. It is not enough for every child to have an equal chance growing up in our society, although that is important. Every child must also instinctively know that he or she will have an equal chance throughout his or her lifetime. There has been progress on that issue. The Programme for Government shows that inequalities in all groups are declining, which is good news, and is evidence that the policies are working.

The commitment to eradicating community differentials in unemployment is particularly welcome, and that is an important area. It is good to see that not only are unemployment rates in the two communities declining, but unemployment itself is falling. However, we cannot be complacent, and I welcome the new initiatives being pioneered by the SDLP Ministers to tackle long-term unemployment. Sean Farren has introduced a radical new procurement policy to ensure that those who benefit from state contracts do their bit to tackle unemployment. Such an initiative is unparalleled on these islands. Carmel Hanna's task force on employability and long-term unemployment prioritises areas of high unemployment. I hope that the work will focus on unemployment black spots such as Strabane, Derry and parts of Belfast. Those policies, allied with New TSN, will deliver an equal chance for every child in Northern Ireland.

Catholics and women are severely under-represented in the Civil Service. Although the situations of both have improved since the Good Friday Agreement, the measures being taken to ensure equality in the Civil Service are particularly welcome. The commitment to introduce new strategies on race and gender is important. I applaud the fact that OFMDFM has set up a race equality unit and is also core funding ethnic minority groups. It is important to establish a race equality forum as a priority, and I welcome the fact that that is in progress.

The draft Programme for Government gives rural communities their place after 30 years of direct rule neglect. The House should stand firmly behind the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, Bríd Rodgers, in her attempts to provide them with a viable future.

Children are among the most vulnerable in our society, and the Commissioner for Children and Young People Bill is an illustration of the priority accorded to children's issues. I congratulate OFMDFM Ministers on their commitment to that area, in particular Denis Haughey for introducing the Bill.

I welcome the determination to face down those such as the Northern Ireland Office who sought to restrict the Bill's scope. The emphasis on children is correct. The next step must be the publication of the children's strategy, which must focus on child poverty. Therefore, I welcome the draft Programme for Government.

I welcome the opportunity to make several points about the draft Programme for Government. I fully endorse the principles of sustainable development, the economic, social and environmental dimensions of which are interwoven. That is particularly true where such development impacts on the environment, which can affect the entire economy, especially tourism.

The environment can impact positively on the economy. When new industries arrived in Dungannon, they examined the benefits of the town and its surroundings before deciding where to locate their factories. I am pleased to say that Dungannon now has a low unemployment level. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of Fermanagh - a beautiful area for tourism where the environment is of prime importance. I urge the Assembly to channel more investment into that area.

When we examine employment figures we should note that local employers say that they cannot fill 40% of their job vacancies due to skill shortages. I urge the Executive to examine that issue and to channel finance towards solving that problem. Adult literacy programmes are not enough to solve literacy problems; the root causes must be investigated and tackled in the primary schools.

Northern Ireland has a clean, green image, as the draft Programme for Government notes. However, many pressures challenge that image. Our roads, water and sewerage infrastructure must be examined sympathetically and given enormous investment.

Sub-priority 7 of "Securing a Competitive Economy" states:

That promise will help to develop our tourist industry, which is good news for all. However, the farmers have endured a stressful time since the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, and the attack on the World Trade Centre has affected industry. Those sectors must be examined, and financial help must be given to the farmers.

I keep plugging the tourism sector because it has the potential to be one of the largest generators of income in Northern Ireland. We have an unspoilt landscape of world renown, and it must be appreciated and protected. In that context, I call on the appropriate Department to consider designating Fermanagh as a national park. Were that measure implemented, financial help would be provided to farmers who otherwise would lose some of their income.

I am curious as to how the Department of the Environment proposes to comprehensively record historic buildings in Northern Ireland and protect the country's best heritage. What is the position on the replacement grant? That grant is a great incentive to rebuild and is used extensively in Northern Ireland. However, a grant should be available to help maintain historic homes rather than demolish them. Few vernacular dwellings survive in Northern Ireland. The replacement grant is a wonderful help to people who want to build a new home, but people who want to continue to live in older homes should get help also.

I welcome plans to conserve all the main natural habitats. However, large areas of special scientific interest (ASSIs) should not be created at the expense of smaller habitats, which also deserve protection.

I also welcome the proposed review of the sea fishery and aquaculture industry that is to begin in the coming months.

Forestry is also mentioned, and it can support sustainable development through timber production and tourism. I am pleased to note that steps will be taken to ensure the sustainable use of forests; that will help the environment.

Sensitive work must be undertaken on the problem of farm pollution and the Regulations covering silage, slurry and agricultural fuel oils on farms so that we do not penalise farmers or place an added burden on them. Agriculture has much to offer and can make a positive contribution to the environment.

I am shocked that we still have a 94% dependency on landfill. I note that the Republic of Ireland imposes a penalty on the use of plastic bags. Perhaps we should think along those lines, but that is a tiny solution to a huge problem. We shall have to encourage large stores such as Tesco and Sainsbury's that it is not only plastic bags that are a problem; packaging is also a problem. It is not enough to facilitate and encourage local companies to develop environmentally friendly products; pressure should be applied to make it mandatory.

From an environmental point of view, the attitude in Northern Ireland to the purchase of green electricity extracted from renewable sources is a problem. I should like to express my concern at the number of wind-turbine farms cropping up across the Province. Some falsehoods surround that method of producing electricity. The starting costs are astronomical, and we are at the mercy of the weather. Nothing is set in stone; we cannot be sure about how much electricity will be generated, and such electricity cannot be stored. My greatest concern is for the tourism industry; people come to Northern Ireland to enjoy its rugged, unspoilt landscape, but that is coming under threat because of the erection of such turbines, especially in my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone.

Drinking water must be wholesome, and there must be effective disposal of waste water. The sewerage network also needs an appropriate strategy. There is also the problem of flood risks from river systems, and money must be spent on that end of the infrastructure.

The draft Budget would maintain the level of revenue to support district councils, especially those whose revenue comes from a low rate base, thus allowing them to maintain services without an unacceptable rate rise - something we should all want, especially in the light of the forthcoming election. Funding should also be provided for the compensation due to district councils to cover the loss -

Can the Member bring her remarks to a close?

For years we have focused on terrorism and division, and I welcome the opportunity to bring about real change through the new developments in the draft Programme for Government.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the draft Programme for Government and wish to highlight one or two education issues that I think have not been addressed, and perhaps also some issues that have been addressed.

The section dealing with education is titled 'Investing in Education and Skills'. Although some issues have been highlighted, others have been omitted. This year, in particular, the Programme for Government must highlight education. Every year there are exams; indeed, over the past week or two exam results and their portrayal in the media have been controversial. Many families have been left confused and angry, and many children do not have a clue about which school or university they will attend. The Department of Education must make an investment to oversee matters and to ensure that such a fiasco does not recur. That issue should be addressed in the Programme for Government.

This year some examination boards have been accused of adjusting grades due to Government and media pressure. That scandal has left many of our brightest pupils taking up courses at universities that were not their first choice. In some cases people will be taking different career directions altogether.

The draft Programme for Government states on page 52:

and on page 56 that

Those are grand words, but in reality we need more focus and more help to ensure that it happens. The future of the country depends on the level of education that we give our children, and, consequently, the opportunities we can provide for the entire population.

Currently, people who wish to avail of tertiary education must pay for university places. That has led, and will lead, to many students across Northern Ireland deciding not to continue their education because they cannot afford it. Students, and parents concerned about their children, have come to our advice centre with that problem. There must be more investment in available student places and a rethink of university fees.

In the 1970s, when there were free university places for everyone who wanted them and grants to aid the purchase of study materials, there was a brain drain. Countries such as America and Australia wanted the cream of the university graduates to leave Northern Ireland and work there. The consequences can be easily seen - many glossy magazines have editors who came from Northern Ireland, and many of our journalists now work for the main news channels. Finance companies across the globe have recruited people who originated in Northern Ireland. We could have a situation like that again. After all, this country tops the league tables in examination results at GCSE and A level. It is time to take a serious look at university fees and evaluate their usefulness. That has not been addressed in the draft Programme for Government: it should be.

Investment in schools must be monitored. For the past few years, it has been the Minister of Education's remit to invest heavily in Irish speaking facilities for schools. There has not been parity in the funds allocated for education.

Will the entire education budget be invested only in schools that encourage the speaking of Irish? The administration of the school budget must be monitored to ensure that fair and appropriate allocation is made. We noted that the capital spend on schools last year was heavily weighted towards non-maintained schools - that cannot be allowed to happen every year. An independent monitor could ensure that there is equal investment in all children in Northern Ireland.

Many schools have closed down recently in my constituency, yet the school-age population continues to boom, and more people are moving to Strangford. Two schools in the local area have closed - O'Neill Memorial Primary School in Crossnacreevy and Scrabo High School. Subsequently, other schools are now oversubscribed.

Paragraph 6.13 of the draft Programme for Government states:

Again, those are only words. When it comes to delivering the finance needed, it falls short.

Investment and new schools are a must. As more people migrate to rural areas, the pressure on existing resources is becoming hard to bear. Some pupils have to travel to other towns because the school that is only a mile down the road from their home is oversubscribed. They have to pass by the nearest school on the way to another because the first did not have space for them. This year many parents have commented and complained about the situation. As taxpayers, they feel that their children should go to the school of their choice; the one that their friends go to, and the one that they do not have to travel miles to get to.

There is a need to invest in school buildings and to build schools to accommodate the increasing child population. However, it must be done in a fair and equitable manner: unfortunately, that is not currently the case.

We also need to ensure that classrooms are adequate and up to acceptable standards. There have been many complaints across the country that schools are in a terrible condition. For example, Regent House had to wait more than 30 years for an extension. Pupils were being educated in mobile huts for 30 years. Similar things are happening in many areas of the Province. We must ensure that our children are being taught in a warm and safe environment. Investment is definitely needed in that area, and again I call for a fair and equitable allocation of funds.

According to the Labour Government, the Minister of Education could look to private investment in schools. Indeed, there have been many suggestions for that over the years. However, investment by private firms in schools should be controlled. Caution is needed to avoid the scenario in which a school is touted in the press like a designer label, and is advertised on posters because a particular company invested in it.

Investment by outside organisations in schools should be matched or, indeed, doubled by the Department of Education. Undoubtedly, investment in education is needed. However, it needs to come first from the Government as lead investor.

The Assembly has been assured that there will be nursery provision for all three-year-olds. Nursery provision has been the subject of a key debate since the 1970s. Indeed, the people for whom nursery provision was needed then are now our teachers, doctors and builders. It has been said in the Chamber that post-primary education must be developed to meet the needs of young people: I agree. The Assembly welcomes it. However, I want to see how it will be delivered.

A report stated that a nursery education could advance the social experience and intellectual development of children from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. I believe that that is the case. People working in that key area would agree. Nursery education is more than just childminding and teaching the alphabet. It should be a learning experience.

Networking is important at any age. Friendships forged in early childhood can sometimes last a long time. Investment is needed in nursery schools and teachers. The Budget must provide the basis for that investment. I welcome what has been set out for education in the Programme for Government. However, how that will be delivered has not been specified.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The Programme for Government lays out a progressive plan for health, in which the Executive are committed to raising health standards to those of the best regions in Europe and to eradicating inequalities in health. Much of the programme will be channelled through 'Investing for Health', which sets out how public health is to be improved between now and 2010.

The publication of 'Investing for Health' in March signified a remarkable degree of co-operation between all Departments in the Executive. That is to be welcomed. All Ministers signed up to actions to improve the general health of the population. The targets set out in 'Investing for Health' could not be more important. The Executive are committed to increasing life expectancy by at least three years for men and two years for women by the year 2010. They are also committed to reducing inequalities in mortality rates, to halve the gap in life expectancy between those who live in the most deprived areas and electoral wards and those who live in better off areas, and to increasing average life expectancy.

All Ministers of the Executive - whether they belong to Sinn Féin, the Ulster Unionist Party, the Democratic Unionist Party, or the Social Democratic and Labour Party - have committed themselves to a series of actions and policies that will achieve those goals. Those commitments range from improving the quality of water and air, ensuring that all food is safe, reducing accidents at home and on the roads, and improving literacy levels - to name but a few. All those factors are of the utmost importance, and there is a great deal of room for improvement. For example, the charity Brake has stated that in Europe, Northern Ireland has the second highest number of schoolchildren being killed on the roads.

I could use the eight minutes allocated to me to question whether all Departments have lived up to the commitments made in the Programme for Government and in 'Investing for Health'. I could say that if the important goals are to be attained, considerably more investment is needed. I could question whether the targets set by Departments are rigorous enough. In other circumstances, I would make those points. However, those important questions have faded into insignificance following the events at the Ulster Unionist Party conference. It seems that, for its own party political reasons, the Ulster Unionist Party has decided that it will depart from the Executive in January 2003. If that happens, the Programme for Government and everything in it will be just scrap paper.

Plans and targets to improve the Health Service and reduce inequalities could simply go by the board; they will be continued or disregarded according to the whims of British Ministers. I hope that the Ulster Unionist Party is aware of the effect that its actions will have on the lives and well-being of everyone in this part of Ireland. Rather than working together as politicians of every political shade to ensure that people live longer and are healthier, we will become lethargic and allow the public health sector to return to the doldrums in which it languished under direct rule.

Likewise, plans for the improvement of hospital services, primary and community care, and care for those with disabilities, mental health problems and chronic and terminal illnesses may fall by the wayside. The number of people whose health would be affected illustrates the enormity of what is contemplated. It is a sad day when, for its own selfish internal reasons, a party acts to the detriment of everyone's welfare.

What could be more unhealthy than the murder of my friends and neighbours in border areas over the years? Mr Kelly never condemned those acts, yet he sounds so virtuous today.

I will return to that point.

I appeal to members of the Ulster Unionist Party to show maturity and consideration in their political thinking and to continue to strive to improve everyone's health, rather than relinquish their responsibilities to the political mongrel foxes in their own community.

The first paragraph of the foreword of the draft Programme for Government states:

The last paragraph states:

David Trimble signed that foreword; I ask the leadership of the Ulster Unionist Party to look at it again, before we reach the precipice of a political disaster.

It will come as no surprise that the Alliance Party notes the draft Programme for Government with disappointment and concern. Although there was merit in the proposals of previous programmes, no serious consideration was given to coupling projects with each Department's proposals, or to including a definitive, effective approach to community relations. The proposals for health, education and social services, although good in themselves, will not create a better society unless the sectarianism that permeates the Province is seriously challenged.

I am heartened by the fact that the Deputy First Minister highlighted the need to involve all Departments. I hope that that will be followed through on. The Secretary of State made some headway in the past week by, among other things, appointing an independent monitor on paramilitary violence. However, the Assembly must direct action and schemes proposed in the Programme for Government to challenge the hatred, distrust and ignorance in society. Managing the differences in Northern Ireland does not make for long-term or permanent success. It simply puts off the evil day.

The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister is known to have received a research paper on community relations in January. So far, the office has failed to publish any draft proposals. If a policy review report, which has already been submitted to Ministers, is not received in the next two weeks, my party will attempt to table a motion calling on the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to publish it. A response was expected before the summer recess; as yet none has been forthcoming. Last week, in an answer to my party leader, the Deputy First Minister said that a paper would go to the Executive in the near future; similar promises have been made to us since April. The review was completed in January, and the response was expected in April. It is still said to be "imminent". Where is it?

For the Alliance Party, the community relations strategy is a crucial part of the Programme for Government. The strategy, and any associated consultation, is supposed to be completed by the end of the year. The process has yet to begin. Given that the Ministers must subsequently reach agreement, that will be yet another missed target or, as it is usually expressed, "slippage" will occur. Last year there was some three months' slippage. What happened to the neighbourhood regeneration task forces that were proposed last year?

Earlier this year, when the Alliance Party pushed the issue of paramilitary flags and graffiti, the strategy was the alleged reason for the Executive's not having done anything about it. That issue will not go away, and the Executive's usual ploy of passing the buck must stop. We must get back on track. Suspicion is growing that the community relations strategy is being put on the long finger. When questions are asked in the Assembly, all we hear are platitudes about the imminence of documents or consultation. That response no longer has any credibility. If the Executive cannot provide a strategy, the Alliance Party will demand that the public is shown exactly what has been done since last year, in addition to the recommendations now being withheld by the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.

The Deputy First Minister stated that it is not enough to leave community relations to the people in the areas that are directly affected. The issue is much bigger than simply supporting local initiatives in local communities. A firm strategy is necessary to counter sectarianism and to promote community relations, and it should underpin everything that is proposed by the Executive for every Department. That is clearly not the case, because community relations have not been prioritised properly. Sub-priority 2 states:

Paragraph 4.13 states:

I contend that community relations officers should be included in the local structure to deal with community relations problems. Community relations are not simply a matter of bringing Protestants and Catholics together, but of keeping them together in tolerance, recognition and acceptance of each other's cultures and traditions. The Community Relations Council has undertaken that task for many years in areas as far apart as mid-Ulster, south Armagh and Greater Belfast, and in organisations such as the Apprentice Boys and the Orange Order. In North Down, it is generally agreed that community relations have enhanced appreciation of, and improved knowledge and information about, a wide range of cross-community matters.

The Alliance Party welcomes the focus on promoting a climate of tolerance and equality of provision. It is also pleased that the expansion of integrated education, both new and by transformation, has been recognised. It is to be hoped that those who are doubtful about this type of education will see that it is not a threat but a significant alternative.

The Minister of Education and his Department will not be surprised if I once again take the opportunity to push for a specific budget for special schools provision and for special units in which children have the chance to realise their potential. There is also the matter of adults with special needs. There are not enough places in resource centres, and I hope that the Minister of Employment and Learning and the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety can work together to give those young people an opportunity for high-quality education and training.

I congratulate the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, especially the junior Ministers, for their preparations for the proposed commissioner for children and for their acknowledgement of the situations that victims face.

As was stated yesterday, the draft Programme for Government is, unfortunately, vulnerable, just as we are. Like its Colleagues, the Alliance Party wonders how confident it can be that the proposals, reviews and consultation exercises in the draft Programme for Government can be achieved. The Alliance Party hopes that all Members have the opportunity to see it become reality and that all citizens will feel the full benefit of the local Administration.

I never fail to be impressed by the fairy-tale atmosphere of the Assembly, especially when it discusses matters pertinent to its future. The fairy tale that seems most appropriate today is Hans Christian Andersen's 'The Emperor's New Clothes'. In fact, the emperor was in the altogether. The courtiers who had self-interest, like the majority of Members who want this thing called devolution to work, were delighted with his nakedness.

Far from producing an Executive that are, as the Deputy First Minister said, working in harness or that are, as Seán Farren said, producing a demonstration of the collective working of a unique Administration, the Assembly has in fact produced a composition of totally disparate elements. Yesterday, in response to a particularly innocuous speech on the Programme for Government from Esmond Birnie, came the most virulent attack on the Ulster Unionist Party by that well-known political ecumenist Mr Dallat, who, in language that would not have been inappropriate on the lips of Joe Devlin in 1915 or of Harry Diamond in 1956, proceeded to make the most unmitigated attack on his main partners in the Programme for Government.

It is true that many aspects of the speeches that have been made are apposite to the Assembly's future. Today, John Kelly rightly said that, while all the talk about future Budgets and Programmes for Government is going on, the parties are really engaged in a political dogfight over the Assembly's existence. It is the stuff of fairy tales.

Then, of course, we have the suggestion that devolution has been wonderful and has brought untold benefits to the poor electorate of Northern Ireland. What has devolution achieved in more than three years? Despite the suggestion that future moneys will be poured into the Health Service, we have the longest waiting lists in Europe and a GP programme that is stagnating, with the British Medical Association threatening what almost amounts to a professional strike.

In education, which I hope that Sammy Wilson will deal with in more detail, almost none of the targets set last year by the Minister of Education have been met, and the budgets for most of them have been reduced. Our schools and the infrastructure of the buildings and ancillary services are in their worst state ever.

The First Minister has declared that community relations are at their worst level for the past 25 years. Mr John Kelly told us about maturity, and about the need to consider the welfare and health of the people - that coming from a member of a party that is inextricably linked to the murders of 2,500 people and to the mutilation of tens of thousands who, as the result of paramilitary attacks, have swamped the accident and emergency services with broken bones and with destroyed ankles and other joints.

Do not think for one moment that I exclude from my comments those Loyalists who participate in similar activity; they do not happen to be numerous enough to have representatives in the same elevated position as the two Sinn Féin Ministers.

The public sector in Northern Ireland is a monument to the success of devolution - health, education, vast areas on which houses cannot be built because of inadequate sewerage, and threats of huge fines if the Executive do not implement EU Directives. We have a series of threatened reports. As a result of the delays, the review of administration does not merely have a five o'clock shadow; it has a three-feet-long beard. The rating system will be reviewed to make it fairer, but it will have to produce about three times the current revenue to service the debt that will be incurred in implementing some of those magnificent projects.

Collective responsibility does not exist. Ms Lewsley mentioned SDLP Ministers only, and John Kelly reserved his commendations and comments for the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, which happens to have a Sinn Féin Minister. The same applies to other participating parties. As I have stated repeatedly, far from there being collective responsibility, every time a Minister speaks, Members from all other parties become the Opposition. Mark Durkan told us in a "holier-than-thou" voice that the draft Programme for Government is an object lesson in working in harness and in collective co-operation. It is no such thing. Virtually no aspect of life has been significantly improved for the average person in Northern Ireland as a result of devolution, whatever the aspirations may be.

However, bureaucracy has increased vastly. More than 400 additional advisers and staff work for the "Department of the Centre", which is not even a statutory Department, because it does not exist under the Belfast Agreement. There will be a proliferation of bureaucrats everywhere; this place has become a bureaucrat's paradise. How many of those packages of utter verbiage are really the product of Ministers and their staff, as opposed to that of civil servants with an unfettered opportunity to enjoy themselves?

The truth must be faced. What have the Executive done? They have done very little except to produce a series of grandiose promises for the future administration of Northern Ireland.

TOP

Mr McCartney highlighted many realities. If people did not smell the coffee before, they certainly have done since Saturday. Between now and 18 January, Members may ask themselves why they are here and whether they are wasting their time.

We must reduce poverty and educational disadvantage. I accept that we have not yet had much success in that regard, but we can have. We will not create change overnight; it will take years. This Assembly may achieve nothing, but I hope that the next one will achieve something, and that the one after that will achieve everything that must be done.

It will be a long haul. I thank Mr McCartney for reminding us that sometimes we get involved in fairy tales. To me, it is more a case of smoke and mirrors. We can fool some of the people out there some of the time, but we will not fool all of them all of the time. The Assembly parties must wake up to that fact.

I welcome the Programme for Government's provisions for early years education, such as the support for the Sure Start initiative. Problems such as educational disadvantage begin early in life. We must focus on the provision of lifelong learning. We hear continually about education and lifelong learning. However, that is not reflected in the Programme for Government - there is no such thread running through the document. It is important that children from disadvantaged areas have help at home from birth. At present, they do not always get that help because they come from disadvantaged homes.

The Programme for Government could have gone further. There was an opportunity to define where the real problems lie and to "invest in education skills", to use the Executive's term. One difficulty is that when children are born, it is perceived that the Health Service assumes responsibility for them, and the perception is that when they start school, that responsibility transfers to the Department of Education. Unfortunately, that is not true - the two go hand in hand. Where does the cross-cutting occur? In order to offer children the opportunity to develop, education must begin as soon as children are born. However, in Northern Ireland, we feel that the time for education is when children reach the age of three or four. Education must be seamless from the time a child is born, and the Health Service is partly responsibility for ensuring that that happens.

Disadvantage in schools must be addressed. We talk about initiatives to prepare 16- to 19-year-olds for employment in the modern world. An indictment of my constituency of North Belfast is that if a young person leaves school with no qualifications, he or she cannot study for, or sit, NVQ Level 3. That young person must leave the constituency to do so. That problem does not arise in any other Belfast constituency - the exam can be sat in West Belfast, South Belfast, or East Belfast. That sends out a message to young people in North Belfast. Another difficulty is that some young people struggle to achieve NVQ Level 1. There is something wrong with the system, and it must be overhauled. The programme's provisions tinker round the edges and do not deal with the real problems. To introduce such schemes for 16- to 18-year-olds is to leave it far too late. Those provisions must come earlier.

Funding for primary education poses another problem. What is primary education? It is the most important level of education - more important than third-level education. The situation is ridiculous. We need to reconsider where the funding is going and decide what it is that we want.

I have talked to nursery school principals in my area, and they tell me that the children are not ready for nursery school education. If we talk to the primary school principals, they say that when children come either directly from the home or from nursery school, they are not ready for primary education. The post-primary schools will advise that the children are not the finished product and that they cannot work with them. Children enter post-primary schools at the age of 11 yet they only have a reading age of nine. Everyone in charge of those sectors will say the same thing: "How do we prepare those children?".

There is no point sending children on to the next level of education when they are two to three years behind. We must ensure that they are ready for the next stage. A complete overhaul is needed, and we must get to grips with this matter now. We continue to throw money at the problem, but we are wasting it. Education is very important; it gives everyone a start in life, and there is no question that it determines people's socio-economic positions. We must take the matter seriously and tackle the disadvantages.

The Programme for Government gives us some hope for the direction that we wish to take. We should recognise that, and the fact that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister has implemented programmes that would not otherwise have existed.

However, we need to consider the problems that exist not only in urban areas but in rural areas. For example, we must address the educational disadvantage in rural areas and the struggle to keep small schools open and ensure that people receive an education. We must address all of those matters, and, unfortunately, this draft Programme for Government does not do that.

I commend the motion, but some points concern me. The priorities have remained constant since the first Programme for Government - "Growing as a Community", "Working for a Healthier People", "Investing in Education and Skills" - although I am concerned by the aim to destroy our successful grammar school system - "Securing a Competitive Economy" and "Developing Relations - North/South, East/West and Internationally".

When I was the Minister of the Environment, I considered the North/South Ministerial Council meetings to be an excellent way to work together as neighbours. With regard to constitutional concerns, it was confirmed at each meeting that there are two separate jurisdictions, and that was also acknowledged by the Minister with whom I worked.

The Programme for Government is huge, so I will be able to speak about very little of it. I commend its aims, although whether those are fulfilled is another matter.

On page 32, sub-priority 3, entitled "We will support victims", states:

I have a victims' group in Fermanagh, known as FEAR - Fear Encouraged Abandoning Roots. Good people had to flee their farms; if they had not done so, they would not be alive today. Can I get anything for them to help them reshape, rebuild and achieve? The words in the Programme for Government are hollow. Perhaps the Executive will rethink the matter.

The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety shows good intent. I hope that her statement concerning the provision of a new hospital in Enniskillen, or slightly north of that strategically located town, will be put into effect. The Minister spoke about the matter in her presentation of the consultation document 'Developing Better Services: Modernising Hospitals and Reforming Structures'. I cannot imagine the Minister ignoring the grave danger that so many people would face should the hospital be sited elsewhere. It must be recognised that if the new hospital were to be built in Enniskillen, 8,744 people would have to travel for more than 45 minutes for treatment; if it were to be built in Omagh, 24,250 people would have to travel for more than 45 minutes. The difference is shocking, and this is a very serious issue that cannot be ignored.

There is a statement in the document concerning a commitment to combating inequalities, which should never occur. That is a good point, with which I concur. However, many of our responsible citizens had to live with the inequality of receiving no protection from terrorism. So many were murdered and maimed, leaving broken homes galore, yet we hear regularly in the Assembly pretentious humbug from Sinn Féin about inequality. It forgets about the terrorism inflicted by its partners in the IRA, which it has never condemned.

Yesterday, other parties took the opportunity to criticise and abuse the UUP and my party leader. Let it be clearly understood that the UUP does not have to apologise to anyone about its role in the Assembly or at any point in the lifetime of Northern Ireland. The UUP has always worked constructively for this state, while others have tried to do Northern Ireland down. It has been the tactic of the destructive forces in Northern Ireland to hide behind a guise of virtue, while all the time they have been the destroyers.

The UUP is the genuine party in Northern Ireland. It always has been, and it always will be, for Northern Ireland within the Union. [Interruption].

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>