Some people have said that the draft Programme for Government is aspirational. Of course it is. It is aspirational until it is put into effect. All Programmes for Government are of that nature. Assembly Members will judge how this Administration puts that Programme for Government into effect.

As Chairperson of the Committee, I welcome the Programme for Government in general terms, and I welcome the specific commitments by the Administration to developing our infrastructure and repairing its neglect. That neglect was made evident on many occasions by myself and by members of the Committee for Regional Development. I welcome the commitment to the transportation strategy and to dealing with the problems that affect the water industry in Northern Ireland. The Water Service should receive the wholehearted support of the Administration. I shall judge the Administration on how it delivers in respect of providing new infrastructures for transportation and water.

The Committee for Regional Development is obliged to scrutinise the Government's actions and to monitor what the Department does with the money that it receives to carry out the two major projects.

I share Members' concerns that we may fall short with direct funding. However, we have a wonderful opportunity by way of the reinvestment and reform initiative, which the Deputy First Minister negotiated successfully with the Treasury. The initiative revolutionises the funding of public services in Northern Ireland. I welcome also the establishment of the strategic investment board, which will be critical in the delivery of investment to all Departments, especially the Department for Regional Development. I look forward to its proposals vis-à-vis our long-neglected infrastructure. As the Chairperson of the Committee for Regional Development, I welcome much in the draft Programme for Government, and, regardless of their political perspective, Committee members should give it a general welcome also.

Members are committed to making devolution work, though perhaps from different political perspectives. Mr McCartney seems to be the exception to the rule because, essentially, he is anti-devolutionist. Members can criticise the Government and the Administration, but at least all of us, in the main, support the concept of devolution. Of course, devolution has not delivered immediately; there is much in the pipeline, such as the reviews of rating policy and public administration, both of which are vital to the development of administration in Northern Ireland.

An old uncle once advised me to "take one bite of the elephant at a time, son". Members should heed that advice, because we must operate in a way that gradually implements the things we need to do. The review of rating policy is essential to the future structure of our internal revenue, and the review of public administration is important for efficiency. However, it takes time to implement such measures and to process those reports, and, therefore, I counsel patience.

If we had more political co-operation and harmony, most of our problems would disappear, but, and I tread gently here, the weekend's events have cast a blight over today's debate. It seems that, instead of the plug's being pulled immediately, it will be pulled gradually but inevitably in January. I exhort those who are committed to devolution to think again. To make the Programme for Government work, Members should renew their commitment to the agreement because, no matter what their political perspective, the draft Programme for Government is good.

Having said that, I have at least one serious criticism about the section on community relations: it is not as strong as it could be. I do not detect the necessary urgency required to tackle community relations. Paragraph 4.16 states that

That undertaking is not urgent enough to facilitate the development of a good community relations policy that will ameliorate the serious problems on our streets and in our communities. More thought must go into it, because it is at the core of our political problems. We must effect an attitudinal change in political and community values that will transform our community and bring real peace and harmony to our streets.

Therefore, the Executive should reconsider their approach to community relations. I am told that a document was prepared and presented to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister in January but has not yet seen the light of day. That is a matter of deep regret, if true. It is time that the Executive reassessed their position, and it is time that we had a well-worked-out community relations programme to tackle effectively our most serious and pressing problem. I want to see more urgency and more detail.

The Member will draw his remarks to a close.

I had not intended to speak in this debate but, having listened to its tone, I thought that perhaps I could add some reality to some of the comments that have been made. I do not intend to refer to the events of the weekend because the problems that caused them lie in history. Perhaps some Members can search their consciences about some of the things that they could have done, but failed to do, to help the process.

Turning to education, sub-priority 1 of the draft Programme for Government aims to give our children the best start in life. I welcome that. I am sure that Members would not deny children that start. I commend in particular the development of programmes such as Sure Start, which will give children who live in areas of multiple deprivation a firm foundation for future progress on which they must build. The deprivation of certain areas, particularly in the city, has already been commented on.

I welcome the proposed changes to the early years curriculum, because that is another vital building block in our education system. It will help underachieving primary schools, in particular. All of those are necessary building blocks if we are to build a significant and viable second-level education in the future.

When a school has adopted one of those programmes to help it raise its standards, and those standards have been raised and recognised by the inspectorate, the school may find that, instead of being rewarded for its success, its extra financial and staffing resources are reduced. That reinforces the problem. In such situations, we must ask why we try to improve things.

Skills are important in the curriculum, particularly transferable skills. The examination of the curriculum as it exists, and as it might exist, is welcome. If these skills are transferable, they become relevant to the needs of employers and training agencies, and our economic future depends on them. Sub-priority 4 of the draft programme refers specifically to those needs. It is on these skills that our future prosperity depends.

Looking at the wording of the enterprise, trade and investment sub-priorities, I think that they have missed a great opportunity - an opportunity that we would not have sought, but that is being thrust upon us. We have suffered a downturn in the high-tech and telecommunications sector, particularly in east Antrim. That sector has a highly skilled workforce that is currently underemployed or unemployed. It is incumbent on the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to seize that opportunity.

The Department talks about seizing the opportunity, and it must ensure that the critical mass of research and development personnel and those with high-tech skills are used as entrepreneurs to act as springboards to launch us into new unexplored areas of technology.

On the subject of special education, I welcome the recognition in paragraph 6.8 of the importance of special educational needs provision. That educational area has been neglected for a long time, and capital infrastructure must be upgraded. We must also focus on the needs of those young people who leave special education between the ages of 16 and 19 and for whom adequate onward provision into the Jobskills programme, along with preparation to sustain them in adult life, is not available. I bring that matter to the attention of the relevant authority.

I trust that the programme will not be deflected on sub-priority 2 in that section, because of the ministerial focus on the Burns Report and all that flows from it, but will ensure that that firm foundation of high quality early years learning and properly funded primary education will be maintained. Other Members have referred to the importance of primary education. That is the core of our education system, and it is not funded properly . I am concerned that significant sums have still not been moved in that direction. If core funding, core staffing and a relevant curriculum can be brought together to address children's need, both at primary and secondary level, we will have a firm foundation on which to move forward. That will ensure that the band of well-qualified school leavers, who currently exceed the attainment levels of their peer group in England and Wales, can be expanded.

In paragraph 6.19 growth in enrolments in integrated schools and Irish-medium education is portrayed as desirable, and I do not demur in relation to that suggestion. However, I am concerned about the impact of the enhanced status of those schools upon the management of the maintained and controlled schools sectors. The Department should ensure that there is equity of treatment for all children in all types of schools.

In 2.2 the programme states that

In east and south Antrim, serious social consequences are being experienced, and I ask that the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and the Minister for Regional Development seriously consider how that problem can be tackled.

Extra funding was allocated to the Health Service. However, because of the convoluted management structures, it appears to be a bureaucratic black hole. No matter how much money we pour into it, no significant difference will be made unless we tackle those structures.

The condition of our infrastructure is abysmal. Some of the priority schemes seem to have more to do with political geography than with need and strategic issues. I refer specifically to the A2 between Newtownabbey and Carrickfergus - a road that carries more traffic than parts of our motorway system. It is the vital artery upon which Carrickfergus and its commercial expansion depend, yet the short stretch of one-and-a-half miles is not in the Programme for Government.

Sewerage and water infrastructure present an equally sorry state in east Antrim. The recent flooding episodes and the increasing planning permissions that are being granted in the area point that up. The document refers to a "clean, green" image, and I like to think that a "clean" image could be achieved in east Antrim. It concerned me somewhat that at least one Member commented that we would be expected to take on a "green" image.

In east Antrim, industrial pollution is a problem along with car emissions, and if the proper infrastructure were in place, those problems would be close to being resolved.

The Member will draw his comments to a close.

Finally, our areas of special scientific interest and areas of outstanding natural beauty are under constant threat from the Department, the very one that is supposed to protect them. I have great concerns for my constituency.

As usual, and as we would expect, this debate has become a backslapping exercise by those in the pro-agreement parties. Those Members use the Programme for Government as an opportunity to tell people how wonderful the agreement is, how it has delivered better services to people in Northern Ireland, and how much better life is as a result of this institution and its peculiarities. However, sometimes, reality shone through. A few Members have voiced their opposition, including Seamus Close, Bob McCartney and Peter Robinson. Even Alban Maginness admitted that we have been a bit heavy on reviews and a bit slow in delivering. As some old wise man told him, you should "take one bite of the elephant at a time".

I am afraid that the evidence is that the elephant is not even getting a wee nip, let alone a bite, taken out of it.

David Trimble promised his party, and Mark Durkan promised the Assembly that, over the term of this Administration, Assembly costs would be neutral because of savings on bureaucracy in other areas. We are not even at the starting point, and, as a result of some of the measures that have been introduced, we are adding still more bureaucracy.

I wish to concentrate on education, a subject on which Ken Robinson touched. If each Department followed education's example, we would see the same abysmal failure. Next year, we shall spend £85 million more on education than we did this year. For that, we would expect something more to be delivered. However, many of the measures that the Minister of Education promised last year have not yet been delivered. When we compare the draft Programme for Government with last year's programme, we see that the targets that were set last year have not only been downgraded, but put back for two years. Those are vital targets, not figures dreamt up by someone in the Department, and they affect the lives of ordinary youngsters.

For example, targets were set for literacy and numeracy levels. By this year, 77% of children were supposed to have reached level 4 of Key Stage 2 in English and maths. That has now been downgraded. The target for the number of children passing their GCSEs at grades A to C has been downgraded and put back two years. The target for reducing the number of youngsters leaving school with no GCSEs has been downgraded and put back two years. The target for reducing the number of pupils who have poor attendance records at primary and secondary schools has been downgraded and put back two years. The target for reducing the number of schoolchildren with multiple suspensions has been downgraded and put back two years. I could go on.

Every target that was set last year has been reduced and put back two years. However, the Minister of Education will be given £85 million more to spend on delivering the service. We must ask whether the Minister needs a caning, or whether the Executive need a caning for voting to give him more money when he tells them that he will deliver less. This is hardly a success for the Administration. We give the Minister more, and we get back less. Of course, that "less" means fewer youngsters leaving school equipped for life; more youngsters wandering the streets because of multiple suspensions or bad attendance, and worse conditions in our schools.

The document is full of contradictions. For example, Ken Robinson referred to rationalisation. We have been told that rationalisation is needed in the educational interest of pupils. With that in mind, you would think that there are too many schools and that we need to reduce their number; the number of places should be reduced, and that should be the aim of the Department - not a bit of it. In the same document we read that the Minister is going to spend more money on providing more Irish-medium schools.

The latest Irish-medium school, which opened in September 2002 and caters for eight pupils, cost the Department and the Southern Education and Library Board over £300,000 - that is what is meant by wasting resources. More Irish-medium schools and integrated schools are to be built. In a recent reply to a question in the House, the Minister said that integrated schools got 20% of the resources last year, though on the basis of the needs assessment they deserved only 5%. It seems that the trend is upward. What happened to the idea of rationalisation of schools? Why build more schools if you are saying that you need to cut the number of schools? These are the types of contradictions that are in the Programme for Government.

This is not a success story: this is an example of the Executive pandering to Ministers in the interests of keeping the ship afloat. Regardless of whether Ministers are delivering, the Executive will hand out money to them. That is one of the reasons why I disagree with Seamus Close about tax-raising powers. God help the people of Northern Ireland if the Assembly ever gets tax-raising powers.

I could have talked about other Departments, but I have cited one example from one Department. Money has been squandered already, and we should not be contemplating giving more powers to Ministers, and to the Assembly, to take more money out of the pockets of taxpayers to be squandered in the way in which the Programme for Government illustrates.

I wish to make some comments on behalf of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment. First, I welcome the commitments given in the draft Programme for Government announced by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister yesterday. When coupled with Dr Farren's Budget statement today, it becomes apparent that, it is to be hoped, there is a commitment to joined-up Government in the Assembly.

The Programme for Government highlights the positive economic factors currently underwriting the local economy: comparatively low unemployment; high employment levels; increased manufacturing output and improved levels of gross domestic product for the local population. However, I must echo the points raised by Ken Robinson in relation to the downturn in the IT industry, particularly in the east Antrim area. That issue has to be taken on board by the Minister.

Undoubtedly those factors are also assisted by the relative stability of our political structures and the recognition that devolution is working. The positive economic indicators mean that the Executive can be more proactive and forward looking in dealing with the problems in our society for which we are responsible. I share all of the concerns voiced by Alban Maginness on the need for greater focus in dealing with community relations, which is not really addressed in the Programme for Government as well as it should be.

This time of relative economic prosperity should not be wasted; the bedrock should be laid now to avoid some of the worst aspects of life when, at some hypothetical time in the future, the economy is less buoyant. I remember one of the big issues that we had to deal with in the last Assembly of 1982-86 - where I held the same position that I hold in the present Assembly - was that unemployment was running at 20%. That was a major problem. Neither the Executive nor the Assembly should be complacent about the present situation.

The draft Programme for Government recognises that infrastructural problems exist, and those problems must be overcome for there to be an effective and competitive economy, so I give a guarded welcome to the continued commitment to the reinvestment and reform initiative, and I hope to see that assist in the continuing development of the economy.

I share the view contained in yesterday's document that the Executive have a proactive role in certain areas of governance and that, in respect of the economy, the most effective role is that of a skilled facilitator. In the light of that, I applaud the Executive's decision, and commend particularly the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, to put the money allocated for inward investment projects on a more strategic footing. To agree that inward investment projects should be funded from within an allocated range and, due to the possibility of underspend on certain occasions, that this vital area should be given priority in monitoring is radical, strategic and forward looking. I suspect that that would not have been agreed in the days of direct rule.

With regard to the specific proposals in the draft Programme for Government, I endorse many of the suggestions contained in the "Securing a Competitive Economy" priority. We must continue with the commitment to invest in research and development. Our economy must compete with other blue-chip economies in bioengineering, aeronautics and information technology. To be at the cutting edge there will require financial support and other commitments from the Executive.

Paragraph 7.7 lists the sub-priorities for this overall priority. They make a challenging and aspirational shopping list. We need better infrastructure to integrate the various planning processes and to be entrepreneurial, creative, innovative and competitive as a society. We must develop the undoubted potential of tourism, untie certain shackles of regulation and protect, enhance and promote the environment.

To achieve what is set out will require a strategic and focused approach. It will be challenging and will require a team effort. I stress that that is important because when we are dealing with the bread-and-butter issues in our Committee - and I hope in the other Committees too - there is a genuine attempt to deal effectively with the issues at hand, and a team effort will be required. Responsibility does not lie with one Minister or Department alone. Departments must continue to work collaboratively and do more to remove the silo mindset.

We in the Assembly must also play our part in scrutinising the Departments' work and ensuring that the challenging targets contained in the draft Programme for Government are met. The Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment will not shirk from that task.

TOP

I too support many of the proposals in the draft Programme for Government. As yesterday, I almost feel like I am revising for an exam without being sure if it will ever take place, particularly given the announcement last weekend. As I said yesterday, many of the targets are now in question. Some of the legislation given a First Stage reading yesterday may not now progress because of the decisions that may be taken in January.

I am concerned about the message that we are sending to people if they are attempting to plan for the future, particularly the plans around the workforce initiatives.

The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister has been doing needs and effectiveness evaluations; it has been looking at the workforce in many areas and making proposals and recommendations. However, all of that may now be up in the air.

I rarely find myself in agreement with Sammy Wilson in his choice of targets. However, if this Programme for Government is about anything, it should be about the future of our children and young people. I am concerned about the number of young people who wander our streets - those with poor school attendance or multiple suspensions - there is an overlap between that and antisocial behaviour. I am concerned also that the targets in last year's Programme for Government have gone down, and not up, for that group of children. I am concerned also that those young people - most of them in their early teens - merit only a few lines in the Programme for Government. This is the draft programme, and the responsibility lies with the Minister of Education, or the Executive, to reconsider the message that they are sending out to youth and to youth workers. We are asking for only a 2% increase in attendance among youth organisations to raise it from 32% to 34%.

We have many innovative projects that we should be sustaining and putting into the Programme for Government. It not only involves children attending youth clubs: it involves outreach youth workers going out onto the streets, finding initiatives to attract young people to keep them away from the antisocial behaviour that we are told is on the increase. I am extremely disillusioned with that section of the Programme for Government if that is the message that we are sending out.

It is good to see that there are some preventative programmes in the Health Service for our young people. There will be 2,000 extra places on Sure Start. However, many on Sure Start schemes do not know whether the schemes will be in place after March 2003 when their funding runs out. There is an anomaly: they will be given 2,000 extra places by December 2003 but they are not sure whether the programmes will be in place.

We should be encouraging these positive preventative childcare programmes instead of putting children into residential care. It is good to see projects on foster care and adoption. However, those targets should be increased, especially for time out and support.

I have just come from the Health Committee's inquiry into child protection at which social workers said that they were under enormous stress at present. There are 300 unallocated places in one trust, which social workers cannot allocate because they are under so much pressure. Nevertheless, we often hear about tragedies, such as the recent death of baby Jasmine McGowan and in which social workers were involved. That poses enormous questions about social services.

We must not take our eyes off the ball by constantly talking about acute care and the modernisation of hospitals while forgetting about the great deal of preventative work that must be done by those in primary care, community care and especially in social services.

I am concerned that there is still no mention of a central maternity hospital - a women's centred hospital for the Belfast area. If the Hayes Report is implemented, the Downpatrick Maternity Hospital and the Lagan Valley Hospital will close, and there will be no anaesthetics at the Mater Hospital. Therefore, many more babies will have to be placed in one hospital. It is open to question whether that will be the Royal Maternity Hospital or the Jubilee Hospital - it does not matter. We must know from the Programme for Government that there will be a new hospital in the next few years; there should have been a line or two about that. Many women were better looked after 20 years ago than they are today.

A message must be send out to the doctors who are still boycotting the local health and social care groups that commissioning of services will happen. The draft Programme for Government simply states that that may happen in the next year. To be able to say that there is a target for a start to the commissioning of services would be a positive thing.

Sammy Wilson was critical about Ministers, but made no comment about the Minister for Regional Development. The Department for Regional Development will not begin to introduce detailed alternative funding proposals until September 2003. It will take an entire year to find funding proposals to support transportation, water and sewerage infrastructure. I have no doubt that other Members have commented on that. It is important that a message be sent out that those are some of the major problems that we will tackle. However, we will be sitting in the next Assembly before any proposals will even be seen.

I am concerned that there are few details in the draft Programme for Government about careers guidance. The task force report on long-term unemployment was disappointing; its recommendations speak for themselves. I have previously questioned the practice of civil servants being placed on task forces rather than people from outside organisations being brought in. The Department for Employment and Learning has made only limited recommendations about careers advice, especially for those who have literacy and numeracy problems.

The Chairperson of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Dr Hendron): I apologise for my absence during the debate. The Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety has been meeting all afternoon.

I have studied the section of the draft Programme for Government that deals with health, and I welcome the fact that additional money is being injected into the health budget. At a time of competing demands, it is a welcome recognition of the problems facing health. The emphasis must be on ensuring that the money is invested wisely and used effectively. The Comptroller and Auditor General should have responsibility for the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. It is well known that he has responsibility for only nine of the 10 Departments.

Although the money is welcome, not all of it is new money. The funds for the cancer centre have already been announced. The emphasis on reinvestment and reform is important, because the Health Service is crying out for investment. There is also the matter of family care services. People are living longer, and those dreadful words "bed blocking" are disrespectful to elderly people in hospital. However, there are not enough places for them and if nursing homes and residential homes were opened up to make way for people who do not require any further hospital treatment, that could solve the problem of bed blocking and waiting lists.

Monica McWilliams mentioned the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety's inquiry into the protection of children. It would be inappropriate to go into the detail of that major issue. However, it is heartbreaking to speak to social workers, paediatricians and others who deal with the protection of children, and with the lack of resources in all four health and social services boards.

I feel strongly about the minimal funding that goes to health promotion, considering the costs of the whole Health Service. In paragraph 5.4, the draft Programme for Government states that

That is not new evidence. The importance of looking after oneself has been known for a long time. When I was a child, people used to say "an apple a day keeps the doctor away". That may be a slight exaggeration, but good living and eating properly every day are important for young children. However, that message does not always get through to families. It is more difficult for families who live in social deprivation to concentrate on those matters, and the better-off families seem to have the finance and the ability to pay more attention to that important part of health.

It could be said that we are training our children from an early age to develop heart disease. That is well known by people who look at the coronary arteries of young people. Everyone knows about the high incidence of heart disease in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland's first positron emission tomography scanner was recently introduced at the Royal Victoria Hospital, and the Minister, Bairbre de Brún, was present at the launch. She has always recognised the need for that machine, and I have mentioned it many times in the House.

Everyone knows what X-rays, CAT scanners and MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) scanners are; positron emission tomography is at the height of that technology. That technology is available to the people of Northern Ireland - there is already a machine at Blackrock in the South of Ireland - to diagnose heart disease and certain cancers, but, sadly, it operates only one day a week. I am not trying to lecture the Health Minister, because I know that she has put in a bid to the Executive programme funds. That scanner must operate seven days a week.

Paragraph 5·6 of the draft Programme for Government states:

That is true, but when one considers heart disease, strokes and cancer together, diabetes comes to mind. There is hardly an extended family in Northern Ireland that is not affected by diabetes. Diabetes sufferers and those with a family history of diabetes - who are potential sufferers - are more prone to heart disease, strokes and certain forms of cancer. There was a major debate on diabetes in the Chamber last year, and the motion was passed unanimously. It is important that health recommendations contained in the draft Programme for Government are taken on board, because diabetes affects almost every family in Northern Ireland sooner or later. I am pleased that the Minister is in the Chamber for this debate.

In welcoming the opportunity to speak in this debate today, I would like to concentrate on the issues of housing and community infrastructure by examining the relevant proposals which have been laid out in the draft Programme for Government. The issue of housing is an issue that affects every person in Northern Ireland, but unfortunately in our society many people do not have access to a warm and comfortable home. I am quoting directly from the document:

Housing policy must be relative to the people and to the locality in its targeting, and it must be responsive to local needs, aiming at all times to helping those in most need.

Good housing provided well is crucial, and I welcome the fact that the Government are committed to making this a fundamental objective. A good home is a basic human right, and no one in the twenty-first century should have to live in sub-standard housing, but, unfortunately, this is a reality for many.

Statistics show that there are 44,000 unfit properties in Northern Ireland. Some 14,000 properties do not have central heating, and 10,000 are in urgent need of major repairs and improvements. These figures are staggering and, unfortunately, show that housing need here is, in fact, extremely high. The main aim when drafting housing policy should be to target those who are socially excluded and the most vulnerable in society. This objective must not get lost among pointless red tape and bureaucracy. The draft Programme for Government says that

In examining the provision of social housing, we have only to look at the housing waiting lists to discover that the requirement for social housing is high. The waiting list has been fairly steady at 20,000 to 21,000 over most of the past decade, although it must be noted that there has been a pronounced rise in the past three years. It is of great importance, therefore, that the supply and demand chain flows at all times and demand is not afforded the opportunity to outnumber supply.

The Government must take into account the fact that there will always be those who cannot afford to enter the housing market and must, therefore, seek to strike a balance between the housing stock which the Housing Executive intends to sell off and the building of new social housing. Current levels show that fewer than 2,000 new social housing units are being built by housing associations each year, while there is an annual loss of over 4,000 Housing Executive properties, so it is obvious that supply is falling short of demand. Studies show that planned levels of housing investment in new build social housing may not be sufficient to meet need over the next decade, which proves that urgent changes must be made to accommodate the demand.

The issue of housing is a major problem in my constituency of South Belfast, in terms of poor condition and disrepair. In fact, extreme levels of deprivation are evident there. As the city of Belfast prepares to bid for the coveted title of European capital of culture in 2008, there is a very sad and disturbing reality behind the glamorous façade of the city centre. This is the reality of traditional working-class communities living with severe deprivation.

Turning to community infrastructure, sub-priority 7 in the Programme for Government says:

The Department for Social Development has identified many core wards in South Belfast as suffering from acute levels of deprivation. These areas are characterised by a lack of inward investment, a skills deficit and a strong dependency culture. It is important, therefore, that these areas are identified and resources are mobilised to tackle the extreme levels of social exclusion and deprivation. Investment in these areas will enable fragmented communities to come together and form a strong community infrastructure. It is imperative that these smaller communities do not become engulfed in the bigger picture. If we are to build a city, which is strong, vibrant and worthy of the title European capital of culture, we must take a bottom-up approach and provide the cement to keep our communities together.

I would like to conclude by touching briefly on finance. It is obvious that all Government Departments are struggling with the resources available to implement their strategies, and, unfortunately, many projects are on the back-burner due to a lack of finance. I therefore ask the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister what commitment they will give to ensure that the necessary resources are put in place to enable the ideals in the draft Programme to be achieved.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Agus mé ag labhairt ar an dréachtChlár Rialtais seo, ar ndóigh beidh mé ag díriú m'airde ar na ceisteanna sin a bhaineann le mo Roinn.

Ba mhaith liom, áfach, an deis seo a fhreastal le haontú leis an bhéim leanúnach atá an Coiste Feidhmiúcháin a chur ar an eisiamh sóisialta. Is trí chomhpháirtíocht éifeachtach, ag obair sa Choiste Feidhmiúcháin agus leis an earnáil dheonach agus leis an earnáil phobail, a thig linn an dul chun cinn atá riachtanach a dhéanamh.

Is léir ó mhórán dár gcuid seirbhísí na deacrachtaí a chruthaigh an easpa infheistíochta san am a chuaigh thart, ach is sa tSeirbhís Sláinte is follasaigh iad. Ní thabharfaimid aghaidh ar na ceisteanna seo tríd a bheith ag útamáil leo ag an imeall. Tá clár de dhíth orainn a chuirfeas athrach bunúsach i bhfeidhm, agus caithfimid acmhainní a dhíriú ar na háiteanna is mó a bhfuil gá leo.

In commenting on the draft Programme for Government, I want to concentrate on the issues that are directly relevant to my Department. However, I personally endorse the Executive's continuing emphasis on the need to tackle the problem of social exclusion. Progress can be made only through meaningful partnership between the Executive and the voluntary and community sectors.

The difficulties created by lack of investment in the past are clearly visible in many services, but they are most obvious in health. We will not address those issues by merely tinkering around the edges. We need a programme of fundamental change, and we must target resources where they are most needed.

I agree entirely with the Minister of Finance and Personnel's comments that we must make the most effective use of all resources and, in particular, with his emphasis on the need to cut out waste, reduce bureaucracy and ensure that taxpayers can see that they are getting value for money.

In recent years my Department, with the active support of boards and trusts, has placed considerable importance on measures to ensure effectiveness in the use of resources and to improve overall financial management of resources. The success of the new management arrangements is reflected in the break-even position achieved last year, and the effectiveness of our services in comparison with those in England was confirmed objectively by the needs and effectiveness study. More can be achieved, and the reform plans, which will be prepared by the end of October, will provide a focus for that work.

"Working for a Healthier People" remains a key Programme for Government priority, and we all welcome that. That chapter identifies some of the key fundamental changes that we must make, including the cross-departmental approach in investing for health, the future restructuring of hospital services, enhanced emphasis on standards of clinical and social care governance, proposals for new organisational structures and the development of primary and community care services.

The key test of the Programme for Government will be the new, improved outcomes and targets, which are set out in the text and the associated public service agreement. The provisions of the draft Budget will enable me to tackle some of the most pressing demands on services, and that is reflected in the specific targets in my Department's public service agreement. I am aware, however, that that will take us only part of the way towards addressing increasing needs for hospital and community services.

I will be able to introduce a series of interrelated measures to reduce some of the pressures on hospitals. Those include allocating additional resources to treat more people in hospitals and, in particular, to expand renal, cancer and cardiac services. I will also be able to support an additional 300 people in community settings to prevent inappropriate admissions to hospital and address waiting in the community. It will also be important to expand the range and volume of schemes and initiatives to give vulnerable people short periods of care outside the hospital environment and to support the development of primary care services.

The resources will also allow me to take some steps to strengthen community provision for people with mental health difficulties and learning disabilities who are currently in long-stay hospitals and expand the Sure Start scheme for deprived children and their families.

Last, but by no means least, the resources will support the implementation of the proposals in the 'Best Practice - Best Care' report, which will establish a framework to raise the quality of services provided to the community and tackle issues of poor performance across health and personal social services.

The problem is that over 90% of the increase in resources for the health budget is required simply to meet the inescapable cost of maintaining existing services and commitments already announced in the reinvestment and reform initiative and the Executive programme funds, which support valuable enhancements to existing services, including much needed hospital capacity.

The scale of existing commitments is such that £27 million is available next year for new service development. That will enable the modest development of services, but it is not enough to meet increasing demands and to provide the level and quality of service to which we aspire. It does little to address the £200 million funding gap between here and England. Although I welcome the additionality as regards the resources made available, the Programme for Government enables only limited improvements to existing services as part of the overall settlement. Those represent only 15% of my highest-priority service development bids.

Robert McCartney and Monica McWilliams asked about local health and social care groups. Those groups have been formally established and are appointing permanent chairpersons and managers. They are already forging ahead with their agenda to develop primary care services and to take responsibility for commissioning secondary care services. My target is for some groups to begin the commissioning of some services from April 2003.

The number of people waiting for treatment is a huge concern. However, I plan to continue to expand hospital capacity over the next one to two years, and the reinvestment and reform initiative has financed an additional 100 beds. I shall then be able to improve cardiology services and cardiac surgery. I shall invest more in community and intermediate care to help to avoid hospital admissions where possible and to provide for patients' earlier discharge. I envisage, first and foremost, ensuring that the position does not deteriorate further as year-on-year demands increase. As the additional capacity and other improvements in hospitals begin to bear fruit, fewer people will have to wait.

The Rev William McCrea and Mr Joe Byrne mentioned hospital services in their constituencies. After a discussion in the Executive, I issued the consultation paper 'Developing Better Services: Modernising Hospitals and Reforming Structures' on 12 June. The paper sets out an agenda for a major modernisation of the acute hospital system and proposals for the reform of the administrative structure of health and personal social services. Consultation will continue until 31 October 2002. No decisions have been reached on any of the proposals, including the position of Mid-Ulster Hospital. All information arising from the consultation will be considered carefully, and I hope that final decisions on acute services will be taken before the end of the year.

Most domestic issues have been mentioned, so I will focus on international relations as outlined on page 83 of the draft Programme for Government. I welcome the commitment to strengthening our relationships with North America, and I acknowledge the fine work of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister in that respect. I am sorry that Mr McCartney is not present to hear me praise the Ulster Unionists.

Given the quality of the research and development carried out in our universities, and the investment in our science parks, we are well placed to attract new, well-paid jobs of a sustainable nature in the medium and long term. However, I worry that the present political uncertainty will do nothing to attract inward investors.

I turn now to our international relations in another direction: the Third World. I ask the Minister to consider seriously the benefits of such partnerships, which, I admit, are more likely to be outgoing, but not exclusively so. I believe passionately that we can learn much from Third-World countries in Africa and elsewhere about how to prioritise needs and to respect our environment.

In a global village in which many of our decisions affect people in other parts of the world, it seems appropriate that we should build strong links with the Third World. Last week, my Ulster Unionist colleague David McClarty and I spent a few days with Zomba Council in Malawi, where the average life expectancy has now dropped from 43 years to 37 years, and where half the children will die before the age of five, as a result of Aids, cholera or malaria.

Since our society is renowned for its generosity, it seems appropriate that the Assembly should encourage linkages, which would mean the exchange of technical information; training; sponsorship, and the resourcing of materials to equip hospitals that have no drugs and schools that have no books. Much could be done through local councils, universities and other public services, which would welcome the encouragement of international dimensions.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>