northern ireland assembly Monday 28 January 2008 Assembly Business: Ministerial Statement: Executive Committee Business: Oral Answers to Questions: Executive Committee Business: Committee Business: The Assembly met at 12.00 noon (Mr Speaker in the Chair). Members observed two minutes’ silence. Suspension of Standing Orders The First Minister (Rev Dr Ian Paisley): I beg to move That Standing Orders 10(2) to 10(4), inclusive, be suspended for 28 January 2008. The deputy First Minister and I have tabled a motion to seek the Assembly’s endorsement of the Programme for Government and the investment strategy for Northern Ireland. I understand that the Business Committee has allocated six hours for this item of business. Therefore, we have also tabled a motion to suspend Standing Orders to allow business to continue beyond 6.00 pm. That will ensure that as many Members as possible have an opportunity to contribute to this important debate. Mr Speaker: Before I put the Question, I remind Members that resolution of the motion requires cross-community support. Question put and agreed to. Resolved (with cross-community support): That Standing Orders 10(2) to 10(4), inclusive, be suspended for 28 January 2008. Mr Speaker: Given that the motion has been agreed, if required, today’s sitting may continue beyond 7.00 pm. The Appointment of Commissioners Designate for Victims and Survivors Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister that the First Minister wishes to make a statement on the outcome of the appointment of a commissioner for victims and survivors. The First Minister (Rev Dr Ian Paisley): We are glad to see, in the public gallery, a good number of those who represent victims and survivors. We hope that something that will be said today from the Benches will bring them some help and strength. Before making the statement, the deputy First Minister and I wish to express our regret that its details were reported in the press on Friday. Our intention, as was made clear over the past few months, was that the first public announcement of our decision would be made to the Assembly. We all agree that it is regrettable that the press reports preceded today’s statement. The deputy First Minister and I have come to the House today to set out for Members, as we promised, how we intend to move forward on the issue of how we provide support and help for victims and survivors. These are some of the most vulnerable people in our Province. They have suffered great personal loss over the years, and we are determined that they should not be left behind. The deputy First Minister and I have been working together intensely on the issue for many months, and believe that moving forward is pivotal. We have already demonstrated our commitment by delivering over £33 million in the Budget for that area of work over the next three years. Of that £33 million, £6 million is new money, as announced in the Assembly last week by the Minister of Finance and Personnel. Our recognition today of the needs and concerns of victims and survivors moves on to the start of delivery for all those in Northern Ireland who suffered over decades of conflict, terror and strife. A key part of that relates to the issue of a commissioner for victims and survivors. Members will be aware that the process for that appointment began under direct rule. They will, moreover, recall that on 8 October 2007, the deputy First Minister and I announced that we had decided to extend the appointment process. Some potential applicants might have been deterred from putting themselves forward under direct rule. We formed the view that by extending the appointment process, the post would be more firmly grounded in the new political environment and the person who was appointed would have broad support. We are able to announce the outcome of that appointment process. The decision to extend the competition resulted in an additional 38 applicants coming forward. Following interviews, a combined list was drawn up of individuals who were deemed suitable for appointment by both the initial interview panel and by the extended process as announced on 8 October 2007. As we were to get the best possible person for the job, each of the seven candidates was invited to give a short presentation to the deputy First Minister and myself. The impact of the quality and delivery of those presentations, coupled with the candidates’ drive and enthusiasm to make a real difference, had a profound effect on our thinking and our approach to this highly sensitive and complex issue. Following the presentations, we came to the conclusion that we should take advantage of all the skills and experience that we could possibly bring together to chart the future for all those who have been neglected for so long. Our firm belief is that a team of four commissioners working together — in essence, a victims’ commission — is the best way forward. Given the significant backlog of urgent work and the range of difficult challenges that face us in this area, these four people will have much more capacity to engage directly with victims and survivors than a single commissioner. To put it simply, they will be much more personally available to victims and survivors than a single commissioner. For example, a single commissioner would, inevitably, have had to delegate many activities, including consultation and liaison, to a secretariat. It would also have been inevitable that many specific projects would have had to be undertaken by consultants. The four commissioners will be expected to undertake these and other important tasks themselves — although, obviously, administrative support will be provided for them. Accordingly, I am pleased to announce that, in response to an invitation, four of the candidates on the list of those considered suitable for the post of commissioner have indicated their willingness to act in a joint capacity as commissioners designate in a new victims’ and survivors’ commission. The four people who will make up the new commission are Brendan McAllister, Patricia MacBride, Bertha McDougall and Michael Nesbitt. We anticipate that the commission will have the same functions as the post of Victims’ Commissioner described in the Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006. It is our intention to make formal appointments in due course, but we must first introduce the necessary legislation to create the victims’ and survivors’ commission that I have described today. A Bill to provide for the establishment of the commission will be introduced as soon as possible. Subject, of course, to the decision of the Assembly, we will wish to proceed with the formal appointments as soon as possible thereafter. I want to make it clear that, in the interim, there is much important work for the four commissioners designate to carry out. We want them to sit down together and get to grips with setting out an agreed work programme for the new commission. That will be a crucial first step as we move towards a better service for those touched by the events of our troubled past. It is envisaged that the work plan will cover all the issues that impact on victims and survivors, including a review of support services, legislation, and the setting up of a victims’ and survivors’ forum. The deputy First Minister and I will continue to take a close interest in this work. We pledge our full support for the four people who are taking on one of the most important tasks facing our society. I want them to know that we will be available to them when they need us as we all seek to move forward together. For us, they will be the primary authority on victims and survivors. 12.15 pm In commending this announcement to the House, I ask Members to give it careful consideration, not least because of the importance of the work that we are asking the new victims’ and survivors’ commission to do. Remember also that this announcement is really for those who have been largely without a voice. Today, we are giving them a voice — a real voice. It is a voice that will reach the heart of Government and will be heard and listened to for the very first time. May God speed this work with His blessing. The Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (Mr Kennedy): Mr Speaker, I understand that questions will be answered by the deputy First Minister; is that correct? Mr Speaker: That is correct. Mr Kennedy: I thank the First Minister for his statement and I acknowledge the appointment of the new commissioners designate. I wish them well in the difficult and complex work with which they have been charged. However, I register concern at the manner through which the announcement of their appointments was brought into the public domain. It was unsatisfactory that the announcement was leaked to the press, and that has proved unhelpful to us as we come to terms with the decisions that have been made. Will the appointments be to full-time posts? Given that the original and subsequent advertisements announcing the job of Interim Commissioner for Victims and Survivors indicated that there would be a singular rather than a plural outcome, will the deputy First Minister tell the House when the decision to increase the number of commissioners was taken? Will he also tell us how that decision was taken, who was consulted, and was legal advice sought to justify increasing the number of appointments? There may be concerns arising; for example, more people may have applied had they known that there was to be a panel of commissioners. Will the deputy First Minister assure me that the legislation, when it is brought to the House, will confirm the independent status of the proposed victims’ and survivors’ commission? The statement said that commissioners will be the primary authority on victims and survivors, but will they be the independent primary authority on victims and survivors? On behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party, I ask the deputy First Minister to advise us on the status of the report of the Interim Commissioner for Victims and Survivors, Mrs McDougall, given that she has been appointed as one of the new commissioners designate. The deputy First Minister (Mr M McGuinness): I thank the Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister for his contribution. The First Minister and I share his concern about the leaking of the information and on how unhelpful that was to all of us. I confirm that the posts will be on a full-time basis. Regarding the question about appointing one commissioner, we took the decision to appoint more than one commissioner following the presentations from the shortlisted candidates, and it is already in the public domain that those presentations were completed just before Christmas. Having reflected on the matter, we concluded that the interests of victims and survivors would be better served by drawing on the broad range of skills and knowledge exhibited by the candidates. After the presentations, the First Minister and I decided that we would meet shortly after Christmas — we interrupted our Christmas break and met in Stormont Castle on either the Thursday or Friday following Christmas Day. We then deliberated on the presentations and on the reflections that we had had during the Christmas break. It was at that stage that we decided that the appointment of a number of commissioners was the sensible way to proceed. We took legal advice on the matter, and that confirmed our view that we were within our rights to do so. We also, in the course of our deliberations, consulted Felicity Huston at the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, and she declared herself content with our approach. Therefore, a sensible decision was taken to reflect, over the Christmas period, on the candidates’ presentations — they were all important and powerful. As a result of those presentations and our reflection on the matter, we came to the decision that we did. That began the business of trying to process that decision. With regard to the recommendations in Bertha McDougall’s report, we are considering a draft strategy that will signal a major step forward in the work with victims and survivors. That strategy will be built on work that has already been done, and when it is published for consultation, it will be clear that we have learned from the valuable work that Mrs McDougall carried out. We must improve the quality of life for those people whose lives were changed for ever by what happened to them. With a new strategy and the creation of the commission, we believe that the key building blocks will be in place to achieve that. The important decision has been taken, and the four commissioners designate have been appointed. The people who have been charged with this responsibility deserve the support of every Member of this House. Their work will be onerous: there are tender feelings and raw emotions out there, and different views about how to proceed. We, on behalf of the Executive, have acted decisively. I have listened to commentary over the weekend that suggested that we came to that decision because we could not agree on one commissioner. Nothing could be further from the truth. At no stage of our deliberations did we have a situation in which the First Minister proposed someone and I proposed an alternative. That never happened. Some people might greet that with incredulity, but it is a symbol of the way in which he and I proceed with business. We are conscious of the need to take the right decision. Therefore, I can say, without fear of contradiction, that we were never in a position of disagreement on the way forward. Mr Moutray: I welcome the statement by the First Minister. Many in society will be reassured that victims will not be forgotten as we move forward in this Province. Will the deputy First Minister give an indication of what the commissioners’ workload will be and what resources will be made available to them in advance of legislation being passed in this House? The deputy First Minister: As I said, there will clearly be a heavy workload. It is a matter that has been much neglected over many years. The people who have been appointed — and we have held initial discussions with them — have indicated that they are engaged in the process with good heart and a firm commitment to work together. Much of the work will have to be done by the commissioners themselves. It is the intention that the commissioners designate represent the interests of victims and survivors and, specifically, develop a work programme and agree it with us. We envisage that the programme will cover issues such as examining all law and practice affecting victims and survivors, keeping under review the adequacy and effectiveness of services, and providing advice on the issues. The job that has to be done will provide enough work for four commissioners. There are many people out there, many of whom have not come forward previously. However, in new circumstances, the opportunity is there for everyone to talk to people who will listen to them carefully and sympathetically. Other commentary over the weekend stated that the First Minister and I appointed victims’ commissioners designate who have particular appeal to one section of the community or the other. Again, nothing could be further from the truth. We expect the four victims’ commissioners designate to engage with everyone in society and to lend a sympathetic ear to everyone who has been affected by the conflict. We do not wish to create a situation whereby people will have a particular view of the politics and allegiances of the victims’ commissioners. We are moving forward on the basis that those four people must represent the interests of all victims and survivors without fear or favour. Mr Molloy: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the appointment of the four-person victims’ commission. It is a major step forward for the victims, the survivors, the families and the loved ones who have suffered over the years. No two victims are the same, and one of the benefits of having four victims’ commissioners is that all the various backgrounds will be represented. However, the families, the victims and the survivors will be concerned about whether the finances and the gap funding exist to allow them to continue to do their work. The deputy First Minister: As the First Minister said, over the next three years, we will commit more than £33 million to support programmes of work designed to make a real difference to the lives of victims and survivors. The money will go towards supporting individual victims and survivors and victims’ groups who have carried out much valuable work over the years. Some £5·2 million was allocated for each of the years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08; £7·4 million will be allocated for 2008-09; £11·8 million for 2009-10; and £15 million for 2010-11. Those figures represent an increase of more than 100% over that invested in this area over the past three years. We are working out the detail of a new strategy for victims and survivors. We will want to have discussions with all key stakeholders, including, of course, the new commissioners. The cost of the victims’ commissioners is in addition to those figures. The discontinuation of support for victims’ groups as a result of EU funds drying up represents a real challenge for all of us. Naturally, we want the tremendous work of all groups in the community to continue. Mr Durkan: I thank the First Minister and the deputy First Minister for the statement and for the supplementary answers. As others have said, it is deeply regrettable that the news came out in the way in which it did, because it added to a lot of bemusement and concern in some quarters. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of moving from an advertised vacancy for one commissioner to the appointment of four, we must all give the fullest possible support to the people who are now tasked with taking the work forward. They are very worthy people who will serve well. However, there is a danger that certain commissioners could be perceived as representing victims from particular constituencies. We need to work to dismantle that perception to ensure that those difficulties do not compound the challenge that they face. Will the deputy First Minister address that point? The deputy First Minister said that “we” will be drawing up the strategy; I presume that, by “we”, he means the Executive or the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. To what extent, therefore, will the victims’ commission have a lead in shaping the strategy? Will it merely commentate on a strategy that has been prepared elsewhere in Government? How far will the victims’ commissioners be involved in the proofing and approving of the £33 million that was delivered to victims in the draft Budget — and which the First Minister mentioned in his statement — and in tracking the difference between European funds and what happens in the future? 12.30 pm When will the required legislation be introduced? Will it look at broadening the scope of the four victims’ commissioners beyond the role that was envisaged for a single commissioner in the Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006? The deputy First Minister: The four victims’ commissioners designate will be expected to work together as equals. They will agree with us a detailed work programme that will deal with issues of individual roles, responsibilities and methods of joint working. We will respect the independence of the victims’ commission. It is important that victims’ groups know that they have advocates who have authority, and, in moving forward, it is important that we respect the independence of the group. The First Minister and I expect to be in a position to discuss the detail of the draft strategy with the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister at the beginning of the consultative process. We will also want to discuss our intentions regarding the strategy with the victims’ commissioners designate. We will have to consider the funding situation as we move forward, because the funding streams that have supported victims’ groups for some years are drying up. That must be recognised. We anticipate that the funding arrangements in place in relation to the memorial funding, the core funding and the development grant schemes for victims’ and survivors’ groups operated on behalf of the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister will continue during the financial year 2008-09. The Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister will work closely with the memorial fund, the Community Relations Council (CRC), the victims’ commission and the victims’ and survivors’ forum to manage the transition to new funding arrangements, which will be set out in the new strategy for victims and survivors. In liaison with the victims’ commission, the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister will also take forward work with regard to identified areas of need, such as enhanced support for victims’ and survivors’ groups to provide befriending services for victims and survivors, provision for respite care, and support for general practitioners in dealing with trauma. Other areas of emerging need may be examined by the new victims’ commission. Mr Durkan’s first point was important. If the victims’ commission is to work, it is vital that it appeals to the whole community as it moves forward, and not be seen merely as individuals who will only deal with the views expressed by people who are perceived to be from their community. That would be a huge mistake. One of the most moving experiences that I had since becoming the deputy First Minister occurred a short time after I assumed the office. I received a request to meet with a disabled member of the RUC who was badly wounded by the IRA during the conflict. That person came into the room and put out his hand; he shook my hand and wished me the best for the future. That is the direction in which the victims’ commission must go. Our political circumstances have changed, and we have a brilliant future — if it is managed properly. People must be sympathetic to each other and recognise the tremendous hurt and pain that has been inflicted on all sides. There is an onerous task facing the victims’ commission. We have chosen four people who are up to that challenge; they will not allow themselves to be categorised as commissioners for a particular group. The four individuals recognise that their appeal must be broad. Mrs Long: I welcome the additional resources that have been set aside for those who suffered during the conflict in Northern Ireland. The people who suffered most were least considered as we tried to resolve that conflict, so this is an important step in trying to address that. Announcing the change in policy from a commissioner to a commission at the same time as placing the names of those who were appointed in the public domain makes it difficult to consider the proposal objectively without subsequent comments being characterised as criticism of those appointed individuals. For the record, before asking my question, any criticisms of the process that I may express in no way reflect negatively on those four individuals who have agreed to take on what is a difficult and complex role. I have full confidence in their abilities to deliver on that role, and, in doing so, they have my full support. However, there are issues. Does the deputy First Minister agree that, given the general funding reductions for such matters that are expected in the next few years, and by increasing salary and office costs by a factor of at least four, resources that might have addressed specific sector needs and those of the individuals who have suffered may, in the long term, be deflected from front-line services? In addition, does the deputy First Minister agree that the requirement for new legislation and the inherent delay in creating and fine-tuning the structures of a commission will, in some ways, be a barrier to the hope that the commissioners designate will hit the ground running? Finally, does he agree that it is inconsistent for an Administration that have been sabre rattling about public-service overstaffing to appoint four people to do a job that, as recently as October 2007, both he and the First Minister agreed was for an individual? The deputy First Minister: The victims’ and survivors’ sector has long been neglected, there is a backlog of work, and we have no doubt that the commissioners designate will have a heavy workload. On the subject of money, given that the commissioners designate will, themselves, undertake many key tasks, less money will be spent on delegating work and putting work out to consultants. Therefore, savings can be made, and the commissioners’ direct involvement will benefit victims and survivors. As legislation progresses, the Committee to which the Member is the Deputy Chairperson will have an important scrutinising role — as will every Member of the Assembly. Such scrutiny must be undertaken sensibly, and, in the meantime, the commissioners designate must get on with their business because, as I said, that sector has been neglected for far too long. We now have four people who are absolutely dedicated to doing that work and beginning as quickly as possibly, and all Members must give them every possible support. Mr Shannon: I welcome the First Minister’s statement. It is good that victims, who have been without a voice for so long, now have a body through which to express that voice. Will the First Minister assure Members that the four victims’ commissioners will work to their individual strengths and as a team? In addition, will he also assure us that the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister will work alongside the victims’ commissioners, the commission and the victims in order to shape the commission’s policy and strategy? The deputy First Minister: There is a tremendous amount of work to be done. At the end of last week, the meeting that the First Minister and I held with the four commissioners designate clearly indicated that we were dealing with four people of the highest calibre who were conscious of their responsibility to advance one of the most sensitive areas of work to be undertaken. The relationship between the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, and, indeed, the Assembly must be to work in a spirit of co-operation. We want the commissioners designate to feel part of that process, and, at the end of the day, we want to put legislation forward that will generate the greatest possible amount of support in the Assembly. Four commissioners designate have been appointed, all of whom have accepted that they will be expected to work together as equals. They will agree a detailed work programme with us, which will deal with issues such as individual roles and responsibilities, and methods of joint working. I believe that we have appointed people who are well capable of undertaking those tasks. Mr McElduff: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Cuirim fáilte roimh ráiteas an Aire. I welcome the appointments that have been made, and this very important statement. Bearing in mind the need for all victims of the conflict to be treated equally, and for recognition that there is no hierarchy of victims, does the appointment process reflect the diversity of experiences suffered variously by victims and survivors of the conflict? I wish to seek assurance that the appointments process was based on openness, transparency and, ultimately, the principle of merit. The deputy First Minister: It is absolutely essential that in moving forward we give the four commissioners designate their place. All of that which the Member has mentioned is work that they will have to undertake. As far as openness, transparency and the principle of merit are concerned, it is clear to me that the whole appointments process, including the initial stage that was conducted under direct rule, was overseen and certified by the Commissioner for Public Appointments, whom the First Minister and I have met on a number of occasions. We are very satisfied with the process and its outcome. We believe that we have arrived at an approach that will make best use of the skills and experience of four people who we consider to be very capable. Mr Spratt: I welcome today’s announcement. Folk to whom I talked to over the weekend gave a broad welcome to the appointment of the four commissioners, or a commission. It is sad to hear some people trying to politicise the whole thing. I hope that everyone will work together to assist these folks in their very difficult task. I assume that the four commissioners will sit down with a blank sheet to work out their terms of reference and an agreed work programme. Will the work already done on behalf of victims be taken into consideration by those four people? Will the groups that represent victims be fully consulted, and will the process of agreeing the terms of reference and the work programme be time-limited, so that the important work of engaging with victims and survivors can start as soon as possible? The deputy First Minister: It is clear that the criteria for the terms of reference set out in The Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 are the basis on which we are proceeding, and on which all decisions were taken in respect of these appointments. The work that has already been completed by Bertha McDougall, as I have already said, will form an important part of the considerations of both our Office and the commissioners, as we move forward. I am also very conscious that there are many groups with strong opinions on these matters. That is going to be a tall order for the four commissioners designate to deal with. When we sit back and reflect on the challenge that that would have represented for one victims’ commissioner, it is clear that the task to be undertaken can only be carried forward by a group of very talented and dedicated people who are committed to the process of ensuring that victims and survivors are treated with the respect that they deserve. Mr Elliott: First, does the deputy First Minister share my concern for those victims of the Troubles who were members of the Orange Institution in Northern Ireland, an organisation that probably suffered some of society’s largest losses, with more than 330 of its members murdered and many more seriously injured? Does the deputy First Minister also share my concerns about the terminology used to describe victims? Will that terminology be handed down from the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, or will the victims’ commissioners make up their own minds about the terminology to be used? What does the deputy First Minister understand by the word “victim”? Does he believe that terrorists who died during the Troubles as a result of their own actions should be classified as victims? 12.45 pm The deputy First Minister: My sympathy goes out to everybody who suffered as a result of the conflict, and that includes those people from the Orange Order, who also suffered. We must give the commission its place. For example, we want the commissioners designate to take forward work on the establishment of a victims’ and survivors’ forum, and the arrangements for the setting up of such a forum will essentially be a matter for them. That will be a very important element of their work, and we expect that the forum will play a crucial role in helping to inform the commission as to the needs of all victims and survivors. Mrs D Kelly: The SDLP welcomes the appointment of the victims’ commissioners, albeit that it is somewhat confused by how the appointments came about. As a party that had no role to play in the creation of victims, it must point out certain truths. The deputy First Minister said in an earlier response that loss and pain were inflicted on all sides, but I must point out to him that they were not inflicted by all. When exactly will the victims’ and survivors’ forum be established? Will it be established by designate commissioners, or will they have to wait for the introduction of legislation to create the victims’ commission before they can establish the forum? When will that legislation be brought to this House? What control will the victims’ commissioners have over the £33 million that has been allocated in the Budget, or will that money be given to each of the different Departments? How will the relationship between the Executive and the victims’ commission be established? The deputy First Minister: I will not respond to the political point scoring. Given the day that is in it, it is a pity that some people are attempting to undermine today’s announcement. The commissioners designate will make the decision on the establishment of the victims’ forum. We very much see that as being their work, and we expect the forum to play an important role in helping to inform the commission about the needs of victims and survivors. It is essentially for the commissioners designate to decide when that forum will be established. Ms Anderson: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the First Minister for his statement. Can the deputy First Minister tell us whether we now have a commission that reflects the diversity, concerns and needs across society? Can he assure us that the needs of all the various victims and survivors will be responded to and will be reflected in the work of the four commissioners? The deputy First Minister: It is my view that the membership of the commission — which is, in essence, what it will be — will have a very wide appeal in the community. It would be very wrong of me, or any Member, to even attempt to begin to categorise the individual people concerned and their viewpoints on many different matters. The commissioners must now engage in the important work of gaining as much support as possible, given the disparate views that people hold on the issue of victims and survivors. They must try to gain as much respect and support as possible from the bulk of people who have been affected by the conflict. It is not my job, nor is it the job of the Executive or the Assembly, to categorise the four individuals. Our challenge to them is to ask them to work towards having broad appeal in every section of the community and to be very sympathetic to everyone whom they meet. As the commissioners make progress and report individually, or as a commission, it is important that they are able to say that they have consistently reached out their hands in support to every section of the community. I do not want to hear an individual commissioner say that he or she specialises in a particular section of the community. That would be a sign of failure, because the commissioners must have a broad appeal. After speaking to them at the end of last week, I am totally satisfied that they recognise, and are up for, the challenge. Mrs I Robinson: I add my voice to the welcome for today’s announcement of a victims’ commission. However, I too am disappointed that the news was leaked to the public before a statement had been made to the House. Will the deputy First Minister tell the House when legislation will be introduced and how long the term of the commission will be? Does he agree that it is vital that the genuinely innocent victims of violence regard the commissioners as four people to whom they can relate their experiences? Will he assure me that the House will be updated on the work programme for victims? The deputy First Minister: Legislation is in the hands of the powers that be in the Assembly. The First Minister and I are determined that the work be completed as quickly as possible. Our office and the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, chaired by Danny Kennedy, will work together to that end. The legislation will set out a four-year term for the commission, and I commit to updating the Assembly, and, most importantly, the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister as work on those important matters progresses. Mr Irwin: I also welcome today’s announcement of a victims’ commission, because the workload is simply too great to be handled by a sole commissioner. When does the deputy First Minister expect to see the benefits of the commission’s work? Will he describe the type of programme that will be offered to assist the victims? The deputy First Minister: The majority of victims, who were mobilised on this issue and are keen to see progress, will be pleased by the important and decisive announcement — at long last — of the establishment of a group of highly talented individuals. Many victims’ issues were not dealt with previously, and people were not given their place in society. There is a realistic expectation that such matters will now be addressed because local people, who have the confidence of the Assembly, the Executive and, most importantly, the community, will take a hands-on approach that will expedite resolutions to the difficulties that have been created over many years. The commissioners’ work is vital, and people will take great encouragement from the decision that has been announced today. The commissioners understand that they have a responsibility to make swift progress on all issues. Mr Beggs: I welcome today’s announcement of additional funding for victims and survivors. The deputy First Minister told the House that he and the First Minister did not disagree on the appointment of a single victims’ commissioner. In that case, why did they take so long to re-advertise for a single commissioner and then announce the appointment of four? That seems to be inconsistent. Given the increase from one to four commissioners, will he advise the House on the estimated cost of administration, salaries, accommodation and staff? Will he acknowledge that it would be better for the additional administrative funding to go directly to the victims and survivors? The deputy First Minister: The post of victims’ commissioner was advertised as attracting a salary of £65,000 a year. The commissioners designate will each be paid that amount. We believe that that is money well spent and that victims and survivors deserve that level of attention and that amount of support. There may be people who have a different view. Under direct rule the post was initially advertised as a single post. When the post was re-advertised — on the basis of our taking ownership of the process — it was advertised as a single post. At the time of considering the issue of a victims’ commissioner, we were dealing with many other vital issues, including trying to put together a draft Budget, a draft Programme for Government and draft investment strategy and many other matters. When reflecting on those matters, it is sensible that the Government have flexibility and are able to change their minds when they feel that something different has to be done. Effectively, the First Minister and I changed our minds. Our proposal was legally proofed and we consulted the Commissioner for Public Appointments, both of which moves vindicated our stance. I think that society will welcome that. I know that some Members are gobsmacked that there was no disagreement between the First Minister and myself on the issue of a single commissioner. However, that is the truth of the matter. We reflected deeply on all of those matters, we worked on the issue just two days after Christmas, and we gave serious consideration as to how we could best meet the needs of victims and survivors. We have accomplished that with the announcement that has been made today. Mrs Hanna: I certainly want the victims and survivors to have the loudest possible voice. My question will not imply any criticism of any of the four appointed individuals. Does the deputy First Minister believe that by Balkanising the process, he and the deputy First Minister have failed to recognise the integrity and the oneness of the suffering of all of the victims, and, indeed, the healing process as envisaged in ‘A Shared Future’? The deputy First Minister: I am disappointed at the contribution that has just been made, which was the only attempt during this sitting to Balkanise the process. The Member has made a huge mistake and has done a great disservice to the four people who have been appointed to those onerous posts. I remind Mrs Hanna that during the political process that we have all been involved in over recent years, there was a time when the SLDP was proactively encouraging the appointment of 10 commissioners to deal with individual departmental responsibilities. If that is not Balkanisation, I do not know what is. Mr Lunn: I welcome the fact that — as the deputy First Minister said — “at long last” this announcement has been made. Does the deputy First Minister agree that there is widespread cynicism amongst the public about the reasons given for the appointment of four commissioners rather than one? Will the deputy First Minister assure Members that each of the four commissioners will have the full confidence of both himself and the First Minister? The deputy First Minister: I do not share the Member’s view that there is widespread cynicism. The announcement has just been made. Therefore, I do not know how he can make that judgement. Regardless of the speculation over the weekend, every single member of the victims’ commission will have the full support of the First Minister and myself. Mr Burnside: A lot of fine words, some sympathy and some welcome money for victims have been announced today. I will ask the deputy First Minister a straight question and I want a straight answer. He commanded the Provisional IRA, which was responsible for the murder of over 2,500 people in this Province. Others also committed murders, but he was a senior commander along with Gerry Adams and his colleagues. How does he square today’s kind words and sympathy with what he was responsible for, and with his refusal — and that of his fellow IRA commanders and members — to participate in any historical crime investigation? Many widows and orphans of RUC, UDR and Army members who died because of his campaign feel that he is a hypocrite. 1.00 pm The deputy First Minister: Again, I cannot see a question about the appointment of the victims’ commissioners in what the Member has said. I will not fall into the trap of politicising the debate. Members have their own views about the history of this island: some people’s views go back 30, 40 or 80 years, or even eight centuries. There is no point in our getting into that today. I will debate the history of this island with the Member in any place and at any time, but today a vital issue of concern to victims and survivors is being discussed. There are victims and survivors in every section of our community, many of whom play very important and powerful roles in the new political situation. We want that work to continue, and we will continue to support it in the hope that the ownership that victims and survivors take of their difficulties will not only help their own healing processes, but help the overall healing process that we all must undergo. Mr A Maginness: To paraphrase Shakespeare, methinks the Minister doth protest too much. Although the deputy First Minister protests that there was no division between himself and the First Minister, there is a widely held suspicion among Members that there was a serious division, which this scheme has been created to disguise. The scheme may or may not work — those appointed have been generally recognised as good people. However, any mechanism for their coming to collective agreement must be extremely difficult. What mechanisms will be put in place to ensure that the four victims’ commissioners designate speak with a collective voice for victims? The deputy First Minister: As an experienced member of the legal profession, the Member knows that suspicion does not condemn anyone. The First Minister and I agreed to appoint four commissioners designate. That must be remembered — there is no point talking about suspicion. We have reached agreement on a subject of tremendous importance and relevance to the entire community. The commissioners will work by consensus. When I met the commissioners designate, I cited the example that the First Minister and I have given since we took office — working positively and constructively together. Although there will be times when people do not agree, the trick is to find solutions to the problems faced. That is what the First Minister and I have attempted to do during our stewardship of the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. That message was not lost on the commissioners designate, and they will do a good job. Although the jury will be out on them for a short time, I have tremendous confidence in them. Ms Lo: I welcome the announcement. However, does the deputy First Minister agree that it would have been more sensible to appoint one full-time chief commissioner, then setting up the commission and advertising for part-time commissioners, as happens in similar bodies such as the Equality Commission and the Human Rights Commission? There would have been someone to lead the commission, but the increase in administrative costs — let alone the risk of a legal challenge against the current multiple appointments — would have been avoided. The deputy First Minister: We have appointed four people to lead the commission because we believe that there is enough work for them to do. They are eminently suited to the challenge that is before them and, whatever economic factors are brought to bear, their ability to work together and not, for example, depend on bringing in consultants will bring important savings. We believe that the victims and survivors deserve the support of four strong voices working together on a basis of consensus, and that is what the commissioners are committed to doing. We will see what happens along the way, but the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister will work positively and constructively with all of them against a backdrop of having listened to, and been affected by, their presentations and recognising that we have appointed four very talented people who have a wide appeal in society. Mr Donaldson: I add my voice in welcoming the announcement this afternoon by the First Minister. Does the deputy First Minister agree that some of the voices that we hear casting questions and doubts about the validity of the decision to appoint four commissioners were in Government themselves at one stage and did nothing to appoint any commission to help victims? The money that they provided for the victims sector during that period was a mere fraction of the amount that is proposed today. Methinks that some others protest too loudly and are trying to cover their own inadequacy and failure to provide for the victims sector while, only months into the new Administration, we have the appointment of a commission on a par with the Equality Commission, which has 17 commissioners, the Human Rights Commission with 10, and the Parades Commission with seven. Why should the victims not have four commissioners? They are no longer — Mr Speaker: Can the Member come to his question? Mr Donaldson: Victims are no longer second-class citizens; does the deputy First Minister agree with that? The deputy First Minister: The Member has outlined his view of our history. I will not be drawn into that debate, except to say that this is a different place with different political circumstances, a different political dispensation and tremendous hope and optimism for the future. Some people — perhaps even some in this House — do not like that, because they do not feel part of it. The challenge for us, as the major parties in the Assembly, is to make everyone feel part of it, and that is what we want to do. We need to come together on the many issues that are of critical importance to our community. There are wounds to be healed and difficult situations to be dealt with. What we need is the best possible start, and today’s announcement is the best start that we could have achieved in the circumstances. Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill Further Consideration Stage Mr Speaker: As no amendments have been tabled to the Bill, there can be no debate. The Further Consideration Stage of the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [NIA 2/07] is therefore concluded. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker. Programme for Government and Investment Strategy Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to six hours for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have up to 60 minutes to propose and make a winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have 10 minutes. Three amendments have been received and are published on the Marshalled List. The proposer of each amendment will have 10 minutes to propose and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. The First Minister (Rev Dr Ian Paisley): I beg to move That this Assembly endorses the Programme for Government and investment strategy for Northern Ireland agreed by the Executive. On behalf of the deputy First Minister and the Executive as a whole I am pleased to present the draft Programme for Government and draft investment strategy for Northern Ireland to the Assembly for endorsement. Last week, the Minister of Finance and Personnel launched his draft Budget and said that: “It is almost 40 years since a Finance Minister elected by the people of Northern Ireland presented a Budget in a stable political environment.” — [Official Report, Bound Volume 26, p314, col 1]. We should reflect carefully on three elements of that sentence. First, how many people in Northern Ireland have spent the greater part of their lives in the past 40 years living in a society divided by conflict? The answer is: far too many. We in this House cannot change history, but we can reclaim the decades of lost opportunity, and we can strive to create a shared and better future for all the people of Northern Ireland, under the law. That is our challenge and our responsibility. As a society, and as an Executive, we must all play our part. We must harness the talents and energy of the whole community if we are to transform our society. Secondly, local people are, at last, making decisions about the issues that affect them. The Executive and the Assembly represent all the people of Northern Ireland. The draft Programme for Government and draft investment strategy for Northern Ireland have been agreed by local Ministers, and will be debated and — we hope — endorsed today by Members of the Assembly, who have been elected by the people of the Province. Thirdly, we are all too aware of the prize that a stable political environment presents. The Executive have risen to meet the challenges of a four-party coalition and agreed the draft Programme for Government, the draft investment strategy for Northern Ireland, and the draft Budget. That is no mean achievement and one of which we should be proud. We have a very new Executive, but the documents that have been introduced today represent a significant milestone in ensuring the first steps towards effective and forward-looking Government for the people of Northern Ireland. Our draft Programme for Government sets out the measures that we intend to take over the next three years to build the type of future that we all desire to see. Time does not permit me to go into detail about all our planned actions, but I shall remind Members of some of the actions that we will undertake. We shall set ourselves the ambitious goal of halving the private-sector productivity gap with the UK average, excluding the greater south-east of England, by 2015. We will work to increase the employment rate from 70% to 75% by 2020. We will secure value-added inward-investment commitments creating a minimum of 6,500 jobs — 85% of which will be above the Northern Ireland private-sector median wage. We will aim to ensure that, by 2011, 68% of school-leavers will achieve five or more GCSE passes at grades A* to C, including English and mathematics. 1.15 pm We will reduce by 50% the number of children killed or seriously injured on our roads by 2012. At some stage during 2008, everyone aged 60 and over will be provided with free public transport. That being the case, I suppose that I should declare an interest. We will invest more than £500 million in the regeneration of disadvantaged communities, neighbourhoods, towns and cities by 2012. By 2009, no one will wait longer than nine weeks for a first outpatient appointment, nine weeks for a test or 17 weeks for treatment. That represents a 12-week reduction in the current waiting-time standard. During the consultation period, almost 55,000 copies of the draft Programme for Government, draft investment strategy for Northern Ireland and draft Budget were downloaded from the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister website, and more than 9,500 people responded formally. That demonstrates that the people of Northern Ireland are interested in what the Executive are doing and that they want to play their part in the operation of government. Officials from our Office, from the Department of Finance and Personnel and from the Strategic Investment Board held a series of public-consultation seminars at four locations across Northern Ireland. Each seminar was well attended, and was welcomed by those who participated. On behalf of the Executive, I express gratitude to all who took the time to contribute. Another important strand of consultation involved our engagement with the Assembly and its Committees. We recognise the distinctive and valuable contribution that the Committees can make to such exercises. On 26 November 2007, the Assembly debated the draft Programme for Government and the draft investment strategy. Various opinions were expressed during that debate, some of which people outside the Chamber have also voiced. I assure the Assembly that we have considered carefully those contributions and all the responses. The consultation process has, without doubt, informed our decisions on the final Programme for Government and investment strategy for Northern Ireland, and that is reflected in the amendments that have been made to the documents. I also wish to acknowledge the work of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, which helpfully co-ordinated all Committee responses to the draft Programme for Government and carried out a similar role for responses to the draft investment strategy. A particular concern, which was raised regularly throughout the consultation process, was the tight timescale and opportunities for consultation. These past nine months have been exceptional. Last May, the Executive were faced with the challenge of creating from scratch a new Programme for Government on which we had to agree, and uncertainty over financial allocations hampered progress until a very late stage in the process. However, mindful of that, the Executive will look carefully at the arrangements for the preparation of future Programmes for Government. We will publish the results of the consultation process after tomorrow’s debate on the Budget. We will also publish for consultation shortly a draft equality impact assessment (EQIA), which has been carried out at a strategic level, on the Programme for Government, the investment strategy and the Budget. The consultation will last for 12 weeks and will include a series of public-consultation events across the whole Province. Details of dates and venues will be found in that document. The Executive fully recognise the importance of equality and good relations, and a draft equality impact assessment is being carried out at the strategic level. The Executive will take account of the final equality impact assessment in the implementation of their Programme for Government, which now incorporates the public service agreement (PSA) framework, and the investment strategy for Northern Ireland. The approach that the Executive have adopted to the draft Programme for Government is different to that adopted by the last Executive. That approach attracted some attention during the consultation process, but the Executive make no apology for the fact that they must be clear about their priorities and about what they are trying to achieve. The Executive remain of the view that the publication of a focused set of priorities, and a smaller number of key goals supported by public service agreements, provide a clear strategic framework in which they can develop policies and programmes over the next three years. However, the Executive have incorporated the 23 public service agreements, which were previously published as a separate annex, into the main Programme for Government document. As the Minister of Finance and Personnel informed Members last week, the Executive have increased allocations to address concerns in key areas, including: health, arts and culture, victims, and social and affordable housing. Those extra allocations have been reflected through more ambitious targets in those areas in the Programme for Government. Ministers view the investment strategy for Northern Ireland as being vital in underpinning the ambitious goals they are setting in the Programme for Government. We are determined to put right the underinvestment of previous years and help lay the foundations for future prosperity and wellbeing through the delivery of the strategy. The Executive envisage that a sum approaching £20 billion will be invested in the next 10 years, of which around £6 billion is earmarked for the first three years. The increase from the figures announced last October is due largely to the Executive’s initiative to make better use of existing assets in order to deliver best value to all our citizens. In the revised investment strategy, more than £1·8 billion has been allocated to housing, an increase from £1·4 billion in the draft document. That will allow the Department for Social Development (DSD) to proceed with the delivery of 10,000 social and affordable houses during the next five years. An additional £140 million has been provided to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, to help underpin the modernising hospitals programme. The Executive have attempted to focus in the Programme for Government on what they have identified as the most pressing problems over the next three years. The important challenge is to begin to deliver on the goals and commitments contained in both documents. The public want the Executive to make a difference, and they will judge us on what we achieve. We have enormous support and goodwill from our friends outside Northern Ireland and the people here. It is indeed a great and exciting opportunity for our Province. With that opportunity comes responsibility. The Executive hold the future of Northern Ireland in their hands. Together, we can work to build a peaceful, fair and prosperous society in Northern Ireland, with respect for the rule of law, where everyone can enjoy a better quality of life now and in years to come. However, if we do not achieve the type of society to which we aspire, through lack of effort or commitment, people’s lives will be affected. We will all be the poorer for that, and history will judge us accordingly. At the start of my speech, I said that we cannot change history: however, we can work together to create a better future. Let us begin to write a history that we will not want to change. I present the Programme for Government and investment strategy for Northern Ireland, and I commend them to the House today. Mrs Long: I beg to move amendment No 1: Leave out all after “Assembly” and insert: “calls on the First Minister and deputy First Minister to lay a revised Programme for Government before the Assembly, as the Programme for Government currently before the Assembly does not properly address the deep divisions in this society and the need to build a shared future, does not make meaningful changes to balance the regional economy, and fails to provide for sustainable and integrated public services.” I welcome that the Assembly is able to respond to a Programme for Government that has been written by representatives of the people of Northern Ireland. The fact that the Assembly can debate the issues in front of the Northern Ireland public demonstrates that significant progress has been made, even since January 2007. That must not go unnoticed or unrecognised either in the Chamber or in wider society. Despite the combination of vitriol, abuse and contempt with which the Alliance Party’s views on the Programme for Government have been treated during various debates and question sessions on the draft programme and investment strategy, the Executive have taken heed of aspects of the Alliance Party’s response, albeit, in many cases, in a tokenistic way, in the final version of the Programme for Government. For example, in a change of wording, the Executive have reflected that: “work towards a shared future is necessary if we are to deliver our better future”. The Alliance Party welcomes and acknowledges that assertion. At present, our differences lie in whether the vision laid out in the Programme for Government is right and whether the Programme for Government can deliver that vision. Although the shared future has made its way into the language on cross-cutting themes, the Executive appear to be content merely to leave it at six words. The Alliance Party believes that it must be accompanied by the radical and robust actions that are required to truly transform society. To date, there has been no sign of that. For the Executive, tackling sectarianism is merely aspirational. The Alliance Party believes that it must be delivered through robust policies. Tackling sectarianism has been described in the Chamber by Members of the Executive parties as woolly, fluffy stuff. Based on lack of clarity on specific actions in the documents being discussed today, I can understand why Members would have those views. However, the issue is far from woolly for those people who require it to be dealt with so that they can have mobility in the community to access local employment, improve their circumstances and live those better lives, to which the Programme for Government refers. For the Executive, rebalancing the economy is simply a matter of lowering a few taxes. My party believes that low taxes must be accompanied by ending the costs of division and delivering the high quality public services that define the most prosperous societies. It is about dealing with underinvestment in areas where it has traditionally been a problem and ensuring that when we talk about rebalancing the economy, people fully understand what we mean. In his statement on the Budget, the Minister of Finance and Personnel made it clear that although the costs of division cannot be unlocked during the current three-year cycle, work needs to be done and a start made on tackling the issues involved. However, the way to do that is to incorporate the work into the Programme for Government, so that at the end of the three years, we will be closer to unlocking some of that money and reinvesting it elsewhere. Although my party continues to welcome the Minister’s fine words and aspirations, they are not reflected in the detail of the Programme for Government. It seems that delivering integrated and sustainable public services is merely something for the Executive to talk about, whereas the Alliance Party believes that long-term thinking and environmental awareness must be the cornerstone of all of the Government’s actions, whether on housing, health, education or transport, to name but a few. 1.30 pm In short, the Executive seem to be interested in the process of delivering documents, whereas we in the Alliance Party are ambitious for society. We do not simply look for handouts for a number of groups. Rather, we are ambitious for everyone who lives here. We do not want a continuation of direct rule policies that condemn Northern Ireland to compete only with the poorest regions of Great Britain. We are ambitious for a vision of this society that can compete with the best in the world. Therefore, we propose that the Programme for Government be completely rewritten. We want a Programme for Government that tackles sectarianism, segregation, exclusion and bigotry at every turn — whether that prejudice is based on race, religion, political persuasion, nationality, age, sexual orientation or gender. We want to see it go to the core of everything that we do. We want better and shared housing; better and fairer local taxation; and better and integrated education. We do not believe that we can make it better without making it shared. We want to see a programme that will rebalance the economy at every turn — not simply from public sector to private sector, but from low wage to high wage; from insular views to global views — and utilise the expertise of business and the voluntary and community sector. We want a programme that is integrated, sustainable and long term, and that takes on the real priority issues, rather than bickering about tokenistic issues such as mugs in local councils. We want a programme that transforms public structures so that people feel included, rather than bickering about whether people address the Speaker of the House in Irish or Ulster Scots. We want to give people a sense of ownership about what happens in the Chamber and make them see the reality of the out-turn of that for the individual. We do not want pointless Royal Commissions to explore issues that are beyond the Assembly’s remit. We want skills strategies that will transform the society in which we live. Undoubtedly, if this debate follows the pattern of previous debates — in which those of us in opposition have disagreed with Government — my colleagues and I will be subjected to the usual mix of condescension and abuse that is rapidly becoming the hallmark of an increasingly arrogant Administration. In recent weeks and days, parties have had the opportunity to road-test a few of their criticisms — and the wheels have come off a few of them already. First of all, the Alliance Party is dismissed as “negative,” an epithet which, this weekend — to the shame of those who used it — was actually turned on some of the victims who dared to question the Executive’s decisions. Alliance Party members are not negative. We are positive and ambitious about the future of Northern Ireland, and we are willing to do what we can to try to deliver on our objectives. We are not simply here to go along with a cosy consensus that does not deliver on the issues that matter to us. We have the right to a voice, and we exercise that voice on behalf of those who have given us the mandate to do so. Secondly, people are dismissed with an arrogance that almost suggests not that we should simply agree to disagree, but rather that, if we disagree, we should be silent. Well, I do not accept that. It may well be a motto of which Stalin would have been proud. I will not be told that simply to disagree with the current Administration is to be destructive. It is right that there should be disagreement and challenge in the Chamber, as there has been in the past when others have exercised that right through the democratic process. This is an open and accountable democracy. That may be a new concept to some: to be clear, this is not a dictatorship. We want to move forward in a constructive and positive frame of mind. However, that does not mean agreeing with those things that we believe to be inherently flawed and wrong. The argument that we are destructive is a complete nonsense. No one suggests that David Cameron, when he rises to robustly question the Prime Minister, is seeking the dissolution of Parliament or the destruction of parliamentary democracy in the UK — far from it. However, those of us in the Chamber who dissent tend to be viewed as having no respect for the structures. In fact, those people who try to subjugate the views of we dissenters are displaying disregard for our right to oppose them. We have had a debate about our consistency. The most recently highlighted issue has been Irish-language education. However, the real inconsistency in the debate on Irish-language education is that the DUP and the Ulster Unionist Party are content to sign up to a Programme for Government that has committed to a thriving Irish-medium sector, yet when the issue is raised in the Chamber those parties flap around, waving their papers, and they will not fund a flourishing Irish-medium education sector. That is the inconsistency. The Alliance Party has been clear in its view that the integrated education system is the way forward. We have been consistent on that, and we are then dismissed as irrelevant. Although our party has raised the issue of a shared future, we are not alone in seeing its importance. We lead a social movement that is much wider that the Alliance Party — including the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, Church leaders and the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (NICVA) — that wants to see division in the community ended. The Alliance Party is here to provide a voice for that community in the Chamber; we simply wish that some people would listen. Mr Kennedy: I beg to move amendment No 2: After “Executive” insert: ‘; and calls on the Executive to ensure ongoing review and subsequent necessary revision’. The Member for East Belfast Mrs Long made a wide-ranging speech, with mention made of Stalin, Cameron and others. I will not be as bold as to go to those lengths, but I preface my remarks with one important observation. It is good for Northern Ireland that the Assembly is considering a Programme for Government and an investment strategy that have been proposed by its own Ministers and formulated by its own Executive and that it is making locally based choices on matters that impact directly on the lives of all the people in the Province. Those choices will structure the way that Government operates here over the next three-year period. Although the Ulster Unionist Party gives broad support to the measures in the Programme for Government and the investment strategy, we are glad that the day has at long last arrived for those matters to come before the Assembly. We are in favour of the motion as amended by Mr McNarry and I, because the two Departments run by Ulster Unionist Ministers account for over 56% of all Government spending in Northern Ireland. As those Ministers have responsibility for health; social services; public safety; further and higher education; and employment; they exercise both power and responsibility, unlike many of the other Ministers or those who see themselves as being in opposition. Others have the power, but not as much responsibility with regard to what they are required to deliver to the tax-paying public of Northern Ireland. The other Ministers, who make up the majority of the Executive, may wield the crude power of majoritarianism on both sides of the divide, but 56% of the services that the public receive are run by Ulster Unionist Ministers. That is why we can give support to the Programme for Government and the investment strategy, because the business of government must go on. Historically, we are a responsible party in carrying out our job for the people of Northern Ireland by delivering peace, stability, progress and good government. We are glad that other parties are now trying to follow our example. That is why the Ulster Unionist Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety put up such a vigorous and spirited battle for more financial resources for the National Health Service in the debates that took place between the initial allocations and the final outcomes. He did that because, as the responsible Minister in all senses of the word, he understood the importance of delivering a Health Service that is free at the point of need for all patients. He understood the importance of stability, morale and effective delivery in the Health Service, over the siren voices of irresponsible and unaccountable quick-fix merchants who blandly proposed the closure of local hospitals simply to save money. Power without responsibility is very dangerous. We are told that, historically, it is the prerogative of the harlot, but I am sure that no one in the House would be familiar with that right. The public in Northern Ireland would do well to take note of that quotation. While lending its support to the Programme for Government, my party makes it clear that it reserves its position on certain issues. Two such matters are water charges and effective measures to combat child poverty. My party remains deeply unhappy about the use of capital values as a basis for calculating rates and water charges. Although administrative convenience might be the reason that they will be used, capital values should not be the main device by which those taxes are calculated and collected. Fairness and transparency are the only tools that should be used. Given that metering is the best way in which to ensure fairness and transparency, it must be reconsidered during any ongoing review. My party is also concerned that the targets that have been set to tackle child poverty are somewhat conservative and unimaginative. They appear to be too consistent with the tame targets that have been set on the mainland, and they look like a Civil Service pipeline quick fix, rather than a well-thought-out strategy. The Ulster Unionist Party wants child poverty to be eradicated. It finds it disturbing and unacceptable that over 100,000 children in Northern Ireland live below the poverty line. While that remains the case, that figure is an indictment against any Government or Executive. Special programmes and measures that target child poverty in hot spots such as north Belfast should be implemented so that this blight, which is so persistent in certain areas and so closely associated with educational underachievement, can be eradicated. Talent is being squandered through such underachievement. Our greatest resource is our children, so our greatest concern must be their future. The Programme for Government — and the investment strategy, which supports it — should not become frozen and rigid. Rather, both should be living documents that are subject to continuing revision, flexible and capable of change in the light of any given circumstance. It was therefore necessary for us to table our amendment, as it calls on the Executive to ensure ongoing review and subsequent and necessary revision. Both documents should feature regularly on future agendas of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, of which I have the honour to be Chairperson. If those matters were discussed at the Committee, the Executive could create a mechanism for revision and flexible updating. That important process would involve not just the Executive, but the Assembly. People in Northern Ireland — Mr and Mrs Joe Public — must understand what the Programme for Government is about. They need to know more about it, and they need to understand it. It must be real to them. We must consider the ways in which all our decisions are made, and we must earth as many decisions as possible through public debate in the Chamber, rather than leaving over-mighty control in the hands of the Executive Committee. I therefore strongly commend amendment No 2 to the House. With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will briefly speak in my capacity as the Chairperson for the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. Although the Committee did not have the opportunity to discuss in detail the final Programme for Government and investment strategy in advance of today’s debate, I will use previous discussions to nonetheless attempt to give a quick reflection of its views. I welcomed several aspects of the draft Programme for Government and the draft investment strategy when I spoke on behalf of the Committee during the take-note debate of 26 November 2007. I particularly welcomed the targets that were set for the development of a victims’ and survivors’ strategy. I also welcomed the additional resources that were allocated to OFMDFM in order to progress that strategy. The final Programme for Government sees the Executive having committed to publishing a new strategy for victims and survivors and to establishing a victims’ and survivors’ forum by March this year. Additional funding for victims issues has been allocated in the Budget and that is welcome. The Committee looks forward to early consultation by the First Minister and the deputy First Minister on the proposed victims’ charter. It is vitally important that the deadlines for developing the victims’ strategy, as set out in the Programme for Government, are met so that we can move speedily to deliver for victims and survivors. Individual members of my Committee will raise other matters; however the amendment has been moved in my name and on behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party. 1.45 pm Mr Durkan: I beg to move amendment No 3: After “Executive” insert “; and calls on the Executive to address further social and economic needs and support for the community and voluntary sector and to develop and promote policies for ‘A Shared Future’; and further calls for appropriate review and revision of the Investment Strategy for Northern Ireland to ensure that it best delivers balanced regional development and underpins equality”. It has — rightly — been said that a debate on the Programme for Government in our own devolved Assembly is a significant and welcome development. We recognise that there are many positive things about the Programme for Government, and that it and the draft Budget would be proofed and improved by consultation and scrutiny in the Assembly and its Committees. We have seen evidence of that: some people who said, a few weeks ago, that it could not be improved now agree that some adjustment was necessary. However, more can and must be done. We recognise the time constraints and the pressures on Ministers and on the Executive; nevertheless, it is important that, if the Assembly endorses the Programme for Government, it is made clear to the Executive that more is required from them on issues of particular concern. The amendment calls on the Executive further to address social and economic needs, because targets on several issues could be more ambitious and significant. With regard to the strategy to combat poverty, essentially, the direct rule policy seems to have been adopted in respect of lifetime opportunities. All of us, as parties, criticised that as deficient and defective in several ways, yet it has been recycled, and includes the unambitious targets for child poverty. Those are exactly the targets that were announced by Peter Hain and direct rule Ministers, by Tony Blair, and re-announced by Gordon Brown — halving child poverty by 2010 and reducing it by 2020. Towards 2016, which is the social partnership agreement in the South, has a strong focus on child poverty and issues of child services. A more significant and ambitious plan could be developed in the North, and the Executive must focus further on that. If we go forward with current plans, in a few years’ time, Northern Ireland will have, for example, a handful of child centres compared with the 70 provided in England. I do not want our ambitions for child services to be less than those of our counterparts across the water. References have been made to differences between this Programme for Government and earlier ones. Previous Programmes for Government had far more targets and detailed actions for Departments. Perhaps, too much detail made matters unwieldy and difficult. Ministers and Departments did not like having specific targets, and resisted adopting them if they were ambitious or significant. There is a danger in going too far towards the other extreme where everything is cross-cutting and blurred; we in this Chamber could perhaps end up with less ambition and a lesser capacity for tracking and monitoring what happens. For that reason, we shall propose separately that some sort of device for joined-up, or cross-cutting, scrutiny should be used in the Assembly. Committees could meet periodically, perhaps focusing on the different cost-cutting priorities of the Programme for Government, just to track and monitor delivery. A number of civil servants have acknowledged that the current form of the Programme for Government will make it harder to track and monitor what different Departments are doing and what different Ministers are delivering. However, I recognise that the new form — the lighter form, with a more blurred focus — follows the Whitehall fashion. Departments there are less detailed in their targets and less clear-cut in their ambitions. That is why I differ slightly from the First Minister. He said that the Executive are now much clearer on their priorities: in fact, we are less clear on the detail of targets than was the case in the past. The SDLP is calling for the Executive to further address the issue of support for the community and voluntary sector. The Finance Minister said that his Budget statement last week was: “good for householders and good for business”. — [Official Report, Bound Volume 26, p314, col 1]. That may be so, but we also want to make sure that the Budget is good for public services, and that the Budget and the Programme for Government are good for the community and voluntary sector, which has done so much work to keep the fabric of the community together during the difficult years. That sector is facing a drop-off in European funding. The implications of the review of public administration may cut off the traditional funding lines for local bodies from the trusts and boards. There is a possibility that the efficiency savings for Departments framed by this Budget could actually lead to the cutting off of funding lines to the community and voluntary sector as well. We want to see the Executive address their future relationship with that sector on a wider basis. I have heard two senior civil servants say that we no longer need the community and voluntary sector in the way that we did in the past, because we have peace, devolution and democracy — and I have heard reports of others saying the same thing. The Executive need to address this collectively, because there will be more than one Department dealing with the community and voluntary sector. There are strains and difficulties in the move towards neighbourhood renewal. Questions arise as to whether Departments and agencies are properly buying into that strategy and lending their resources and responsibilities to good partnership in the way that they should. That is another issue that we want the Executive to address further. Similarly, our amendment addresses the need for appropriate review and revision of the investment strategy for Northern Ireland. I welcome the fact that parties which, in the past, condemned the whole idea of a long-term investment strategy and were opposed to things like having a strategic investment body to drive the capital spending programme across Government Departments, and which seemed to be somehow suspicious as to what a 10-year investment plan for infrastructure and public-service capital could be, have now embraced that idea. However, we need to keep it under review, with a particular focus on ensuring that that significant investment delivers balanced regional development and underpins equality. Many of us have complained in the past that the pattern and prioritisation of infrastructure investment and capital spend have locked some areas into disadvantage and created some of the geographical structural inequalities here. If we are serious about reversing those trends, we have to use the investment strategy for Northern Ireland as the key tool. The Assembly needs to signal that it wants that subject kept under review. It might be appropriate for the Assembly to have a Committee to receive periodic reports and review the performance of the investment strategy in overall terms. Our amendment accepts that the Programme for Government, such as it is with its limitations, will be endorsed, but offers the Assembly an opportunity to set out some additional, important concerns. Like others, we are worried about some other issues. The whole issue of water charges is not properly addressed or articulated here. We were told, when the review was set up, that we would have outcomes by the time of the revised Programme for Government and the revised Budget, but we do not. There are some unknowns that some of us have fundamental reservations about. There are other issues. At different times, all parties have said that most important issue facing our society is the future of secondary education. However, the Programme for Government, which is supposed to be all-singing, all-dancing, and completely joined-up, is silent on the issue — and it is not being dealt with in the Budget either. We have to rely on indications that the Minister of Education has told the Minister of Finance and Personnel that her proposals, when they are ready, will be cost-neutral. How can we rely on her assurance, when the proposals have not been costed? They could not have been costed, if they are not ready to be presented to Committees or anyone else. There are some large, unknown issues still involved; and it is right that we, as MLAs, use our accountability and scrutiny roles to highlight those issues and concerns so that we can say to the Executive that there is more that they need to do as they take this work forward. The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development (Dr W McCrea): I welcome many provisions in the Programme for Government that will assist people and make their lives better in Northern Ireland. That should be the desire of elected representatives. We will all be judged on delivery by the community that we serve. Many of the proposals are positive and constructive, and I commend many of my colleagues for their excellent work. I commend my colleague, the Minister of Finance and Personnel, in particular, for his expertise in dividing a finance cake that is finite and bounded by the resources available. In the foreword to the Programme for Government the Executive state: “We recognise the trust you have placed on us as your elected representatives. We are determined to repay that trust and to seize this opportunity to make a real difference and improve the lives and opportunities for everyone”. That work comes down to individual Departments; and it is why I, on behalf of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development, have to deal with the priorities that are in the budget for that Department, which is where my disappointment lies. I would love to be able to state that the programme for the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, as it stands, achieves the goal that was set out in the Executive’s statement. However, I do not believe that it does. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development did not seize the opportunity. Its programme will make a change to people’s lives, but not in the positive way that we all hoped. It will not bring about the change in the agriculture community that we thought it would. On 26 November 2007 I stated, in the House, in my capacity as Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development: “Farming, and farming communities, remain the backbone of the rural economy and are the true guardians of the rural environment. The Committee believes, therefore, that agriculture should have a significantly greater profile and that its should be supported and enhanced to ensure the survival of the industry and the natural environment.” — [Official Report, Bound Volume 25, p317, Col 1.] I do not diverge from that position. Arguably, agriculture is Northern Ireland’s only remaining industry, and its contribution to the economy and social fabric of Northern Ireland, either directly through the agrifood sector or indirectly through the hundreds of thousands of tourists who descend upon these shores each year, is vital. Although other Departments recognise the difficulties in front of them and face up to them by devising priorities that will move them forward, DARD has done absolutely nothing in relation to its priorities. It has no priorities for countering the findings of the Red Meat Industry Task Force; no priorities for dragging the pig industry from the abyss; and no priorities to ensure that our fishermen are afforded the opportunity to make an honest living. The Department’s contribution is to produce a series of headlines: £45 million to improve competitiveness; £100 million in local development strategies; and £10 million to combat rural exclusion and poverty. The Committee is delighted at the levels of investment being heralded in the Programme for Government but continues to ask itself — and to ask the Department to ask anyone who will listen — where is the substance, and what are the outcomes? The Department is clearly immersed in the mentality that it should under reach in order to overachieve. 2.00 pm In November 2007, the Committee called on the Department to re-prioritise its targets given the state of the industry, and backed that up in correspondence to the First Minister and deputy First Minister. It is extremely disappointing that those calls have not been heeded, and, so, we are left with vague, unchallenging priorities such as those detailed in PSA 23 — managing the risk of flooding from rivers and the sea. The Department aims to reduce the number of properties at significant risk of flooding from — and this is not a misprint, because I checked — 28,000 to 27,700. That is right: the target is to reduce the number of properties at risk by 300 in three years. It is reassuring to know that the Department is busting a gut to protect our homes and businesses from the risk of flooding. There is also the heady target of reducing the incidence rates of TB and brucellosis by 27% and 20% respectively. In November 2007, the Committee called on the Department to change the emphasis of that target from reduction to eradication. If there were any other serious disease threat to the public, we would, quite rightly, direct our undivided attention and resources to ensuring that the threat was removed completely — not reduced, but removed. The Department admits in papers that the Committee will discuss tomorrow that brucellosis, for example, is a serious animal disease that affects people, but one that can be eradicated. What target does it set therefore? It seeks to reduce the incidences of brucellosis — not to eradicate them, but to reduce them. It seeks to reduce the number of reactor herds from 127 to approximately 103 in 2011, and to spend £13 million a year to reduce incidence levels by roughly nine herds a year. Is that a great target? I do not think so. The Department spends approximately £36 million a year firefighting TB and brucellosis. That makes a total of roughly £100m by 2011 just to reduce the incidences of those diseases. However, they will still be there; they will still pose a serious health threat; and DARD will still be throwing good money at them. Thankfully, though, the Department will have done a wonderful job in reducing, for example, brucellosis incidences by nine herds each year. In the past, the Committee has been accused of forgetting that rural development is part of the Minister’s portfolio. Unfortunately, it would appear that the Minister has forgotten that agriculture is also part of her portfolio. There is nothing in the Programme for Government for the red meat industry, the fishing industry, or the pig industry. Their priorities have been ignored: by a Minister seemingly intent on closing down industry and by a Department more intent on achieving efficiency savings — a matter that I will return to tomorrow — than protecting the very industry that it exists to support. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Molloy] in the Chair) I would love to be in a position to stand here today and commend the agricultural element of the Programme for Government to the House; it is with a heavy heart that I cannot. Certainly, to an official in the Department’s press office, the programme must represent a dream come true — it is jam-packed with headlines. However, to the farmers, fighting to keep their businesses afloat, struggling to keep their heads and those of their families above water, trusting from day to day that some form of respite will be forthcoming, and looking to the Programme for Government for a sign of hope, I am afraid that the DARD part of the Programme for Government falls far short and their efforts to find any hope will be wasted, because there is little or nothing there. I ask those present: has the Department repaid those farmers’ trust in it with the farming part of the Programme for Government? Has the Department seized that opportunity? Have the Minister and the Department offered priorities that will make a real difference and improve the lives and opportunities of rural people and rural communities? Mr McGlone: Will the Member give way? Dr W McCrea: My time is almost up. Unfortunately, the answer to those questions, in my opinion, is no. The farming community is looking to this Assembly for a future, not to diversify into some other industry, but to do what they know best and to remain what they are — farmers. As I said in a Committee meeting last week, I want to see a red meat industry that puts the animals out on the green grass, rather than the Minister’s policy of putting the farmers out to grass. That is a retrograde step. We can build on the vision for the future that has been recommended in the Programme for Government, but that can only be done with the assistance of a Minister who is committed to farming, rather than to headlines. Unfortunately, we do not have such a Minister. The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel (Mr McLaughlin): Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to today’s debate. The Committee for Finance and Personnel recognises the importance of the Programme for Government and the investment strategy, especially as reflected in the Executive’s Budget allocations for 2008-2011. In late November 2007, the Committee for Finance and Personnel responded to the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister on both documents. Since then, departmental officials have updated the Committee for Finance and Personnel, and we are pleased that many of our recommendations have been taken on board. The Department of Finance and Personnel’s main contribution to the strategic priorities contained in the Programme for Government relates to the delivery of modern, high-quality and efficient public services. Under that priority, reference is made to the Civil Service reform programme, which aims to realise significant savings that will be redirected to delivering key services. Following the Committee’s consideration of the draft documents, it requested details from the Department of Finance and Personnel of the savings to be generated by the reform programme over the three-year budgetary period. However, departmental officials informed the Committee that those details were not available, as work was ongoing on the benefits realisation framework, which will detail the quantitative and qualitative savings to be achieved from the reform programmes. The Committee has questioned how progress in achieving efficiencies can be monitored if targets have not been established for each project to date, and it has raised concerns that those savings cannot, therefore, be accurately reflected in the finalised Budget. PSA 11 relates to driving investment and sustainable development. The Committee had concerns that the target in objective 4 for considering sustainable development principles in capital investment decisions would take three years to achieve. However, it is pleased to note that implementation will now be achieved by 2008. PSA 20 relates to improving public services. The Department of Finance and Personnel has the main responsibility for objective 1, which aims to deliver a programme of Civil Service reform. Target dates for the various Civil Service reform programmes were included under that objective in the draft Programme for Government. The Committee sought clarification from the Department that those targets were for the full implementation of the various programmes, as opposed to the piloting of those programmes. Again, it is content that the matter has now been clarified. However, the Committee has raised further concerns with the Department of Finance and Personnel at the apparent delays that have only come to light in the Workplace 2010 project. The draft Programme for Government originally referred to the implementation of Workplace 2010 by 30 November 2008. However, the final Programme for Government document states that the target is to award the contract by February 2009, for implementation by June 2010. The Committee has requested that officials explain the 18-month delay and its potential consequences for the Programme for Government. Objective 4 of PSA 20 aims to promote and improve access to public services and information. Under that objective, a single telephone number point of contact for selected public services is to be in place by December 2008. Due to the potentially high-profile nature of the project, the Committee believes that it must work effectively from the outset. The Committee recommended that the targets for NI Direct should be strengthened in the revised Programme for Government to include the proportion of public services to be covered when the first phase is introduced in December 2008; further detail on subsequent roll-out; and a specific target to deal effectively with a given percentage of calls at the first point of contact. Again, there was a positive response to those recommendations, and those targets have been included in the revised document. However, the Committee has concerns about the target to deal effectively with at least 50% of enquiries at first point of contact. Although that is an improvement, the target may be too low given likely public expectation. The Committee has requested further information on the proposed benchmarks for performance. The Department of Finance and Personnel also has a key role in PSA 21, which relates to enabling efficient Government. The Committee has raised with the Department of Finance and Personnel the issue of an annual timetable for budget-setting and review that will build in sufficient time for the effective involvement of the Committees. The Committee will work with the Department to achieve that as soon as possible. Objective 2 aims to build the capacity of the Civil Service to deliver the Government’s priorities by improving leadership, skills, professionalism, diversity and equality. The Committee has been briefed on the actions taken by the Department of Finance and Personnel, thus far, to encourage applications to the Civil Service from under-represented groups, and on new research into perceived barriers to employment in the Civil Service. The Committee looks forward to the outcome of that research and notes that — in line with its recommendations — 2008 has been included as a timescale in which the Civil Service must be reflective of the diversity of our wider society. Objective 3 contains a target to ensure that public spending delivers value for money. The Committee understands that departmental efficiency plans will be published alongside the final Budget and will, therefore, be available to Committees for scrutiny. The Committee recommends that those are a regular agenda item for Committees. It is vital that efficiencies are achieved to deliver essential resources to front-line services. The proposed performance and efficiency delivery unit (PEDU) is expected to have a role to play. The Committee will monitor the outputs from the unit in driving higher levels of savings, and we would like to see PEDU commence work as soon as possible — subject to the addressing of outstanding organisational issues, which the Committee identified in its report on the draft Budget. Objective 5 of PSA 21 aims to deliver value-for-money improvements in Government procurement. The Committee wishes to see the revised programme include dates for delivery against some of the targets under that objective — including the 3% value-for-money gains on procurement spend. The Committee is grateful that that has been taken on board. With regard to the draft investment strategy, the Department of Finance and Personnel bid for approximately £94·2 million over the three financial years from 2008 to 2011, but it was allocated £68·7 million. The Committee will continue to monitor how the Department of Finance and Personnel plans to manage with an allocation significantly below the amount that was sought. The Committee is keeping a watching brief on whether the capital allocations for the Land and Property Services are sufficient to permit it to resolve the difficulties with its IT systems, especially with regard to rates relief take-up. Land and Property Services has an important role in the implementation of the rating reforms that are to be introduced later this year, and the Department of Finance and Personnel must consider how any further funding requirements that arise from rating reform can be met. The Department of Finance and Personnel also bid for £15 million over the three years for the central energy efficiency fund that is used to support measures to improve the energy performance of, and to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide from, Government buildings. The £6 million allocation runs contrary to the prominence that the Executive gave to sustainability in the draft Programme for Government, and the Committee will monitor the delivery of the efficiency fund’s objectives. One of the Department’s major contributions to the investment strategy is the delivery of the £175 million capital that was received from the Workplace 2010 programme. Departmental officials assured the Committee of the accuracy of that figure and stated that it would be delivered in the 2008-09 financial year. However, the latest information received casts doubt on that. The draft investment strategy stated that Departments are in the process of developing individual investment delivery plans and that oversight arrangements are being developed to monitor departmental performance on delivery. The publication of investment delivery plans has been delayed until the spring. That is an issue in which the Committee will take particular interest, and we expect to play a constructive role in monitoring and scrutinising delivery in that area. Sinn Féin welcomes the Programme for Government — particularly its commitment to ensuring that all Executive policies will be based on fairness, inclusion and equality, and its use of watchwords in that regard. 2.15 pm There are several issues, which all parties will address in turn, on which the Assembly and, indeed, the Executive Committee must be able to deliver in the new social, economic and political reality, and which must be addressed within the limitations on our ability to respond to such challenges. Although taxation and public-expenditure policies are set in London and are inextricably linked, the policies that we are attempting to deliver today demand a more flexible and creative response from British Treasury officials and the British Government. The Assembly can deliver, but requires the tools to do so. Go raibh míle maith agat. The Chairperson of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mrs I Robinson): The Committee welcomes the Programme for Government’s recommendation that the population’s overall health status requires urgent attention. The Programme for Government states that Northern Ireland continues to have higher than average mortality from coronary heart disease, cancer and stroke. At the same time, obesity levels — particularly among children — are rising at an alarming rate. The Committee also supports the assertion that, in the areas of mental health and learning disability, we are over reliant on long-stay hospitals and the range of primary-community services is limited. The Northern Ireland population’s relatively poor state of health was clearly identified in ‘A Healthier Future: A Twenty Year Vision for Health and Wellbeing in Northern Ireland 2005-2025’, which also highlighted the higher rates of people with disabilities and mental-health problems compared to GB. The Committee also welcomes the Programme for Government’s acknowledgement that many people still live in areas of deprivation and experience high levels of poverty, disadvantage and exclusion. People who live in socially deprived areas suffer from poor health, lower educational standards and higher unemployment. That issue was also recently brought to the Committee’s attention by the Chief Medical Officer, and it must be tackled robustly. The Programme for Government sets out several key goals in what it describes as work to create a fairer society and look after our most disadvantaged. I will comment on three of those key goals. First, by 2013, anyone with a mental-health problem or learning disability should be promptly and suitably treated in the community, and no one should unnecessarily remain in hospital. As I have previously stated, I have a strong interest in mental-health issues — as do all members of the Health Committee — and I am determined that the ‘Bamford Review of Mental Health and Learning Disability (Northern Ireland)’ should be fully implemented as soon as possible. The Committee welcomes the additional funding that is earmarked for that purpose in the Budget, and we will work to ensure that those funds are used solely for that purpose. The second key goal relates to strokes. The Programme for Government states that, by 2013, everyone who suffers a stroke will be assessed within 90 minutes for suitability for clot-busting drug treatment and that mortality rates will be reduced by 15%. That is an ambitious, but achievable, target. A draft stoke strategy is out for consultation, and the Committee will shortly examine its proposals in order to ensure that the right services can be delivered to stroke patients. Thirdly, there is a target to reduce suicides by 15% by 2011. The Committee has been undertaking an in-depth inquiry into the strategy approach to the prevention of suicide and self-harm in Northern Ireland. Although the evidence gathering for that inquiry is nearing completion, obviously, the Committee has not yet reached any conclusions. However, it is fair to say that some evidence questions the merits of setting such challenging targets, particularly in the short term and given that the suicide strategy is relatively new. Some suicide strategies in other countries have targets, while others do not. The danger highlighted to us is that if the target is not achieved, questions may be asked and doubts may be cast on the validity of the overall strategic approach, which could lead to confusion and uncertainty. In my role as DUP health spokesperson, I am delighted to speak on the Programme for Government on my own behalf. It is no mean achievement to arrive at an overall strategy like this, as well as an accompanying Budget and investment strategy, which has been unanimously approved by Ministers from all four main parties. Having a Programme for Government produced by locally elected politicians represents a significant step forward for Northern Ireland, which will go a long way towards reassuring the public that we are a Government committed to delivering for the good of all the people of Northern Ireland. I welcome the fact that there is a strong focus on the economy. Although my overriding concern will always remain on health matters, it is only through building and sustaining an improved economy that health and all other sectors can best be served in the longer term. It is not that long since some parties were claiming Northern Ireland to be a failed political entity. Today, they are joining with the rest of us in strengthening and improving Northern Ireland. Unlike previous Programmes for Government, this is a clear and concise document, intentionally written in more accessible language. It is a political document that sets out the Executive’s strategic plan, rather than, as before, simply throwing together what each Minister wanted to be included. It is tightly focused, with clear objectives and measurable targets. Previous Programmes for Government were vague and unfocused, with few action points. This time there are radical new proposals, and each Minister must prove that he or she is up to the challenges of his or her Department. There is a strong focus on health promotion and disease prevention, with commitments to increased screening, particularly the introduction of a bowel-screening programme and follow-up treatments, which, it is intended, should reduce death from bowel cancer by 10%. A comprehensive human papilloma virus immunisation programme will be introduced from September 2008, which will be capable of achieving a long-term reduction of 70% in the incidence of cervical cancer. By 2009, the regional breast cancer screening programme will be extended to cover those aged 65 to 69 years of age. The state of public health in Northern Ireland is much worse than in GB, and we have only ourselves to blame for much of that. I welcome the commitments to halt the rise in obesity and the decline in adult participation in sport and physical recreation. I support the enhanced co-ordination across different Departments; the public health of the people of Northern Ireland is not just a matter for the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. I welcome funding for the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure to encourage leisure and exercise — one example of the Executive’s providing joined-up Government. There are targets for reducing the proportion of adults, particularly manual workers, who smoke. By 2010, there is to be a 5% reduction in the proportion of adults who binge drink, and 10% reduction in the proportion of young people who drink and who report getting drunk. There are also targets for reducing by 5% the proportion of young adults taking illegal drugs, and by 10% the number of children at risk from parental alcohol or drug dependency. I am delighted that education and awareness-raising programmes on sexual-health issues and teenage pregnancies are to be expanded in schools, workplaces and community settings. By 2010, we aim to achieve a 40% reduction in the rate of births to mothers under the age of 17 years. In my own constituency, it is encouraging that phase A of the redevelopment of the Ulster Hospital is to be completed by 2010. However, I am keen to see progress on phase B as soon as possible. I also welcome the confirmation that the regional adolescent psychiatric unit and the child and family centre are to be completed by the same year. Efforts to reduce healthcare-acquired infections will be welcomed by everyone, particularly after the recent revelations about clostridium difficile. By 2009, a 10% reduction in the number of hospital patients with staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infections, including MRSA, is to be achieved, as well as a 20% reduction in cases of clostridium difficile. The Health Committee has also taken evidence on mental health and suicide. It is important to slash the waiting times for access to talking therapies, although that will require sust |