Failings of the Programme for Government

Speech by David Ford delivered to Assembly, 28 January 2008 on Mon 28th Jan 2008

I understand that the First Minister began his speech by stating that this is a society that was divided by conflict. In fact, the conflict was caused by division. That is why tackling division must be the first priority for every one of us. The Executive's failure to take that obligation seriously is the fundamental reason for the United Community group's opposition to the Programme for Government, and for our demanding a fundamental rewrite of it.

It is simply not enough to manage our divisions - as has been the prevailing policy for some time. We must strive to overcome those divisions if we are ever to create a society and an economy that can make progress. Anyone who is committed to ending the sectarianism, segregation and division that defines this society will surely back our amendment.

The Executive's statement on the Programme for Government was such that the economy was their first priority. Other than tackling sectarianism and segregation, we certainly agree. However, it is action and policy direction that count, not aspirations.

I was interested in the comments of Mr Burnside on matters such as the size of Government. I agree with much of what he said, although I might not reduce the size of the House's membership by quite so much as he advocated. Perhaps 52 Members, plus another 26, would represent a reasonable number. However, the key point that he failed to mention was the fact that we have 11 Departments when, in the past, this society could manage with six. That is a key issue that must be addressed. That is a matter that is directly within Executive responsibility, but of which they have failed to take any notice.

When the Programme for Government was published in draft form, the Executive briefly had the business sector fooled. The business sector thought that the Executive had made a serious commitment to making Northern Ireland fit to compete with the best in the world. However, in fact, the objectives are merely to compete with the poorer regions of the UK, not the richer ones, and not with the Republic. That is not exactly ambitious.

The Programme for Government is concerned with issues such as free public transport for the over 60s - because that is politically high profile - but not for many others who need it, such as students or those who are seeking work.

There are real problems that face some parties in this Chamber. For example, when Mr Kennedy points out - as he frequently does - that Ulster Unionist Ministers are responsible for half of the Budget, he is absolutely correct. However, the real question is whether, on that basis, his party will accept that it is part of the Executive, or whether it will genuinely become part of an opposition, as my colleague Sean Neeson has said. A zigzag policy characterised by one minute in, and one minute out, is not going to be any more sustainable than Executive plans for public transport.

The underlying vision of the Programme for Government started with the DUP, and has been bought into by other Executive parties. That is a vision whereby we remain divided in silos, whereby we compete only with poor regions, and whereby our public services remain bureaucratic and segregated.

As Naomi Long said, that is not the vision that we share. Divided versus united; weak versus prosperous; defensive versus ambitious; Executive versus opposition - that is where we stand. We want to see a genuine tackling of sectarianism and division, and real action.

It is not just the Alliance Party, as some in the Chamber claim, who are saying that. Neither is it just the five north Belfast clergy who were mentioned earlier. It is the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, which has pointed out the need for shared housing; 81% of parents, who back integrated education; and Church leaders on general social policy.

We must see real movement. The points that are being made by organisations such as NICVA, the business sector and the trade unions on the need for an integrated society to be a prosperous society must be taken account of. That is why I find the type of comments of some Ulster Unionists bizarre. The Alliance Party has adopted the same stance since the time of the first Assembly, when we opposed Programmes for Government twice, not because they failed to mention vague aspirations about a shared future, but because they failed to provide the means of delivery on a shared future.

Mr Burnside: Perhaps the Member can enlighten us: if the Alliance Party had won enough seats to join the Executive, would it be in the Executive and from where would the opposition have then come?

7.30 pm

Mr Ford: The Member asks an interesting question. However, given that the Alliance Party never gave any commitment to participating in an Executive, and would have been prepared to be involved in an Executive only if a Programme for Government that would genuinely advance this society's needs were implemented, it is a fairly hypothetical question. That said, one never knows. It may be a question that will arise after the next Assembly election. We shall leave it for the Ulster Unionists to decide whether they expect to be in the Executive before, during or after that election. It seems to me that the Ulster Unionist Party has bought the DUP's line that it is simply not moving anywhere on the concept of a shared future.

I agree with Mr Burnside on the structures of government, but we disagree on the point that he has just raised.

I shall deal with two issues that are of particular concern to me. However, allow me first to declare an interest: I am a former social worker, although I doubt whether the Northern Health and Social Care Trust will ever take me back now. In the budget for health, there has been a dramatic increase in funding: instead of there being a 3·8% increase, it is 3·9%. Lip service has been paid in the Chamber on countless occasions to the Bamford Review and to the need to do something about mental-health services, yet we know that those funding levels will not keep up with demands for acute hospital services. The inevitable result is that mental-health, childcare and community-care services will cease to be funded properly, because acute hospitals will always be seen to be the priority.

Members will also know that fundamental problems need to be tackled in acute hospitals. Infections such as MRSA and C difficile arise out of a failure to deal properly with structural and managerial problems. Given my personal circumstances today, I see a certain irony in the fact that I had tabled a question for oral answer earlier about continued palliative care in the northern area, where the supply is totally inadequate.

As a member of the Committee for the Environment, I shall now deal with some environmental concerns. We might welcome the advancement of the sustainable development strategy, but simply developing a strategy is not enough. Rather, delivery must be provided, and there is little sign of that happening. The Programme for Government talks about halting the loss of indigenous species and habitats by 2015, yet the necessary funding is simply not available. It intends to declare 200 new areas of special scientific interest (ASSIs) by 2016, yet all the non-governmental organisations involved know that many of those ASSIs will be damaged before we even get to 2016. There is real slippage there.

It would be fine to say that the Belfast sewerage project is a key goal were it not for the fact that the problem has existed for years and was being tackled under direct rule anyway. Therefore, for the Executive merely to continue with what was already being dug when they came into power is not much of a claim.

Many Members have talked about public transport, yet we persist with a policy that bizarrely tries to solve Belfast's commuter problems through initiatives such as the widening of the M2 rather than through developing public transport.

What we have is neither a business-friendly plan nor an environmentally-friendly plan, and it is definitely not a community-friendly plan. We on these Benches have ambition for Northern Ireland, and we will not settle for the limited vision of the Executive.

Lord Morrow took time to criticise the Alliance Party when he wondered why if four parties can agree on something, a fifth cannot. Other Members, from the DUP Benches in particular, said that if we are to have government at all, we must have a Programme for Government. The suggestion is being made - hinted at in the Chamber and perhaps seriously suggested in the media - that if the motion is somehow not passed tonight, the entire House will collapse. That is simply not the case. The Alliance Party will not agree to the Programme for Government because we have ambitions, and they amount to a great deal more than managing a cosy, sectarian carve-up, much like what was witnessed in the statement on the appointment of the victims' commissioners - plural - earlier today. We want to see a society that is integrated, moving forward and really ambitious. Let me be absolutely clear: if our amendment is passed, it will represent not that the House will collapse but a simple call to the Executive that they must do better, because the people of Northern Ireland expect better and deserve better under a devolved Government.

The range of consultation responses submitted may have initially included some positive comments on the Programme for Government, but, once they had delved into the detail, people pointed out its social failings, its economic failings and its inability to bring society together. Those views came from every sector of society, and that is why the Programme for Government is simply not good enough for our people.

Related Link:

Hansard.