Strategy for Cohesion,  Sharing and Integration

Private Members’ Business – in the Northern Ireland Assembly at 12:15 pm on 6 October 2008.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of William Hay William Hay Speaker 12:15, 6 October 2008

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes.

One amendment has been selected and published on the Marshalled List. The proposer of the amendment will have 10 minutes in which to propose and five minutes in which to make a winding- up speech.

Photo of Carmel Hanna Carmel Hanna Social Democratic and Labour Party

I beg to move

That this Assembly expresses its concern at the delayed publication of a strategy for Cohesion, Sharing and Integration; calls on the First Minister and deputy First Minister to publish their strategy without further delay and to detail how this strategy will promote reconciliation, the ideal of a truly shared future and how it will help the Executive’s commitment to eradicate poverty.

I apologise on behalf of my co-proposer Dolores Kelly for her inability to be present today due to a long-standing family commitment.

The SDLP accepts the Alliance Party’s amendment, but with some reservation, because it calls for the production of:

“an action plan, led by the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, to tackle segregation in schools, housing and leisure facilities.”

The nub of the motion is the SDLP’s frustration at the incompetence and fumbling by the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (OFMDFM) in relation to the publication of a strategy for cohesion, sharing and integration. I hope that the Alliance Party will acknowledge that the Minister for Social Development has made progress on housing, and I will deal with that matter in more detail later.

Without desegregating housing, integrated education will not work. Through their inability to publish the cohesion strategy, the political masters at OFMDFM have failed to display even minimal competence. Time and time again, the Assembly has been fobbed off with a series of evasive and waffly answers from OFMDFM. Over a period of six months, in answer to Members’ questions about the cohesion strategy, there have been increasingly incoherent answers on when that strategy will be published. On 1 April 2008, April Fool’s Day, OFMDFM stated:

“We are now at an advanced stage of development of the detailed proposals”.

On 22 May 2008, some seven weeks later, OFMDFM again stated:

“We are now at an advanced stage of development of the detailed proposals”.

On 28 May 2008, in response to a further question OFMDFM repeated the phrase:

“at an advanced stage”.

However, on that occasion the word “strategy” was substituted by “programme”.

On 28 May 2008, in answer to a question from a Sinn Féin Member, OFMDFM again promised that it was “finalising detailed proposals” and was:

“committed to tackling racism, sectarianism, and intolerance in any of their manifestations.”

Members should note that the order of the words relegates sectarianism to second place behind racism. Sectarianism, racism and intolerance are inextricably linked; they are all facets of one prism. No one abhors racism more than I, as a representative of South Belfast, which is the most ethnically diverse constituency in the North. However, sectarianism is the primary cause of division here. It is hundreds of years old, whereas racism is a relatively recent offshoot and manifestation of that original cancer.

On 10 June 2008, my colleague John Dallat asked for an assurance that the amalgamation of the separate strategies into a single cohesion strategy will not involve a reduction in the level of funding that is available. OFMDFM gave an answer to a question about racial equality that had not been asked. That seemed to be another diversionary tactic, an impression that was reinforced in an answer to a question from a Sinn Féin Member.

On 10 June 2008, OFMDFM stated its:

“intention to publish the Programme of Cohesion, Sharing and Integration as soon as possible.”

OFMDFM is, undoubtedly, playing the Assembly for a fool in the matter of the strategy’s publication. The DUP and Sinn Féin appear to be conniving and employing diversionary tactics to shift the focus from their obligation to produce a cohesive strategy towards a watered down programmatic approach on sectarianism that has been further diluted to a racial equality programme. I recognise that racism is a serious problem in society, but it should not be cynically used and abused to divert attention from the core issue of sectarianism.

The publication of the strategy has been caught up in the perpetual rowing behind closed doors in OFMDFM. Much as the DUP and Sinn Féin may despise each other and fight like cats and dogs, they are united in their lust for power, domination and division, and they are determined to hold on to power. Given how the two parties act, it is perhaps naive to hope or expect that they will do anything to dismantle sectarianism.

The Executive have not met for more than three months, but neither the First Minister nor the deputy First Minister has missed any photo opportunities during that period. However, as far as the community is concerned, it has been a case of all picture, no sound and certainly no substance.

I want to end on a note of hope. One of the Executive’s successes has been Minister for Social Development Margaret Ritchie’s performance in office. She has used her ministerial powers to tackle the growing housing crisis and effect positive social change in pursuit of reconciliation and a truly shared future. Over the next three years, the Department for Social Development (DSD) will develop at least 30 shared future housing neighbourhoods in existing Northern Ireland Housing Executive estates. Those neighbourhoods will allow existing tenants to live in an area where diversity is welcomed and encouraged.

Radical social change is necessary in order to banish the issues that divide us and enable us to work together to overcome global challenges. We cannot expect to heal our divisions if we continue to reinforce them by maintaining segregation. For too long, people have grown up, played and lived in separate neighbourhoods, been taught in separate schools, followed different sports and been slow to share the workplace — those are the most regrettable legacies of the Troubles. That segregation fuelled the conflict, and, because of that physical and mental entrenchment, communities grew further apart. Furthermore, they were unwilling and unable to recognise that segregation was the cause of their insecurity, not the solution to it.

A proactive, progressive public policy can help to achieve reconciliation, and housing is the obvious starting point. Margaret Ritchie has ensured that the concept of a shared future will be a central theme in all housing policy development. We know that 80% of people, given the choice, want to live in a mixed neighbourhood. I was fortunate enough to be brought up in a small Housing Trust development in Warrenpoint, where people from all backgrounds lived side by side peacefully. Both our neighbours were policemen, and we were all good neighbours. Today, individuals who are waiting for shared social housing have little or no choice in that regard and, usually, end up in single-identity estates because there is no alternative. They must tolerate flags and bunting outside their house regardless of their feelings on the matter.

A considerable amount of community involvement is required in those shared future developments to ensure that tenants are ready to commit to sharing and to abandon the trappings of a single-identity enclave. It is not sufficient to focus attention on new developments, because the majority of social housing neighbourhoods remain single-identity estates. Five neighbourhoods have already — with community support — signed up for the programme, such as the Ballynafeigh neighbour­hood in south Belfast.

A shared future means a better future; however, that is not enough. A shared future in housing is, at present, only possible in areas that already have some cross-community integration. Much more work is required to counter the mentality that exists in staunch single-identity communities. Moreover, our system of allocating houses according to objective need reinforces the status quo. The existing housing segregation leads to segregated waiting lists, and, therefore, in the majority of instances, housing will be allocated to people from the same community background as the previous tenant. That perpetuates the segregation.

Minister Ritchie announced her intention to regard shared future housing as an entitlement for those who want it. It is a radical proposition that replicates existing provision in the education sector. Many parents choose integrated education because they want their children to be educated in a mixed and shared environment. The state, rightly, strives to meet that demand. Why does the housing sector not offer such provision? If parents want to raise their children in a mixed and shared community, the state has a duty to meet that demand.

Photo of Naomi Long Naomi Long Alliance 12:30, 6 October 2008

I beg to move the following amendment: At end insert

“; and calls on the Executive to meet immediately to commit to producing an action plan, led by the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, to tackle segregation in schools, housing and leisure facilities.”

I thank the Members for proposing the motion and accepting the amendment.

Our amendment does not seek to change the thrust of the motion. Instead, it presses the need for action as well as strategy. Unfortunately, this devolved Administration has been rather poor at addressing those issues. In fairness to the current First Minister and deputy First Minister, it is not solely their problem, because very little progress was made when previous Executives dealt with that aspect of policy. In fact, it is to our shame that most progress in relation to a shared future and a racial equality strategy was achieved during direct rule, when triennial action plans were developed and annual action plans were formulated.

We need to get to grips with that, because it is probably one of the biggest challenges that faces the Assembly. It is not an easy issue to wrangle with, because it cuts to the very heart of the divisions in society. It also cuts through almost every aspect of life. Many reports have cited the extent to which sectarianism, division, racism, bigotry and hatred influence people’s choices about where to go to school or where to live; where they feel safe going to work or to receive training; about their access to jobs and services; or about all of those. It cuts right across the board, and it is something that must be tackled if people are to be given the opportunity to reach their full potential and to participate fully in their community.

This matter will not be easy to address, but the fact that it is difficult is not an excuse to delay the process. The divisions go to the core of our community. Fear, prejudice, bigotry and a lack of trust hamper political progress in the institutions, and hamper the ability of communities to fulfil their potential. Furthermore, they hamper the ability of individuals to make their own choices, free from any pressure.

I am honest and open, and do not claim that the shared future strategy and racial equality strategy are perfect documents. The Alliance Party broadly welcomed them, as did the people who implemented and delivered them. They were a good place to start. When the Executive and OFMDFM announced at the start of this Assembly that they wanted to review the strategy, the Alliance Party made it very clear that it was not averse to that, and that is on record.

It appears that almost every direct rule document has to be unpicked and rebuilt from scratch, and we expressed our concern about that. One needs a wheel to get from A to B, but one does not need to reinvent it. Any policy that has the thumbprint of the direct rule Administration on it tends to be jettisoned, regardless of its worth. That must be overcome.

We recognised that the strategy would have much more power in communities if the imprimatur of a locally devolved Administration supported it. We had no difficulty with the current Administration, the Executive and OFMDFM wishing to review it. We would have preferred to see aspects of the strategy expanded to cover other groups that are not currently mentioned in the racial equality or the shared future strategies. Although dealing with their exclusion from society may be implicit in the strategy, it would be good if it were explicit. From that perspective, we did not have particular difficulties with the notion of a review.

We hope that, with the Executive and OFMDFM imiprimatur, they will take ownership of the strategy and pursue it enthusiastically. That is something that we would welcome. However, there has been little enthusiasm, even to complete the review and submit a proposal to the Committee so that progress can be made. The time taken on this process has been excessive. It would be hard to say otherwise because — as Carmel Hanna rightly said — we have been told that the strategy has been at an advanced stage of development since the start of the year.

On several occasions, the Committee has been told that the submission of the strategy is imminent, yet we still do not have the document. The Committee was assured that its members would see it before the Halloween recess, and I am sure that the Junior Minister will refer to that in his response. I welcome that assurance, but I will believe it when I see it, because we were also promised it before the summer recess. It was also hinted that we might even have seen it before the Easter recess. We are, therefore, dealing with a moveable feast. It concerns me that those deadlines are put back and that we see no progress.

I hope that the junior Minister will not be overly insulted if I say that OFMDFM has become something of an abyss into which things disappear. After entering that chasm, only the most dogged of documents escape and see the light of day again.

A few weeks ago, one of my colleagues quipped that the strategy — CSI — is well named because, at this point, we would need crime scene investigators to locate it.

Progress must be made to produce something substantive, which brings me to the amendment. Far from indicating that the Alliance Party is dissatisfied with individual Ministers — which appears to be what Members have taken from it — the amendment attempts to focus on the fact that the policy is not just about strategic thinking at Executive level, or about platitudes; it is about producing detailed action plans that can then be supported on the ground, where they will make the most difference.

We have had to wait a long time for the strategy, and the last time we had a shared future strategy, we had an equally long wait for the resultant action plans. I am pressing for an action plan now because, given that the Executive have had so long to work on the matter, I want them to produce a strategy and an action plan, so that we can get started on making changes.

The experience with the previous strategy was not that it was wrong, but that its vision could have been expanded. For example, the direct feedback on the racial equality strategy indicated that robust actions were necessary. In some ways, reviewing and beefing up action plans — in response to comments from those who were charged with delivering the shared future strategy and the racial equality strategy — is more important than rewriting the strategic document.

The amendment focuses on a couple of areas in which central Government have a role, because the feedback that the Alliance Party has received — whether through the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister or through questions in the House — indicates a focus on the impact of local government and a bottom-up approach.

Given my position as chairperson of the good relations partnership in Belfast City Council — so I declare that interest — I recognise the important role that local government must play in connecting with the public and in being able to facilitate local community groups progressing at their own pace; however, there is a much wider aspect to segregation in our society that requires the Assembly’s support and action.

The shared future strategy will impact on employment matters — the Minister for Employment and Learning spoke earlier — because people’s choices about where they work, live or access training are restricted because of divisions in society. People have mind maps that delineate where they feel safe to go, and unless we recognise and deal with such divisions when producing policies in all areas of governance, we will not be able to offer people the support that they require to make choices.

Shared housing has already been mentioned, and I do not wish to criticise anything being done by the housing Minister to create more of it, but we must recognise that, with regard to public housing, it is a drop in the ocean. For example, we must consider the people who live outside such designated developments, and the protection and support that they receive when they are under pressure and facing difficulties from intimidation. Unfortunately, the policy still appears to be to move those who are threatened and intimidated, rather than those who threaten and intimidate. Therefore, although shared-housing projects are useful as a template for the future, we must consider other matters — such as the right to live in a single-identity area — which do not just affect people who make the choices, but also everyone around them. In essence, the first person of a different identity to move into a single-identity area breaches someone else’s express wish. So there are issues that must be addressed.

The Alliance Party wants the Executive’s document to be produced swiftly; a detailed action plan to be prepared and to go to public consultation; and for Members to reach the point at which we were when elected, when we were in the process of actually delivering a shared future, rather than talking about it.

Photo of William Hay William Hay Speaker

The Member’s time is up.

Photo of Jim Shannon Jim Shannon DUP

I support the motion and the amendment.

I wish to clarify my party’s position. When I first heard that we were to debate CSI, I, too, thought that the motion was about ‘CSI: Crime Scene Investigation’, which is one of my favourite television programmes. However, as has been said, the motion is much more important than that — it is about producing a strategy for our Province.

As a member of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, I am aware of how much hard work has been done to produce the strategy. Undoubtedly, the strategy must be produced. However, the strategy that is published must be the correct strategy, and that is what we are trying to achieve. It must answer all the needs that pertain to fairness and equality that exist in the Province, and, for that to be achieved, a great deal of thought must be put into the proposals and recommendations that are made.

I agree that it is vital to have a strategy in place and to adhere to its recommendations. Although I would prefer it if the strategy were being implemented already, it is most important that the right strategy be released, so that it can play a part in changing the situation in Northern Ireland. The strategy is important to all Committee members. It has not been forgotten about or pushed aside in any shape or form. I am aware of my own drive and that of the Committee to eradicate poverty. The implementation of the strategy is one of the Committee’s commitments and remains of the utmost importance.

I am also aware that, with the so-called credit crunch looming, it is even more vital that we propose and follow the correct approach, in order to ensure that those who are already struggling to keep their heads above water do not sink to the bottom as a result of the extra financial burden. The concepts of a shared future and the eradication of poverty are linked in the sense that we in Northern Ireland are working together to cross all the existing boundaries. We can achieve a great deal as a Province when we have people from all ethnic groups, all religious persuasions and all political backgrounds working together.

On Saturday morning, I hosted a coffee morning in Newtownards town hall to raise money for the families of soldiers, sailors and members of the Royal Air Force. I was heartened to receive donations, both big and small, from all sectors of the Ards community. Ladies had baked big cakes and small cakes for the occasion, and I even met a woman who came just to do her bit in the kitchen. Those people came together as a result of a common bond, which is that they have loved ones working in the armed forces. Therefore, they wanted to do their bit to help. In those few hours, we were able to raise more than £1,000 to help those in need. I would love to see that happen on a larger scale right across the Province; that is, people working together to do good and to achieve a result. That can happen, and, for it to happen, the strategy is integral.

I ask the First Minister and the deputy First Minister to publish the strategy only after the Committee has considered it and made its recommendations. That request is made in the knowledge that they are already working hard on getting it right. I must make it clear to colleagues — because it seems to be unclear at present — that the strategy is, and will remain, an urgent matter; therefore, it will not be put on the back-burner. I have every reason to expect that the strategy will be released as soon as it is ready and correct.

There is no doubt that some of the old division lines still exist in the Province. Moreover, some new ones have developed — as the number of migrant workers has increased, new prejudices have come to the fore. However, it is also clear that much work is already being done in the Province to combat growing prejudices. I congratulate those community leaders who have worked so hard to ensure that all members of the community are included in their schemes and who, in some places, have gone so far as to arrange cookery lessons with the help of translators to enable migrant workers to cook efficiently and economically.

Such work is happening already and is being sponsored through different initiatives. Although more funding may become available when the strategy is completed and the Committee has made its recommendations, I want to make it clear that work is being done with communities to promote cohesion, sharing and integration. Previously, the junior Ministers have indicated that £1 million is available to fund 23 different ethnic organisations. That shows that work is being done at different levels.

The work that is being undertaken now does not rely completely on OFMDFM’s releasing a paper, although that will enhance that work. I have every confidence that when the strategy is released — it is a matter of urgency, so it will be published soon — it will complement what is already in place. Members are aware of the £21 million that OFMDFM has set aside for good relations over the next three years. A further £7·5 million, again over the next three years, has been allocated to improve relationships and to deal with challenges. Again, that shows OFMDFM’s commitment.

Photo of William Hay William Hay Speaker 12:45, 6 October 2008

The Member’s time is almost up.

Photo of Jim Shannon Jim Shannon DUP

We must support the motion. We must also do our bit to contribute to the strategy, and we must have faith in our community workers.

Photo of Martina Anderson Martina Anderson Sinn Féin

Go raibh míle maith agat. I echo the views of all Members in wanting to see the publication of a cohesion, sharing and integration strategy as soon as possible. Therefore, I was pleased when the First and deputy First Minister confirmed to the OFMDFM Committee last week that that strategy would be with the Committee before the Halloween recess. Nevertheless, I welcome the opportunity to discuss the issue.

It is important to have a strategy that promotes substantive equality through the eradication of inequality and exclusion; factors that have sustained racism and sectarianism. Only when that is attained, will we have established the ground on which we can build a shared and better future. I hope that the strategy will act as a road map towards the building of the kind of shared and better future that we all want to see — one that is based on solid building blocks that tackle exclusion and inequality.

The deputy First Minister has signalled a financial investment of around £29 million to roll out the programme. We have agreed the building blocks of laws and practices that set the context for the resource allocation for building a shared and better future. I look forward to hearing the details of the proposals.

There can be no hierarchy of equality. Any good-relations strategy that is based on having due regard to promote equality of opportunity and does not include actions to address relationships between section 75 vulnerable groups in wider society is not only doomed to failure, but ignores the legal and policy base that gives it legitimacy in the expenditure of public resources.

The funding programme must enable excluded groups to identify what we must do to change our behaviour and our implementation of public policy. If that is not done, we are in danger of labelling them as victims who need support rather than groups and people who need resources to change the patterns and behaviours that have caused their exclusion.

I am aware that some politicians would prefer some minority groups to stay silent, or see a good psychiatrist. However, Sinn Féin is determined to deliver genuine equality and good relations for all in this society.

Recent unwise and unsafe commentary by some politicians — one of whom may be forgiven because, as she has acknowledged, she is not the brightest light in the candelabra — makes it all the more necessary for the House to affirm that equality for all is at the heart of building a shared and better future. I reassure all who experience disadvantage and exclusion that that is Sinn Féin’s central position; a position that agrees with the Equality Commission’s guidelines, which state:

“social cohesion requires equality to be reinforced by good community relations”.

Sinn Féin’s view of a shared and better future is premised on a belief that community relations that are built on inequality are community relations that are built on sand. No matter how close the contact that different groups may have, unless that contact is underpinned by equality, it is absolutely meaningless.

Men and women share houses and have good relations. However, that does not mean that gender inequality is not a crucial problem in our society.

Social need is closely interrelated to cohesion, sharing and integration. Both the St Andrews Agreement and the Programme for Government set the context for tackling poverty through the criteria of objective need. Therefore, I hope that Ministers such as Margaret Ritchie ensure that people in north Belfast are allocated houses based on their need. Currently, more than 80% of those on housing waiting lists in north Belfast are of a Catholic and nationalist background. However, their needs are being undermined by the pursuit of a flawed, shared future agenda.

Hopefully, it is not the case that the proposers of the motion want to talk about how much they want a shared and better future while wishing to maintain the same structures, patterns and outcomes of deprivation that make people’s lives a misery. Go raibh míle maith agat.

Photo of Danny Kennedy Danny Kennedy UUP

I broadly support the motion and the amendment. This Assembly is founded on the principle of a shared community.

Intrinsic to that concept, and its realisation, is the recognition of our diversity and the determination to make mutual respect and recognition the basis for a Northern Ireland that is at ease with itself and that is characterised by a more pluralist society.

The Ulster Unionist Party accepts that existing patterns of division are likely to remain for some time, and we have expressed our misgivings about certain policy aspects of the ‘A Shared Future’ document. Too much of that document is intent on undermining — rather than on being more positive towards — pluralism.

Building a shared community that best reflects the values of the modern United Kingdom is at the heart of my party’s vision for Northern Ireland. That vision of a shared community is an essential part of the entire political project that is represented by the Assembly, and any foot dragging in that regard has the potential to destabilise the institutions and their effective operation. The strategy for cohesion, sharing and integration — and the delay in its publication by the OFMDFM — therefore, matter.

Many people outside the Assembly have understandable fears that OFMDFM is paying lip service to the concept of a shared future; they fear that OFMDFM is talking the talk, but not walking the walk. Many suspect that OFMDFM is locked in a bear hug of mutual veto and that that sterile situation has led to the paralysis in Northern Ireland’s Government at the Executive level.

On 30 May of this year, the junior Ministers, Mr Donaldson and Mr Kelly, emphasised the importance of working towards a society in which there is respect for each other’s traditions when they opened the conference, ‘Cohesion, Sharing and Integration — our role in a better future’. On that occasion, junior Minister Donaldson said:

“We have now entered a new and hopeful period in our shared history. We have an unprecedented opportunity to build a shared and better future for all.”

However, a mere four months later, the Executive is in cold storage, having failed to meet since June. Where is the vision of 30 May? What has happened to that unprecedented opportunity? Is a shared and better future for all no longer a priority?

The danger that lies at the heart of a failure to work on the basis of mutual respect, and to give proper weighting to cohesion and a shared future, is that it helps to create a political vacuum, which nurtures the attitudes that contributed to the painful, bitter experience of the Troubles.

Society is observing the Executive’s pathetic inability to function in any meaningful manner. We must ask how, after the past three months of inaction and paralysis afflicting OFMDFM, the First Minister and the deputy First Minister can speak with authority on the issue of cohesion, sharing and integration. That is why the Ulster Unionist Party will support the motion.

Cohesion, mutual respect and working together are not optional add-ons to the institutions; they should be at the core of what we are doing here and what we are trying to build. Action to provide for the most vulnerable can be achieved only by strong legislation and leadership, which, in turn, are dependent on a mutually agreed programme. Recently, the Executive signed up to the UK-wide goal of eradicating child poverty by 2020. How can that goal be delivered when the Executive cannot even meet? They cannot meet even in the context of a global economic crisis.

The strength of the Assembly is based on mutual recognition and on mutual respect, and we achieve that by recognising our diversity — not by pretending that division does not exist. We cannot build cohesion, sharing and integration through trite slogans or by denying social realities that have emerged over generations.

Photo of William Hay William Hay Speaker

The Member must draw his remarks to a close.

Photo of Danny Kennedy Danny Kennedy UUP

The Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister has a profound responsibility to end the present sterile stand-off.

Photo of Nelson McCausland Nelson McCausland DUP 1:00, 6 October 2008

The creation of a shared and better future for Northern Ireland is an important point and clearly requires a strategy for cohesion, sharing and integration. Equality, diversity and interdependence are important principles for the future of Northern Ireland and this part of the United Kingdom.

Carmel Hanna’s speech sounded more like a party political broadcast than a speech about cohesion, sharing and integration. It seems that the only party doing anything in this regard — in her perspective — is the SDLP. I suggest that that is rather wide of the mark, and that there are issues that her party should examine.

She talked about shared housing — and her colleague Alban Maginness is here today. When the community that used to live in the Torrens estate in north Belfast were forced out of their homes by republican intimidation, Mr Maginness subsequently said that that was fine, because the land could be used for nationalists. He said that it was a windfall site. A windfall is where someone receives good fortune unexpectedly. The description of what happened in the Torrens area as a windfall — or good fortune — was a sad reflection on how Alban views the housing situation in that part —

Photo of Alban Maginness Alban Maginness Social Democratic and Labour Party

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. First, I reject entirely what the Member has said. Secondly, I remind him that the decline of the Torrens estate was due to several factors. Certainly, there was some intimidation. However, the people who left the Torrens estate did so in an organised fashion and to an agreed programme, and were rehoused immediately. The Torrens area was a windfall site in the context of providing additional housing, as it had become a sink estate. There was an opportunity for it to be rehabilitated and rebuilt. That was done and, therefore, it was a windfall site for housing in north Belfast.

Photo of William Hay William Hay Speaker

In relation to the point of order, perhaps the Member was interpreting what the Member had said. However, he may wish to clarify his position.

Photo of Nelson McCausland Nelson McCausland DUP

I am grateful to Mr Maginness for confirming that he described that site as a windfall. It was a shameful and sectarian viewpoint, and it is still the same today.

As regards shared housing, when plans were put forward for the Summervale site in north Belfast, another member of the SDLP Alex Attwood opposed progress on that site and demanded that a very high wall be built around it so that there would be a clear division between it and the neighbouring Mountainview estate. It is interesting to see that there are issues not just for one or two parties, but for all political parties, including the SDLP.

It is not just an issue of shared housing. There are also issues of how people view others and view the past. I reiterate what I said in the Chamber on 29 September — the comments made by Gerry Kelly on the television programme about the Maze Prison breakout have set back community relations in Northern Ireland by several years. There was no sense of remorse for the actions of that day; no sense of deep regret for what happened. That absence of any sense of remorse has been damaging for community relations and for the creation of a shared and better future.

Naomi Long said that most progress was made under direct rule. She referred to the creation of the shared future strategy and the triennial action plan. Progress, or at least developments, took place under direct rule. However, it was done with very little political input and very little sense of ownership, and the resultant document was a poor one.

It is a crucial issue, and we should take our time to get it right.

Photo of Stephen Farry Stephen Farry Alliance

I appreciate that the strategy did not have a huge input from political parties. However, does the Member acknowledge that the consultation on ‘A Shared Future’ received an unprecedented level of response — over 10,000 responses — from across the community?

Photo of Nelson McCausland Nelson McCausland DUP

Irrespective of the number of letters that are manufactured and sent in, the process is flawed if politicians, who are the elected voice of the entire community, do not have a share in it. Indeed, even Naomi Long acknowledged that the document is flawed. The issue of a shared future is fundamental; therefore, we must set about the process properly and get it right.

Several of this morning’s newspapers refer to the creation of a shared future in the world of sport. The Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure has made a number of significant references in recent weeks to the need for the Gaelic Athletic Association to make changes to its ethos to create a better shared future for the world of sport. Unionists from across the unionist family have acknowledged that the GAA has made some changes but have highlighted the need for further change. The problem is that both Sinn Féin and the SDLP have failed to support that call. Those parties have failed to promote the need for change towards a shared future in the realm of sport.

Photo of William Hay William Hay Speaker

I ask the Member to draw his remarks to a close.

Photo of Nelson McCausland Nelson McCausland DUP

This matter is crucial, and it must be dealt with properly.

Photo of Barry McElduff Barry McElduff Sinn Féin

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom mo thacaíocht a thabhairt don rún.

I support the motion. The deputy First Minister is committed to good relations based on equality. Indeed, Martin McGuinness has stated that OFMDFM:

“will introduce a programme of cohesion, sharing and integration to tackle sectarianism and racism, which will refresh the previous Administration’s separate but associated policies on good relations and good race relations.” — [Official Report, Vol 30, No 1, p26, col 1].

As Martina Anderson said, the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister was reminded last Wednesday that the strategy for cohesion, sharing and integration will be presented to the Committee before the Halloween recess; that is a welcome development. It is the role of the Department — in which the First Minister, the deputy First Minister and their colleagues operate — to preside over the delivery of a clear, shared vision of the type of society that we want to live in.

Contrary to the First Minister’s recent arrogance, the First Minister and the deputy First Minister are effectively joint Ministers. I hope that Peter Robinson will respect that fact in the time ahead.

The strategy refers to the role of local government. The Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister must support delivery at local level, and district councils are key in this matter. Statutory mechanisms are required to institute power sharing wherever it is resisted or refused, often by unionist-dominated councils east of the River Bann.

The situation is different west of the Bann. One of the d’Hondt systems of proportionality has been practised in the four Tyrone councils and in places such as Fermanagh, south Derry —

Photo of Barry McElduff Barry McElduff Sinn Féin

The Member will not give way.

The d’Hondt system has also ensured that unionists are treated equally on Derry City Council[Interruption.]

Photo of William Hay William Hay Speaker

Order. The Member has the floor.

Photo of Barry McElduff Barry McElduff Sinn Féin

Unionists are treated equally on Derry City Council regarding the allocation of senior posts. Similarly, in 2007-08, Bert Wilson of the Ulster Unionist Party was chairman and Clive McFarland of the DUP was vice chairman of Omagh District Council. I am a member of that council, on which nationalists predominate in numbers.

For 2008-09, Dungannon and South Tyrone Borough Council has a DUP mayor and a DUP deputy mayor, and, again, the majority of the council’s representatives are nationalists.

Photo of Alban Maginness Alban Maginness Social Democratic and Labour Party

The Member praises, and properly supports, the use of d’Hondt in local councils. Does he also support the use of d’Hondt for the appointment of a Minister for justice?

Photo of William Hay William Hay Speaker

The Member can have one extra minute of speaking time.

Photo of Barry McElduff Barry McElduff Sinn Féin

Thank you very much for the extra minute, Mr Speaker — I will need it.

Those unionist Members who are listening to, and participating in, the debate today could do cohesion and integration a favour by spreading the message —

Photo of Barry McElduff Barry McElduff Sinn Féin

No, the Member will not give way.

They could spread the message to places such as Limavady, Larne and Lisburn. Individual Ministers have a major role to play in fostering tolerance, equality and good relations in the North — and Nelson McCausland mentioned that himself.

I am speaking as an individual MLA, not in my capacity as Chairperson of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure. The Minister who is perhaps most in default is Gregory Campbell. His public utterances and conduct since assuming office have been, at best, ungracious and begrudging towards organisations that have a Gaelic Ireland outlook, and, at worst, insulting and offensive.

Photo of Barry McElduff Barry McElduff Sinn Féin

The Member will not give way.

On Friday 26 September, the ‘Belfast Telegraph’ — which is hardly a Sinn Féin propaganda sheet — featured a piece from the columnist Lawrence White. He said of Gregory Campbell:

“If he finds mixing with GAA types or Irish language groups offensive, then he should simply resign from his post.”

An article in ‘The Irish News’ on Tuesday 30 September stated:

“It’s impossible to connect Campbell’s two weeks of anti-GAA rhetoric to the incident in Down”,

where a GAA club was burned down. It went on to say:

“However, Campbell must ask himself if his recent comments helped to foster a greater sense of understanding and respect towards the GAA.”

The Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure must face increased scrutiny. He constantly insults the largest sporting and cultural organisation in Ireland — including in the Six Counties. If he is unfit for office and incapable of showing respect to other people’s traditions, and if he wants to remain in the trenches, he should consider his position as Minister with responsibility for culture and sport.

Photo of Tom Elliott Tom Elliott UUP

Who better to follow in this debate than Mr McElduff from West Tyrone. He was very quick to tell us about some council areas in the west of the Province. I sit on one of those councils, and I suggest that some of Mr McElduff’s d’Hondt proposals are really just window dressing and do not get to the crux of matter — sharing with unionist counterparts in those councils.

He mentioned Fermanagh earlier, so let us consider Fermanagh. Many symbols and memorabilia were removed from the offices and chamber of Fermanagh District Council. They stopped the flying of the Union flag — the flag of this Province — on council buildings. Therefore, do not tell me that nationalists and republicans from west of the Bann support equality.

Mr McCausland touched on the GAA. Let us be blunt, folks: if we are to promote cohesion and the sharing of responsibilities in the Province, people must get real about some of the hurts that have been caused in communities — and that applies to both sides of the community. Let us consider the GAA for a moment. I happened to be in Lisnaskea yesterday, where car loads of GAA supporters drove up and down Main Street at 6.00 pm, blaring horns, waving flags and sitting on the doors of cars.

If nothing else, doing that presented a danger to the people involved and to the public. The local Protestant unionist community was intimidated by those people’s actions.

People must gauge such incidents in that community for what they are. I am happy for people to celebrate their culture, and I want to respect that culture, but they must do it in such a way that will allow us to respect it. However, I have yet to see evidence of that. Those people can drive about with the flags of their GAA team flying from their cars, and that is fine, provided that they realise the hurt and intimidation that they are causing to some people in the minority community in that area. They must respect that community.

Photo of Tom Elliott Tom Elliott UUP

I am into cohesion and sharing, so yes.

Photo of Barry McElduff Barry McElduff Sinn Féin

Will the Member accept that he contributed to negative community relations in County Fermanagh? When the whole county was in a euphoric mood about the progress of its Gaelic football team, he made a public statement saying that he hoped that Fermanagh’s Gaelic football team would be beaten. That set back community relations and caused shock and dismay in the county.

Photo of Tom Elliott Tom Elliott UUP

I thank the Member for his interjection, because it allows me to clarify my position. If Mr McElduff had read the report accurately, he would realise that I did not say that I hoped that the Fermanagh team would lose. I said that some constituents, who are members of my community, told me that they were sick, sore and tired of listening to nothing but GAA at work. They had had enough of it, and, for once, they were saying that they wanted the team to lose. They were so fed up that they did not want it to continue for another three weeks. Those people experienced serious intimidation from their work colleagues, in an area where, in an office of about 10 people, only two might come from the Protestant unionist community. Ordinarily, those people would have joined in such discussions, but, because of the intimidation factor — something that Mr McElduff and his colleagues must get into their heads — those people did not feel included.

As a member of the Orange Institution, I have debated on public platforms with members of the GAA, and I am happy to do so. However, those people will not be able to move on unless they start to respect our tradition. It does not help matters when IRA or republican commemorations take place at GAA grounds. The organisers of those events need to be careful, as do the owners of the grounds at which those events take place.

Mr McElduff mentioned a statement that Mr Campbell made about a GAA club that was burned down. I totally condemn that act and hope that Members on the other side of the Chamber will condemn the acts of people who have burnt down Orange Halls throughout the Province over the years.

Photo of Mark Durkan Mark Durkan Leader of the Social Democratic & Labour Party

I begin by expressing my personal condolences to the deputy First Minister, Martin McGuinness, on the death of his mother, Peggy. She was a very kind, charming woman, who was loved not only by her family but by her many neighbours and the wider community across the city. I offer condolences to Martin McGuinness and to the wider McGuinness family.

The fact that we have power-sharing arrangements here is a great example of progress for our society, but politicians sharing the corridors of power cannot be the end of the journey. We must ensure that we have a society in which we truly share the streets where we live and in which we share the terraces of sports grounds and all the playgrounds, including school playgrounds. Therefore, we need determined policies, programmes and strategies to ensure that we build a community that is ever more united on the basis of being ever more equal. We must work on the basis of respect and of being respected, and on the basis of identifying, reversing and removing inequality, injustice and hardship. That should be our common commitment. That is why we must have a strategy for cohesion, sharing and integration.

The OFMDFM Ministers are not always present when the Assembly debates the work of that Department, so I welcome the fact that junior Minister Kelly is here today. I hope that he will use his time to reassure us that when OFMDFM Ministers talk about introducing a programme — as opposed to a strategy — it will not mean a lesser commitment than we might expect from a strategy. Words are often used in different ways in order to mean less than that which is required or intended. I hope that Mr Kelly will be able to spell out the commitment that is envisaged when the OFMDFM Ministers use the word “programme” rather than “strategy”.

All equality should be equal. That is why such a strategy must address a range of issues, including racism and other prejudices that people suffer in our society, whether they are being attacked for their sexuality or for other factors. We must be clear that we cannot have a strategy that is so comprehensive that it does not specifically confront sectarianism, or is uncomfortable in doing so. There must be a full-frontal assault on sectarianism in all its forms. Some of us have concerns about some of the language that is being bandied about — the way in which some matters are being rebranded — because that might lead to a lessening of the focus on sectarianism itself.

Mention was made of the lack of progress during the previous period of devolution. I am on public record as saying that I felt somewhat embarrassed that, when I was Deputy First Minister, we could not publish ‘A Shared Future’. That was partly because the then First Minister felt that even in a consultation document, a question about the idea of a shared society could be dangerous. He felt that the unionist community would react very badly even to the notion of a shared society. He based that view on experiences that people had had as a result of employment legislation and the idea that a shared workplace meant a neutral workplace — that there was a dimmer switch for Britishness while the volume was being pumped up on Irishness.

For my part, I thought that if those were the issues and concerns that people had, we really needed a debate and nationalists needed to hear the unionist view and experience if we were to truly understand the issues and move forward. Regrettably, it was left to the direct rule Administration to publish a document that progressed some of the good work that had been commissioned from Jeremy Harbison and others during the previous period of devolution and which asked some very challenging questions. We can ask each other challenging questions in this Chamber, but, as others have said, we must all ask ourselves challenging questions. I hope that the strategy, when it appears, will challenge us all.

The Executive can do much good, as can Members in the Chamber. Were a Civic Forum to be put in place, it could achieve a great deal on social inclusion and the cohesion, sharing and integration strategy.

Photo of William Hay William Hay Speaker

The Member must bring his remarks to a close.

Photo of Mark Durkan Mark Durkan Leader of the Social Democratic & Labour Party

I hope that we can use a revived Civic Forum to formulate some policy-outriding work on those areas.

Photo of Francie Molloy Francie Molloy Sinn Féin

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. We are discussing a very important document, so it is crucial that we get it right. We must also remember that the OFMDFM Ministers have told us that the document will be presented to the OFMDFM Committee before the Halloween recess.

The new strategy should emphasise that equality will be recognised, and not used simply as a smokescreen or as a form of tokenism. Good relations must be defined in accordance with the 1998 Act, which clearly identified that good relations are based on:

“due regard to the need to promote equality”.

The NIO’s purpose behind A Shared Future was simply to ignore inequalities, deprivation and patterns of exclusion and to create a smokescreen behind which it could say that it was building good community relations, but that people should ignore and set aside their aspirations for the future.

Photo of Stephen Farry Stephen Farry Alliance

On the subject of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and its good-relations provisions — which the Member’s colleague Martina Anderson mentioned earlier — does Mr Molloy agree with me that there is a case for amending that Act so that the good-relations provisions apply not just to race and religion, but to all the section 75 categories, including, most notably, sexual orientation?

Photo of Francie Molloy Francie Molloy Sinn Féin

I thank the Member for his intervention. Section 75 represents the primary legislation that deals with those matters and is, therefore, what we should primarily be concerned with. Obviously, that can be discussed in meetings of the OFMDFM Committee.

We must recognise that ‘A Shared Future’ is simply a smokescreen, and that there is a need for a new strategy to deal with equality. Forty years ago, the civil rights campaign was batoned off the streets of Derry because it dared to raise the issues of equality and justice, at that time in respect of Catholics and Protestants. Now, we live in a multicultural society that includes many nationalities, and it must be recognised that racism has become a major issue. Racism, coupled with sectarianism, leaves us with a major problem on our hands. It must be recognised that the recently formed communities here must be consulted and must be involved in the production of any policy documentation in the future. Such documents must not simply involve a tokenistic inclusion of those communities, and must not ignore their needs.

It is important to recognise that, during debates such as this, every party seems to be in agreement on the issues of sharing, cohesion and integration, and yet, during other debates — when discussing the need for an Irish language Act, for example — that does not appear to be the case; integration falls to one side. When discussing Gaelic games, integration falls to one side — in fact, the debate becomes very aggressive. When discussing the rights of Travellers, again we find that integration is not an issue that society wants to recognise.

Photo of Nelson McCausland Nelson McCausland DUP

When driving through Dungiven the other day, I noticed that the hurling club there — for which there is a large sign on the main street — is named the Kevin Lynch Hurling Club. Does the Member believe that naming a hurling club after a convicted terrorist contributes to the creation of a shared and better future?

Photo of Barry McElduff Barry McElduff Sinn Féin

Nelson declined to mention that Kevin Lynch, who is highly respected in the Dungiven area of County Derry, was the captain of Dungiven’s under-16 hurling team when they won an all-Ireland title, and that he also lined out for Derry.

Photo of Nelson McCausland Nelson McCausland DUP

Will the Member tell us what rank that individual also held in a terrorist organisation?

Photo of Francie Molloy Francie Molloy Sinn Féin

I am the Member who gave way, and although I thank my colleague for his co-operation, I will attempt to get back on course. It is important to remember that Kevin Lynch was a freedom fighter and a hunger striker. He was held in very high esteem by the local community, and the Gaelic team for which he played was named after him. If one looks through the history of any society or organisation, one will find that many have been named after various people, at various times, for various reasons. That does not mean that they should not be integrated, or that the Gaelic Athletic Association should be isolated, and deprived of funding and resources by the Assembly.

There are other issues that concern groups of people who are not allowed to be integrated — the victims of the past, for example. Some parties hold to the interpretation that there are different classes of victims. That issue must be dealt with.

Some Members have spoken very strongly against the reintegration of ex-prisoners into society, and their need to be able to adapt to all aspects of society in their normal working routine. If we are really talking about integration, we must be genuine about it.

Jim Shannon made the point that, in meetings of the OFMDFM Committee, there is a very open discussion of the issues of integration and victims, and the other issues with which we are dealing. If we are to have a genuine discussion on those matters, it is important that we take into account the factors that affect all sides of the community, that we start to deal with those in a realistic way, and do not simply create a smokescreen. The proposed amendment to the motion creates a smokescreen. It is very important that we discuss the document and give it due consideration.

Photo of Gerry Kelly Gerry Kelly Sinn Féin 1:30, 6 October 2008

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to the motion.

The motion and the amendment ask the First Minister and deputy First Minister to: publish the strategy for cohesion, sharing and integration immediately; detail how the strategy will promote reconciliation; explain how the strategy will help the Executive’s commitment to the eradication of poverty; and produce an action plan to tackle segregation in schools, housing and leisure facilities. I will address each of those issues, but I also want to reassure people in the Assembly, and those outside the Chamber who may catch snatches of the debate on TV or in the newspapers, that we are fully committed to tackling division.

As outlined in legislation and policy, the Executive are committed to equality for all sections of our community. All Ministers in OFMDFM support the building of constructive cross-community work, which is now part of everyday life. All Ministers in OFMDFM are wholeheartedly working to eliminate sectarianism, racism, division, polarisation and prejudice. The Executive have fully supported those commitments and objectives in the strategic priorities and cross-cutting themes of the Programme for Government. All Members here are wholly committed to a shared and better future for all. Despite the disagreements, every Member who spoke in the debate spoke up for that cause.

Before I address the specific issues that the motion raises, I want people in communities to hear a united and shared message from the Chamber that building our new future is a unified and unifying task. The rough and tumble of political debate in the Assembly must not discourage those dedicated people who take serious personal risks to bridge deeply felt division. I am sure that I speak for all Members by saying that our society requires everyone to work together to secure the new relationships that are growing in so many places. We want that work to continue and be built on to create a shared and better future for all. We will not shy away from tackling head-on the difficult and challenging issues that face us.

The question about publishing the strategy for cohesion, sharing and integration, and the involvement of the OFMDFM Committee in that, is straightforward for me to answer. During Question Time on 29 September 2008, the deputy First Minister confirmed that the draft strategy will be submitted to the OFMDFM Committee before the Halloween recess. That was reiterated when the First Minister and deputy First Minister appeared before that Committee on 1 October 2008. To reassure other Members, the strategy will be presented to the Assembly, and the programme proposals will be subject to full consultation and an equality impact assessment.

I emphasise that, considerable work has been done on the strategy over the past 12 months, in line with all inherited policies. We made a joint decision to fundamentally examine the strategy to establish whether it was fit for purpose for the new dispensation. We want to make the strategy as effective, ambitious and comprehensive as possible, and we are moving strongly in the right direction. Several Members mentioned that everything that was done before is being abandoned. That is a myth. We are trying to refresh and rebuild existing strategies.

There are some preliminary comments to make before I address how the strategy will promote reconciliation. First, the strategy must be seen in the context of the legislation and policies that promote equality across all sections of our community. The strategy will also sit alongside existing policies on tackling and ending hate crime and promoting respect for diversity. We will not consign to the dustbin the work that people have done and the successes that they have achieved. The exercise is about consolidating, building on and resourcing tried and tested good practice. We must be innovative to ensure that the strategy is targeted at the changing face of communities and society.

Secondly, I want to address the myth that we have shelved the promotion of community relations — nothing could be further from the truth. Over the past 18 months, all the OFMDFM Ministers and their departmental officials have actively led and supported work on the ground, and I know that many Members have done so too. However, from a ministerial and departmental perspective, I am pleased to highlight the increased funding of £7 million for good relations and good race relations that was secured in the 2007 spending review as an example of our commitment.

That increase has already been provided during the current year — for example, to minority ethnic groups, which now receive funding of approximately £1 million. The involvement of junior Minister Donaldson and me, during the summer, with the working group that focuses on issues in north Belfast has brought about a £100,000 increase for youth-intervention schemes. Thanks to that support for people who work at interfaces, improvement has continued throughout the summer months.

As I turn to the focus of the new strategy, I do not want to go too far ahead of our discussions with the Committee. However, I will explain some of our priorities: to tackle the visible manifestations of sectarianism, racism and intolerance; to dismantle peace walls, with communities’ support; to work with communities who live in interface areas to eliminate sectarian attacks, youth rioting and civil disorder; to tackle the incidence of, and reasons for, racial attacks; to provide and expand safe and shared spaces and public services; and to support local people, with the participation of minority-ethnic groups, to deal with local issues through local solutions.

I have included that list in order to give a flavour of the practical objectives that the strategy seeks to achieve. By promoting reconciliation in a practical way, we seek to challenge and support communities to become places where any person, regardless of race, colour, religion, political opinion or sexual orientation can live, work, rest and socialise in an environment of tolerance, respect, safety and freedom from hate and violence.

Central Government believe that strong political leadership is essential for the success of the strategy. The establishment of a new Minister-led good-relations panel will drive and oversee the work throughout Government, in local government, and with key stakeholders to tackle the type of issues that I have mentioned. A strategic action plan and locally delivered action plans will be developed and implemented, and will skilfully take account of all good relations and race-relations issues through complementary bottom-up, top-down approaches. Those are ambitious and comprehensive objectives. It is not only necessary, but essential, for everyone to accept them. I firmly believe that they are achievable and that they reflect people’s aspirations.

How will the strategy help to eradicate poverty? As Members are aware, the economy is a key aspect of the Executive’s Programme for Government. Wealth creation and job creation must and will impact on all areas of social and physical development. Just as we want to share in the peace bonus, so, too, must economic regeneration benefit everyone in society. Successful economic development must include all sectors — Government, business, education, and the community and voluntary sector. A stable society is needed in which children can play together, people can work together and families can live happily side by side, regardless of their community, ethnic background or beliefs. That mutual acceptance and respect are the determining factors that will foster a stable, prosperous and growing economy.

During the past several years, a Cheann Comhairle, there has been economic growth and job creation. However, there are concerns that not all sections of the community have participated nor, indeed, benefited from that growth. People who live at interface areas must be able to see and feel on the ground the impact of the good-relations policy. It is not sufficient to say that the policy works: that must be seen and felt by people on the front line.

The anti-poverty strategy will be based on the life-cycle approach in order to tailor solutions to each group’s particular needs. We are committed to actively target and deal with social need. We want that work to be taken forward by a new ministerial anti-poverty subcommittee. The core principal was made explicit by the Programme for Government’s (PFG) commitment:

“to develop new and innovative measures that will address existing patterns of socio-economic disadvantage and target resources and efforts towards those in greatest objective need.”

The application of the principle of a shared and better future for all has a cross-cutting theme. The programme will ensure that Departments direct efforts and resources towards areas, groups and individuals in greatest objective need, including disabled people, children, families and older people who live in poverty.

The Executive already has a broad range of programmes that are aimed directly at targeting social need and patterns of disadvantage, for example, Sure Start, winter fuel payments and measures to tackle rural poverty. However, the concept of a better and shared future for all applies equally to high-level strategies, such as the investment strategy.

The Executive, in agreeing the PFG, have set challenging targets on poverty, and on child poverty in particular. They are committed to eradicating child poverty by 2020 and halving the numbers of children in poverty by 2010. From an early stage, the Executive have sought to ensure that the concepts of equality and good relations are firmly embedded in the approach to developing the PFG and investment strategy. They wanted to ensure that, in the growth of the economy and creation of the shared and better future, no group would be left behind. That is a key aim; and it underpins the entire PFG. It is reflected in the priority they give to promotion of tolerance, inclusion, health and well-being. In line with that, The Executive have set a range of ambitious targets to address the causes and consequences of inequality, intolerance and division, and to break the cycle of poverty, disadvantage and marginalisation.

The Executive are determined to support the most vulnerable and to ensure that everyone lives in a strong vibrant and sustainable way that enhances the quality of life and encourages everyone to realise his or her potential. That is why we will focus on building shared communities, regenerating communities, removing barriers to employment, removing physical barriers that divide communities and addressing significant inequalities in health and education outcomes.

I hope that I have addressed most of the issues raised by Members. In her party political broadcast, Carmel Hanna referred to separate and segregated housing. We recognise people’s aspirations to live in unsegregated housing; we support the work of the Housing Executive, which is substantially funded by the International Fund for Ireland, and we are conscious of the primacy of need. We will work with the Housing Executive to balance need with the shared aspiration to build communities in all areas. It is also important that we work closely with the communities themselves.

Naomi Long spoke of the detailed action plans among other things. As I said already, the Executive’s strategy emphasises that actions must be locally based, take account of local needs and identify local solutions. We agree that physical action is important, but it is also important that we do not impose plans on communities. Involving communities is vital.

Jim Shannon said that OFMDFM should publish the strategy only after consultation with the Committee: I have already addressed that point.

Martina Anderson said — not for the first time — that there should be no hierarchy of equality. We agree that equality and good relations are joint priorities and that they are mutually reinforcing. Contacts must result in substantial changes in attitudes and behaviours. We want to see the policy make a real difference to people’s lives.

Danny Kennedy said that delay in publishing the strategy is destabilising the institutions and suggested that it is paying lip-service to the concept of a shared and better future. I have addressed those issues. Mr Kennedy’s concern, that a shared and better future is no longer a priority, is misplaced. We need to focus on what we are doing. The rough and tumble of debate should not ignore the real action that is being taken: otherwise, we run the risk that those we support, and who work so diligently and effectively, may be discouraged.

Barry McElduff, Naomi Long and Tom Elliott mentioned the role of local government. We must recognise that many useful projects are being supported by all district councils. Difficult issues are being worked through by people in both communities, and it is important that we, the elected political representatives, lead by example.

Mark Durkan asked whether the introduction of a “programme”, as opposed to a “strategy”, signified a lesser commitment; Carmel Hanna also spoke about that. I assure both Members that that is not the Executive’s view. The change of a word does not signal a reduction in priority. The response I gave earlier to Carmel Hanna’s point should assure everyone that the housing issue is being dealt with in that manner.

Another issue was raised by Nelson McCausland. Every Member who spoke —

Photo of William Hay William Hay Speaker

The junior Minister’s time is almost up.

Photo of Gerry Kelly Gerry Kelly Sinn Féin

I will be brief. I welcome Nelson McCausland’s statement that equality, diversity and interdependence are crucial.

I shall step out of my role as junior Minister to speak as a private Member for a moment. History is history — I was involved in the Maze escape, and I make no apologies for that. Mr McCausland’s consistent verbal attacks on the GAA are not helping community relations either. Go raibh maith agat.

Photo of Stephen Farry Stephen Farry Alliance 1:45, 6 October 2008

At the outset, I declare an interest as a member of the Community Relations Council. I thank the Members who tabled the motion for accepting our amendment.

Looking back, ‘A Shared Future’ was a good start, but it was not a perfect document, particularly because there was a lack of political buy-in. However, much progress was made, and an action plan flowed from ‘A Shared Future’. In the same light, the cohesion, sharing and integration strategy, whenever it is published, is unlikely to be perfect. However, we must make a start. Like the Minister, I do not want to go into detail anticipating what may be in that document.

The community has a number of concerns. First, it is concerned that good community-relations issues will go back into the silo of OFMDFM. When that issue was part of ‘A Shared Future’, emphasis was placed on a cross-departmental strategy. Some people fear that we may lose that overarching framework.

Secondly, although the Minister said that a shared and better future is an underlying theme in the Programme for Government, the public service agreements (PSAs) associated with that document exhibit little joined-up action on community-relations issues. It is feared that local action will be overemphasised, at the expense of an overarching regional strategy.

Thirdly, there is concern about the lack of a concrete action plan and the lack of accountable bodies, be they Departments or agencies, to develop the proposals. Our amendment tries to emphasise those points.

Those visions cut across all public policy in Northern Ireland and affect all strands of society. When one talks about economics, one must look at the impact on labour mobility and the way in which investment is deterred. Frankly, we cannot prioritise economic development in the Assembly and the Executive if we do not acknowledge the impact of division. The Alliance Party has raised the issue of finance on many occasions.

Some Members, including Jim Shannon, spoke about the social aspects of a divided society and how those are linked to deprivation. Members are aware of the human aspect, in that, whenever people are not contact with one another, they lose the ability to develop to their full potential, and, as a consequence, society loses out.

Environmentally, it is now clear that divided societies have larger carbon footprints. That point may go over the head of the Minister of the Environment.

Those points illustrate the need for joined-up action among Departments and stress the importance of having a coherent action plan.

I want to comment on some Members’ contributions. It was a largely productive debate, with the exception of those Members whose contributions went down a few blind alleys.

Carmel Hanna raised the issue of housing. I acknowledge Margaret Ritchie’s work on shared housing. She has been proactive, yet much more must be done.

Although we welcome the fact that the Department now talks about people’s right to live in mixed areas, the other side of the coin is the right of people to live in a segregated neighbourhood — a single-identity area. In the strange world of Northern Ireland, it may seem perfectly reasonable, based on religious identity, to live in a single-identity area. However, if a society were to introduce a policy whereby people had the right to live in single-identity areas based on race, there would be international outrage. We must look carefully at the real implications of our statements on the current housing policy.

Jim Shannon and Martina Anderson mentioned resources and that new funds are to go to OFMDFM. That the money is going to OFMFDM more or less makes my point for me. We must see what other Departments are spending on their good-relations strategies. Education is one area in which huge opportunities exist for sharing and, in the long run, saving resources.

Some Members mentioned the issue of equality and the good-relations function. In my intervention, I was trying to make the point that there is a distinction between the breadth of groups listed under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and those listed under the good-relations function, which applies to race and religion only. That must be broadened if there is to be a genuine, robust system of equality and good relations.

Danny Kennedy spoke of pluralism as the way forward. That is fine, but not if it means entrenching divisions in Northern Ireland. Pluralism, in a positive sense, must be about more than two communities, and must value diversity. I urge support for the amendment and the motion.

Photo of Alban Maginness Alban Maginness Social Democratic and Labour Party

I thank the Alliance Party for its support for the motion, and I commend all Members who have supported it.

If rhetoric were the measure of commitment to good relations and reconciliation in the community, we would have no problems. Every Member who has spoken has mentioned the necessity of the promotion of good relations and of reconciliation, as well as the need for the creation of a more equal society in Northern Ireland.

That is to be welcomed. However, a real commitment to that process is required on the part of the Executive. The unpardonable delay in the production of a document — whether it be a strategy or a programme — is deeply regrettable. The House has been assured by the junior Minister that the document will be produced by Halloween. He did not say which Halloween.

Photo of Gerry Kelly Gerry Kelly Sinn Féin

This Halloween.

Photo of Alban Maginness Alban Maginness Social Democratic and Labour Party

He has clarified the position, Mr Speaker. We look forward to the production of that document by Halloween, because there have been many false dawns in reaching that stage.

The Assembly, the Executive and the other institutions of the Good Friday Agreement have one central purpose — to reconcile all our people, to create partnership, and, through that partnership, to bring about a sustainable peace here for future generations. The Assembly must realise that this is a conflict resolution process, not a conflict substitution process. Unfortunately, some Members adhere to the latter.

It is clear that there is general goodwill towards moving in the right direction. I commend those who have spoken in those terms today. However, there is a problem in respect of equality in this society. One cannot exclude equality and have good community relations — both go together. Neither can economic opportunity be excluded; we must have that. That is why it is important that the document also tackles poverty in our society. My party and I recommend that the Executive take on board statutory targets to try to eliminate poverty.

The Executive and the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister purport to be dedicated to the elimination of poverty, particularly among children, and yet the Executive fund that was set up to tackle that very problem has been abolished. That is to be deeply regretted. That fund was pioneered by the first Executive, and it was of great value and importance.

Some of the remarks that were made by Tom Elliott about the system of local government and about the d’Hondt system, in particular, are regrettable. D’Hondt is a very important mechanism for bringing about power sharing in local councils — it is not superficial; it is a real sharing of power at local government level.

Photo of Tom Elliott Tom Elliott UUP

I wish to clarify my position. I did not criticise the method or the use of d’Hondt in the western council areas. I indicated that there is still an underlying sectarianism and division that must be tackled.

Photo of Alban Maginness Alban Maginness Social Democratic and Labour Party

I am glad that the Member clarified his point. D’Hondt is not the only mechanism — we can have others, we can improve on d’Hondt and we can improve on the sharing of power and the building of partnerships. I agree with the Member that there is an underlying sectarianism in all councils and throughout our society. Our central role must be —

Photo of Barry McElduff Barry McElduff Sinn Féin

During the course of my remarks, Mr Maginness asked me to clarify matters pertaining to the use of d’Hondt. With his legal background, he will know that the Act is paramount in this matter. When a new Department is established, which might necessitate the dissolution of an existing Department, section 17 of the 1998 Act takes effect. Subsection 4 of the Act states that:

“The number of Ministerial offices shall not exceed 10 or such greater number as the Secretary of State may by order provide.”

Subsection 5 states that:

“A determination under subsection (1) shall not have effect unless it is approved by a resolution of the Assembly passed with cross-community support.”

The SDLP mantra that d’Hondt simply has to be triggered so that it can get its hands on the ministerial post for policing and justice is illegal under that 1998 Act, and I will arrange for a copy of it to be left in the Member’s pigeonhole.

Photo of Alban Maginness Alban Maginness Social Democratic and Labour Party

I thank the Member for belatedly replying to my point; it must have taken quite some time for the Sinn Féin office to work out that strategy, which he has very carefully read. Of course it is not illegal; d’Hondt is the proper system for the appointment of Ministers, and departing from that is to depart from a central aspect of the Good Friday Agreement. Unfortunately, that is what Sinn Féin has done — it has weakened the d’Hondt system. It is sad that the Member has to stand up and justify that instead of supporting the right of an SDLP member to be appointed as Minister for justice.

Photo of Mark Durkan Mark Durkan Leader of the Social Democratic & Labour Party

Mr McElduff addressed the issue of what happens regarding the first devolved justice Minister. However, the letter from Martin McGuinness and Peter Robinson of 29 July states that at all times the Minister of justice is to be appointed by cross-community support — a complete departure from the agreement. We are talking about a veto that will be used not just against the SDLP now, but against Sinn Féin in the future. That is the significance of the mistakes that Sinn Féin is making.

Photo of Alban Maginness Alban Maginness Social Democratic and Labour Party

No, I think that you have made your point. If the Assembly has any task it is to tackle sectarianism, individually and collectively. It is important to say that publicly and to do that through our actions; that has always been my policy as a politician. I strongly reject any criticism, implied or explicit, made against me today. The SDLP remains committed to the promotion of good relations, to the ending of sectarianism and to the creation of reconciliation in our society, and that should be the task for us all. If this debate has done any good, it has been to highlight the importance of that commitment. That commitment should bring about agreement amongst those in the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, and that office should expedite a process whereby we can achieve that.

Good spirit was shown this morning through the condolences expressed by the First Minister to the deputy First Minister. That human touch was very moving and something to be genuinely welcomed.

If Members could translate that into daily actions in the Assembly, it would act as a model and an example to the community for people, collectively and individually, to tackle the problem of sectarianism, whether in sport, the workplace, housing, education, or elsewhere. That would be a marvellous contribution to peace.

Question, That the amendment be made, put and agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly expresses its concern at the delayed publication of the Strategy for Cohesion, Sharing and Integration; calls on the First Minister and deputy First Minister to publish their strategy without further delay and to detail how this strategy will promote reconciliation, the ideal of a truly shared future and how it will help the Executive’s commitment to eradicate poverty; and calls on the Executive to meet immediately to commit to producing an action plan, led by the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, to tackle segregation in schools, housing and leisure facilities.