Peninsula Councillor, Kieran McCarthy has criticised the decision of the SEELB to do away with summer facilities for children with learning difficulties.
Cllr McCarthy who is the Alliance Party Spokesman on Disability and the parent of a disabled daughter said:
“The withdrawal of this scheme will be a severe blow to both the parents and the child. It is important that the continuous physical and educational needs of the child is kept going during the long summer school holidays and of course it is also important that parents and carers of these youngsters get sufficient help and respite opportunities.
“I realise the problems faced by the Education Board and indeed pay tribute to them for the work and effort which they have put into Summer Schemes over the past number of years, but by withdrawing the schemes they would leave a vacuum for all concerned and I suggest that perhaps the local Health Trusts might consult with the Education Boards and hopefully come up with something that would satisfy the needs for summer activity for youngsters with a learning difficulty and their parents.”
03 March 1997
03 February 1997
NI MEPs worse attendance records: Neeson
Alliance Party Spokesman on European Affairs, Alderman Sean Neeson, claims that Northern Irelands MEP’s should not also be Westminster MP’s in view of the fact that they have the worst attendance records of any other country in the European Parliament.
Mr Neeson said:
“The European Union is having a much greater influence on our everyday life and it is vital that Northern Ireland has representatives who are totally dedicated to putting forward our case on a daily basis whether in the Parliament or its corridors. This ambivalent attitude to the Parliament is not in the best interests of Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom as a whole.”
Mr Neeson said:
“The European Union is having a much greater influence on our everyday life and it is vital that Northern Ireland has representatives who are totally dedicated to putting forward our case on a daily basis whether in the Parliament or its corridors. This ambivalent attitude to the Parliament is not in the best interests of Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom as a whole.”
Survival of the fittest
Alliance Education Spokesman, Cllr Eileen Bell, speaking at last Friday’s Debate at the Forum on the government’s decision to scrap the ACE Schemes said:
“Over the last number of months, this Forum has debated and discussed its concerns over various government proposals on Health, Education, Social and Economic issues and the Elderly. This latest initiative to abolish the ACE Schemes is another example of the government’s basic intention to undermine those who are most disadvantaged in our society and confirms the impression that their overall policy seems to be the “survival of the fittest”.
“The ACE Schemes were designed specifically for the long term unemployed, a section of our people that have been called “the forgotten”. While it is accepted that the Schemes were not perfect they did obviously bring a feeling of self worth and esteem to those people who through not fault of their own were not able to get full-time or even permanent employment.
“Society in general also benefits from ACE workers and in my own area of North Down I do know that there are a large number of small but significant schemes in communities like Kilcooley, Holywood etc. that will have to go to the wall if these Schemes are cut back. This will have reprecussions with old peoples’ lunch clubs, visiting the elderly and mothers and toddlers groups to name but a few.
“I do urge the Training & Employment Agency to acceed to the request from the Northern Ireland Federation of ACE Schemes to release the document which outlines the review of the system and should have been issued some time ago. I also urge Baroness Denton to have a serious re-think about this proposal and realise that it is not just the ACE workers that will suffer but whole communities.”
“Over the last number of months, this Forum has debated and discussed its concerns over various government proposals on Health, Education, Social and Economic issues and the Elderly. This latest initiative to abolish the ACE Schemes is another example of the government’s basic intention to undermine those who are most disadvantaged in our society and confirms the impression that their overall policy seems to be the “survival of the fittest”.
“The ACE Schemes were designed specifically for the long term unemployed, a section of our people that have been called “the forgotten”. While it is accepted that the Schemes were not perfect they did obviously bring a feeling of self worth and esteem to those people who through not fault of their own were not able to get full-time or even permanent employment.
“Society in general also benefits from ACE workers and in my own area of North Down I do know that there are a large number of small but significant schemes in communities like Kilcooley, Holywood etc. that will have to go to the wall if these Schemes are cut back. This will have reprecussions with old peoples’ lunch clubs, visiting the elderly and mothers and toddlers groups to name but a few.
“I do urge the Training & Employment Agency to acceed to the request from the Northern Ireland Federation of ACE Schemes to release the document which outlines the review of the system and should have been issued some time ago. I also urge Baroness Denton to have a serious re-think about this proposal and realise that it is not just the ACE workers that will suffer but whole communities.”
11 November 1996
Peninsula councillor makes appeal to Northern Ireland Forum
Alliance Councillor, Kieran McCarthy, made an impassioned plea to the members of the Forum at its weekly sitting on Friday, namely the shame of the so called savings on service and safety.
Cllr McCarthy said:
“So called savings or more accurately described as savage but backs by government on our health service has completely annihilated the NHS and we have for all to see a two tier health service to the eternal shamed this Tory Government. The latest effect is now being felt on patients of non fund holding GP’s who cannot have their surgery but are placed on a long long waiting list to suffer unnecessary pain and discomfort. This is a shame on Malcolm Moss and his government and call for the restoration of total equality to all members of our society. Mr Moss told us there is no crisis in the Health Service. Let him ask those who suffer. Another concern of Councillor McCarthy is the question of safety as it relates to public transport.
“Every year at the start of the new school term we experience a real problem of overcrowding on school buses giving rise to possible dangers to all passengers and on a grossly overcrowded bus all safety regulations are tossed overboard and undue responsibility placed on the skills of the driver. Certainly pupils from the Ards Peninsula and indeed many other parts are crammed on to a 53 seater bus which at times can well exceed the acceptable limit. One terrible example of overcrowding was related to where a 53 seater bus was so full a young pupil had to stand on the step just inside the closed door of that bus. I say, and I’m sure every member of the Forum would agree that this is totally unacceptable. Why should our young people be exposed to such dangers. Again a case putting so called savings before safety.
“Finally safety on another mode of transport. Namely the Portaferry/Strangford Ferry Service. Again, probably because of cut back in resources, passengers have expressed deep concern about their safety while using this service. Users which include many school children of this essential service on a twice daily basis do feel that safety standards on this short sea crossing, has deteriorated in recent times, and by brining these concerns to this Forum it is hoped and indeed we appeal to the Department of the Environment to ensure that every safety precaution s taken and to update their maintenance programme on a more regular basis.
“All three aspects of service and safety for our community has been put in jeopardy and we call on the relevant authorities to instigate immediate remedies namely sufficient funding to be released to avoid disaster. We call on Mr Moss to save our services.”
Cllr McCarthy said:
“So called savings or more accurately described as savage but backs by government on our health service has completely annihilated the NHS and we have for all to see a two tier health service to the eternal shamed this Tory Government. The latest effect is now being felt on patients of non fund holding GP’s who cannot have their surgery but are placed on a long long waiting list to suffer unnecessary pain and discomfort. This is a shame on Malcolm Moss and his government and call for the restoration of total equality to all members of our society. Mr Moss told us there is no crisis in the Health Service. Let him ask those who suffer. Another concern of Councillor McCarthy is the question of safety as it relates to public transport.
“Every year at the start of the new school term we experience a real problem of overcrowding on school buses giving rise to possible dangers to all passengers and on a grossly overcrowded bus all safety regulations are tossed overboard and undue responsibility placed on the skills of the driver. Certainly pupils from the Ards Peninsula and indeed many other parts are crammed on to a 53 seater bus which at times can well exceed the acceptable limit. One terrible example of overcrowding was related to where a 53 seater bus was so full a young pupil had to stand on the step just inside the closed door of that bus. I say, and I’m sure every member of the Forum would agree that this is totally unacceptable. Why should our young people be exposed to such dangers. Again a case putting so called savings before safety.
“Finally safety on another mode of transport. Namely the Portaferry/Strangford Ferry Service. Again, probably because of cut back in resources, passengers have expressed deep concern about their safety while using this service. Users which include many school children of this essential service on a twice daily basis do feel that safety standards on this short sea crossing, has deteriorated in recent times, and by brining these concerns to this Forum it is hoped and indeed we appeal to the Department of the Environment to ensure that every safety precaution s taken and to update their maintenance programme on a more regular basis.
“All three aspects of service and safety for our community has been put in jeopardy and we call on the relevant authorities to instigate immediate remedies namely sufficient funding to be released to avoid disaster. We call on Mr Moss to save our services.”
16 March 1995
Alliance welcomes Framework document
Alliance welcomes Framework document
16 March 1995
The Alliance Party is a liberal party. We recognise the diversity of society in Northern Ireland and our objective is to create a fair, just and peaceful society based on respect for all sections of our community and on the widest possible participation in government and decision making. We believe that the problem is essentially within Northern Ireland and can only be resolved by the people of Northern Ireland agreeing on a common way forward.
On that basis we welcome the publication of the framework document as a basis for discussion between the Northern Irish parties. We have in fact pressed for the publication of such a document since the last talks process ended in 1992, as we considered that the Northern Ireland parties would not enter into realistic debate until the two governments gave an indication of their thinking. What is now needed is serious dialogue between the parties here to take the process forward.
British policy in Northern Ireland has tended to be a matter of walking a tightrope, moving cautiously forward while attempting to keep a balance by satisfying everyone, or at least by offending everyone equally. The balancing act has become even more difficult recently with the government’s narrow parliamentary majority prompting both official unionists and Tory backbenchers to throw their weight around. But the two governments may have got the balance not far short of right in the Framework document.
What is particularly welcome in it is the commitment to the principle of consent. The unequivocal recognition by both governments that there can be no change in the constitutional position of Northern Ireland without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland is an essential starting point for progress. It offers unionists the prospect for having their fundamental requirement underwritten not only by the British government but also by incorporation in the Irish constitution. That represents a major step forward for unionists, who have always been haunted by insecurity and by the fear of a British betrayal. That unionist politicians spurn the commitments made is more a measure of their political ineptitude than of the importance of what they are being offered.
The proposals for devolved institutions in Northern Ireland in which powers would be shared across the community, for the adequate protection of rights, and for North/South institutions which would provide for effective co-operation and a positive relationship between the two parts of this island also provide a starting point for discussion. However, the specific proposal made on each of these areas need a lot of work.
In our view any effective proposals must reflect the diversity of Northern Ireland, must be based on the participation of the `Northern Ireland people in decision making, must be accountable, and must be straightforward and transparent - people will not trust institutions or proposals which have a sense of sleight of hand to them. On that basis the framework document leaves a good deal to be desired. For example, its paragraphs on human rights are conspicuous for their vagueness. It may surprise some people to realise that this is an area on which the Northern Ireland parties are substantially agreed - we all want o see the European Convention on Human Rights incorporated in NI domestic law, as at least a starting point on the rights issue. So why this vagueness and this talk about charters? Why not a specific commitment to incorporation? No doubt the simple answer is that the British government, and no doubt the Irish, have their own agendas about human rights, and incorporating the Convention isn’t part of them.
Similarly, why is such a complex and improbable structure proposed for devolution in Northern Ireland? Not only an Assembly with proportionate distribution of offices - which is straightforward and fine and readily comprehensible by everyone - but also a directly elected three man “panel” to oversee it. That proposal - effectively for a collective presidency on the perhaps unfortunate model of the former Yugoslavia - would exclude all but the representatives of the traditional blocks and thus would promote rather than reduce sectarian division , and would muddy the waters of accountability by leaving it unclear where power really lay. Equally it has to be clear that any North South bodies are practical agencies for co-operation, accountable to the Northern Assembly and the Dail.
Transparency and accountability are really the keys here. We need institutions which are straightforward, capable of being worked collectively by people with widely differing political viewpoints, and capable of reflecting the wide diversity of opinion and community in Northern Ireland. The government - and the Northern Ireland parties - need to concentrate on the practicalities of setting up workable institutions capable of commanding widespread support and confidence. And they need to do so with a greater sense of urgency than has tended to be displayed up to now.
Steve McBride
(Chairman, Alliance Party)
16 March 1995
The Alliance Party is a liberal party. We recognise the diversity of society in Northern Ireland and our objective is to create a fair, just and peaceful society based on respect for all sections of our community and on the widest possible participation in government and decision making. We believe that the problem is essentially within Northern Ireland and can only be resolved by the people of Northern Ireland agreeing on a common way forward.
On that basis we welcome the publication of the framework document as a basis for discussion between the Northern Irish parties. We have in fact pressed for the publication of such a document since the last talks process ended in 1992, as we considered that the Northern Ireland parties would not enter into realistic debate until the two governments gave an indication of their thinking. What is now needed is serious dialogue between the parties here to take the process forward.
British policy in Northern Ireland has tended to be a matter of walking a tightrope, moving cautiously forward while attempting to keep a balance by satisfying everyone, or at least by offending everyone equally. The balancing act has become even more difficult recently with the government’s narrow parliamentary majority prompting both official unionists and Tory backbenchers to throw their weight around. But the two governments may have got the balance not far short of right in the Framework document.
What is particularly welcome in it is the commitment to the principle of consent. The unequivocal recognition by both governments that there can be no change in the constitutional position of Northern Ireland without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland is an essential starting point for progress. It offers unionists the prospect for having their fundamental requirement underwritten not only by the British government but also by incorporation in the Irish constitution. That represents a major step forward for unionists, who have always been haunted by insecurity and by the fear of a British betrayal. That unionist politicians spurn the commitments made is more a measure of their political ineptitude than of the importance of what they are being offered.
The proposals for devolved institutions in Northern Ireland in which powers would be shared across the community, for the adequate protection of rights, and for North/South institutions which would provide for effective co-operation and a positive relationship between the two parts of this island also provide a starting point for discussion. However, the specific proposal made on each of these areas need a lot of work.
In our view any effective proposals must reflect the diversity of Northern Ireland, must be based on the participation of the `Northern Ireland people in decision making, must be accountable, and must be straightforward and transparent - people will not trust institutions or proposals which have a sense of sleight of hand to them. On that basis the framework document leaves a good deal to be desired. For example, its paragraphs on human rights are conspicuous for their vagueness. It may surprise some people to realise that this is an area on which the Northern Ireland parties are substantially agreed - we all want o see the European Convention on Human Rights incorporated in NI domestic law, as at least a starting point on the rights issue. So why this vagueness and this talk about charters? Why not a specific commitment to incorporation? No doubt the simple answer is that the British government, and no doubt the Irish, have their own agendas about human rights, and incorporating the Convention isn’t part of them.
Similarly, why is such a complex and improbable structure proposed for devolution in Northern Ireland? Not only an Assembly with proportionate distribution of offices - which is straightforward and fine and readily comprehensible by everyone - but also a directly elected three man “panel” to oversee it. That proposal - effectively for a collective presidency on the perhaps unfortunate model of the former Yugoslavia - would exclude all but the representatives of the traditional blocks and thus would promote rather than reduce sectarian division , and would muddy the waters of accountability by leaving it unclear where power really lay. Equally it has to be clear that any North South bodies are practical agencies for co-operation, accountable to the Northern Assembly and the Dail.
Transparency and accountability are really the keys here. We need institutions which are straightforward, capable of being worked collectively by people with widely differing political viewpoints, and capable of reflecting the wide diversity of opinion and community in Northern Ireland. The government - and the Northern Ireland parties - need to concentrate on the practicalities of setting up workable institutions capable of commanding widespread support and confidence. And they need to do so with a greater sense of urgency than has tended to be displayed up to now.
Steve McBride
(Chairman, Alliance Party)
Alliance welcomes publication of Framework Document
The Alliance Party is a liberal party. We recognise the diversity of society in Northern Ireland and our objective is to create a fair, just and peaceful society based on respect for all sections of our community and on the widest possible participation in government and decision making. We believe that the problem is essentially within Northern Ireland and can only be resolved by the people of Northern Ireland agreeing on a common way forward.
On that basis we welcome the publication of the framework document as a basis for discussion between the Northern Irish parties. We have in fact pressed for the publication of such a document since the last talks process ended in 1992, as we considered that the Northern Ireland parties would not enter into realistic debate until the two governments gave an indication of their thinking. What is now needed is serious dialogue between the parties here to take the process forward.
British policy in Northern Ireland has tended to be a matter of walking a tightrope, moving cautiously forward while attempting to keep a balance by satisfying everyone, or at least by offending everyone equally. The balancing act has become even more difficult recently with the government’s narrow parliamentary majority prompting both official unionists and Tory backbenchers to throw their weight around. But the two governments may have got the balance not far short of right in the Framework document.
What is particularly welcome in it is the commitment to the principle of consent. The unequivocal recognition by both governments that there can be no change in the constitutional position of Northern Ireland without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland is an essential starting point for progress. It offers unionists the prospect for having their fundamental requirement underwritten not only by the British government but also by incorporation in the Irish constitution. That represents a major step forward for unionists, who have always been haunted by insecurity and by the fear of a British betrayal. That unionist politicians spurn the commitments made is more a measure of their political ineptitude than of the importance of what they are being offered.
The proposals for devolved institutions in Northern Ireland in which powers would be shared across the community, for the adequate protection of rights, and for North/South institutions which would provide for effective co-operation and a positive relationship between the two parts of this island also provide a starting point for discussion. However, the specific proposal made on each of these areas need a lot of work.
In our view any effective proposals must reflect the diversity of Northern Ireland, must be based on the participation of the Northern Ireland people in decision making, must be accountable, and must be straightforward and transparent -- people will not trust institutions or proposals which have a sense of sleight of hand to them. On that basis the framework document leaves a good deal to be desired. For example, its paragraphs on human rights are conspicuous for their vagueness. It may surprise some people to realise that this is an area on which the Northern Ireland parties are substantially agreed -- we all want o see the European Convention on Human Rights incorporated in NI domestic law, as at least a starting point on the rights issue. So why this vagueness and this talk about charters? Why not a specific commitment to incorporation? No doubt the simple answer is that the British government, and no doubt the Irish, have their own agendas about human rights, and incorporating the Convention isn’t part of them.
Similarly, why is such a complex and improbable structure proposed for devolution in Northern Ireland? Not only an Assembly with proportionate distribution of offices - which is straightforward and fine and readily comprehensible by everyone -- but also a directly elected three man “panel” to oversee it. That proposal -- effectively for a collective presidency on the perhaps unfortunate model of the former Yugoslavia -- would exclude all but the representatives of the traditional blocks and thus would promote rather than reduce sectarian division , and would muddy the waters of accountability by leaving it unclear where power really lay. Equally it has to be clear that any North South bodies are practical agencies for co-operation, accountable to the Northern Assembly and the Dail.
Transparency and accountability are really the keys here. We need institutions which are straightforward, capable of being worked collectively by people with widely differing political viewpoints, and capable of reflecting the wide diversity of opinion and community in Northern Ireland. The government -- and the Northern Ireland parties -- need to concentrate on the practicalities of setting up workable institutions capable of commanding widespread support and confidence. And they need to do so with a greater sense of urgency than has tended to be displayed up to now.
Steve McBride (Chair, Alliance Party)
On that basis we welcome the publication of the framework document as a basis for discussion between the Northern Irish parties. We have in fact pressed for the publication of such a document since the last talks process ended in 1992, as we considered that the Northern Ireland parties would not enter into realistic debate until the two governments gave an indication of their thinking. What is now needed is serious dialogue between the parties here to take the process forward.
British policy in Northern Ireland has tended to be a matter of walking a tightrope, moving cautiously forward while attempting to keep a balance by satisfying everyone, or at least by offending everyone equally. The balancing act has become even more difficult recently with the government’s narrow parliamentary majority prompting both official unionists and Tory backbenchers to throw their weight around. But the two governments may have got the balance not far short of right in the Framework document.
What is particularly welcome in it is the commitment to the principle of consent. The unequivocal recognition by both governments that there can be no change in the constitutional position of Northern Ireland without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland is an essential starting point for progress. It offers unionists the prospect for having their fundamental requirement underwritten not only by the British government but also by incorporation in the Irish constitution. That represents a major step forward for unionists, who have always been haunted by insecurity and by the fear of a British betrayal. That unionist politicians spurn the commitments made is more a measure of their political ineptitude than of the importance of what they are being offered.
The proposals for devolved institutions in Northern Ireland in which powers would be shared across the community, for the adequate protection of rights, and for North/South institutions which would provide for effective co-operation and a positive relationship between the two parts of this island also provide a starting point for discussion. However, the specific proposal made on each of these areas need a lot of work.
In our view any effective proposals must reflect the diversity of Northern Ireland, must be based on the participation of the Northern Ireland people in decision making, must be accountable, and must be straightforward and transparent -- people will not trust institutions or proposals which have a sense of sleight of hand to them. On that basis the framework document leaves a good deal to be desired. For example, its paragraphs on human rights are conspicuous for their vagueness. It may surprise some people to realise that this is an area on which the Northern Ireland parties are substantially agreed -- we all want o see the European Convention on Human Rights incorporated in NI domestic law, as at least a starting point on the rights issue. So why this vagueness and this talk about charters? Why not a specific commitment to incorporation? No doubt the simple answer is that the British government, and no doubt the Irish, have their own agendas about human rights, and incorporating the Convention isn’t part of them.
Similarly, why is such a complex and improbable structure proposed for devolution in Northern Ireland? Not only an Assembly with proportionate distribution of offices - which is straightforward and fine and readily comprehensible by everyone -- but also a directly elected three man “panel” to oversee it. That proposal -- effectively for a collective presidency on the perhaps unfortunate model of the former Yugoslavia -- would exclude all but the representatives of the traditional blocks and thus would promote rather than reduce sectarian division , and would muddy the waters of accountability by leaving it unclear where power really lay. Equally it has to be clear that any North South bodies are practical agencies for co-operation, accountable to the Northern Assembly and the Dail.
Transparency and accountability are really the keys here. We need institutions which are straightforward, capable of being worked collectively by people with widely differing political viewpoints, and capable of reflecting the wide diversity of opinion and community in Northern Ireland. The government -- and the Northern Ireland parties -- need to concentrate on the practicalities of setting up workable institutions capable of commanding widespread support and confidence. And they need to do so with a greater sense of urgency than has tended to be displayed up to now.
Steve McBride (Chair, Alliance Party)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)