Malawi is not the only poor country in the world - but it is one of the five poorest. My colleague, David McClarty, and I have seen the poverty, hunger and disease that are there. We have also seen the country's abandonment by the developed world. The cold war is long over, and Malawi is no longer of strategic importance, so it is forgotten.

We have also seen the opportunities to tackle the problems in Malawi and give hope to people who are desperately trying to help themselves and are crying out for our co-operation. They do not want aid: they want partnerships and help.

Today we discussed the need for improving standards of education in Northern Ireland. In the past week I have seen overcrowded schools with no books, no pens and no desks, yet there are people with a burning desire to learn.

We also discussed the need for a better Health Service in Northern Ireland. I have seen hospitals and clinics that have no drugs or equipment yet there is a commitment to address the needs of the sick and the dying.

In Northern Ireland, universities and hospitals are well placed to create linkages with the people of Malawi and other African nations, which are experiencing famine that is sometimes caused by political corruption, inclement weather or crop failure.

To discuss the draft Programme for Government without including our aspirations and commitment to the Third World seems incomplete. The Assembly has an All-Party Group on International Development, which was initiated by my Colleague, Carmel Hanna. I would like to see the input of that group, as well as its work and encouragement for linkages with the Third World, come to the forefront of the Assembly.

Under the heading "Developing Relations - North/ South, East/West and Internationally", I respectfully suggest that we detail our vision for the Third World and set about implementing it over the next few years. To some people that may be a fairy tale; however, it is a plea to extend the principles of partnership to some of the most wonderful people I have had the privilege to meet. When the Programme for Government comes before the Assembly again, I hope that we have definite proposals for international involvement.

My Colleague, Denis Haughey, and I are pleased to close the debate. We will respond to as many points as possible. It has been a useful and informative debate. We listened with interest to the wide range of contributions from Members, which focused on the wide range of aspects in the draft Programme for Government.

The document was agreed by the Executive only last week and was presented to the Assembly yesterday. As Members will be aware, we amended the timetable this year to bring the debate forward to give the maximum possible period for consultation before the Programme for Government is finalised in December. The consultation period gives individual Ministers, and the Executive as a whole, more time to consider the points raised today and those that will be raised during the consultation period.

Although individual Committees are considering the Programme for Government, Denis Haughey and I will oversee wider consultation with the Civic Forum, local government and social partners in business, trade unions, and the voluntary and community sectors.

As the Deputy First Minister stated in his opening remarks, we will be taking this forward as a joint venture with the Minister of Finance and Personnel. That will ensure that the draft Programme for Government and the draft Budget, which supports it, are considered together.

It is important that we do that, because the Programme for Government and the Budget are directly linked. Budget allocations support the programme's policies and activities. We must not commit to actions that we cannot afford.

It is a question of priorities, and we must make choices. Inevitably, some of those choices are difficult. We must explain the prioritisation and decisions that we have made. That is a key aspect of having a locally elected Administration in charge, with locally accountable Ministers taking decisions on how to make best use of the resources available in order to address local needs.

In the draft programme, we have set out to produce a strategic and forward-looking document. We want to ensure continuity and build on the progress and achievements that have been delivered since devolution. However, by the same token, we are not afraid of change. The draft programme makes clear the Executive's intention to reform how public services are funded, organised and delivered in a way that will make a difference to the lives of people in Northern Ireland.

As both the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have made clear, this is a draft Programme for Government. This debate, and the responses to consultation on both the draft Programme for Government and the draft Budget, will lead to a revised and, we trust, improved document that we will bring back to the Assembly at the beginning of December 2002. As Members will be aware, the Programme for Government is derived from the Belfast Agreement, in which there is a requirement for the Assembly to agree on a Programme for Government and Budget each year.

That is not the only commitment in the Belfast Agreement. Perhaps some of the Members present should familiarise themselves with a range of other commitments in the agreement, some of which are yet to be fulfilled. If, as a result of the lack of fulfilment of those requirements, there is potential uncertainty in the future, it is all the more important to address those outstanding matters, to have Northern Ireland's affairs in good order, and to have a clear road map laid out in the Programme for Government as to what the needs and aspirations are for the good government of Northern Ireland.

I want to cover in detail some of the points that were raised in the debate. I will be followed by my Colleague, Denis Haughey. We have divided the debate into different subject areas, rather than into Members' contributions. One matter that falls to me to discuss is education, on which a considerable number of points were made. During the course of the debate there were guest appearances from the Minister for Regional Development and the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. When the points on education started to build up, I found myself hoping that the Minister of Education would show up and deal with some of them. I am grateful to the Minister of Health for her contribution, although my Colleague will be the greater beneficiary of that.

Members expressed concern about low standards of literacy and numeracy. That is a problem with which all Members are familiar. I emphasise to the House that the problem is exercising the attention not only of the Northern Irish Administration, but of Administrations across the UK. A wide-ranging strategy is in place to raise literacy and numeracy standards. We recognise that they are key to the rest of the school curriculum and to equipping people for the world of work. The strategy includes early intervention programmes for pupils who are struggling with reading, a major programme of in-service support and training for teachers, and new support material for teachers.

In conjunction with its educational partners, the Department of Education has carried out an internal review of the literacy and numeracy strategy, and recognises that there is a need for a more co-ordinated approach in relation to the implementation of the strategy, alongside those for a school support programme, curriculum and assessment arrangements, and educational technology. The next stage is to make adjustments to the current policy and to assess what more needs to be done to reduce the number of young people who are failing to achieve basic levels of literacy and numeracy. New arrangements should be in place in schools by September 2003.

Public service agreement targets for the number of 11-year-olds who are likely to achieve level 4 in Key Stage 2 assessments have been reduced from 77% in English and 80% in maths to 75% in English and 77% in maths. The targets for 2006 reflect the expected level of progress that is achievable with the resources available.

Will the Minister give way?

If Mr Kennedy can bear with me, I will deal with his point shortly.

Ms Gildernew mentioned essential skills. The findings of the International Adult Literacy Survey, in which Northern Ireland was benchmarked against most of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, indicate that 24% of adults here, 260,000 people, perform at the lowest level of literacy. That partly relates to the matters that concern Mr Kennedy. Research shows that those poor skills levels have serious consequences for individuals, families, society and the economy. That is why the Minister of Education launched a consultation paper on adult literacy aimed at improving the levels of essential skills throughout Northern Ireland. The draft Programme for Government sets out the Executive's intention to support an additional 2,500 people to update their essential skills by March 2004.

The issue of literacy brings me to lifelong learning and help for the most disadvantaged, issues that Mr Billy Hutchinson touched on. The draft Programme for Government sets out our commitments to education for all, from the earliest years throughout their lives. Contrary to what Mr Hutchinson said, our thinking on those issues is joined-up. The interdepartmental working group on early years ensures that policies such as those involving Sure Start, pre-school education, childcare and the role of the children's commissioner work in harmony. The draft programme makes clear our commitment to early-years education. A range of work on lifelong learning is in progress, and I will deal with that later.

Mr Kennedy raised the issue of targets. The public service agreement targets have been revised in the draft programme. They envisage higher levels of academic achievement than the current levels, which are not what we had hoped they would be. Although in some instances the targets are lower than those previously published, our commitment has not lessened. The targets take account of recent trends and what can realistically be achieved with the available resources within a reasonable timescale.

Mr Shannon made several points about education.

I understand that the Minister is not responsible for education. However, I ask him to draw the issue that I raised to the attention of the Minister of Education so that he can explain to the Committee for Education why numeracy and literacy standards are being reduced.

I acknowledge that valid point. The Committees can take up matters of detail in the Programme for Government with the relevant Ministers. Ministers will consider it essential to examine the remarks made today to get a taste of what is likely to be raised with them in Committee.

I shall do my best to ensure that the Minister of Education can discuss the matter with Mr Kennedy and the Committee for Education when the time comes.

Mr Shannon referred to the problems that sometimes occur when pupils cannot be admitted to their local school, while a nearby school closes because of falling enrolment. Account is taken of the physical capacity of the premises in setting enrolment and annual admission numbers. To ensure fairness and openness in admission arrangements, schools must publish their admission criteria beforehand, showing how pupils are selected if there are more applications than places. Parents have the right to express a preference as to which school their children attend and, if the school is not oversubscribed, that choice will automatically be respected. It must be recognised that to predict with absolute accuracy the number of applicants in any one year is an imprecise science. However, when a school has more applicants than places it must apply its admission criteria. Inevitably, if there are too many applicants, some parents will be disappointed that their preference will not be met. In most cases, every effort will be made to ensure suitable places at other schools in the same locality or within reasonable travelling distance.

Some Members were concerned at the allocation of school capital funds. In determining the school building programme, the key objective has been to ensure that the allocation of resources is based on educational need. To suggest that the programme be determined on school sector rather than on educational needs would elevate some schools above others with greater need. Such a system would be inappropriate and is therefore not followed. We do not believe that there is bias in the allocation of funds.

Some Members discussed Irish-medium schools. The Department of Education has a statutory duty to encourage and facilitate the development of integrated and Irish-medium education. Although it does not seek to impose either, it does respond to parental demand for those forms of education. Before they are approved for grant-aid status, proposals for new integrated and Irish-medium schools are assessed against criteria to ensure that they are robust and that they represent value for money. I point out that such schools have closed as well as opened.

Mr Shannon expressed concern about the downgrading of A-level examinations. Our local examining body, the Council for Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA), was not involved in the marking and grading problems, and no concerns have hitherto been raised with the Department of Education. The Department has every confidence that CCEA will continue to provide a robust and reliable examinations service for our young people. There were approximately 12,500 A-level subject entries from Northern Ireland to examination boards other than CCEA in the most recent examinations. That is 45% of the total A-level examinations taken in Northern Ireland. The independent inquiry ordered by the Secretary of State for Education and Skills in Westminster has implications for the national qualifications framework. The findings, therefore, will be of keen interest to us, as they will in England and Wales. The Department of Education will consider the contents of the report and the implications that any recommendations may have for our students.

Sammy Wilson and Monica McWilliams again raised the issue of allocations to education. The Minister of Finance and Personnel referred to that earlier today, pointing out that every proposal in the draft Budget is subject to the preparation of satisfactory reform plans. The allocations for any programme could change, either upwards or downwards, as a result of that further work. The approach to reform should include a better definition of how services will be delivered to the highest possible standards by a stronger focus on outputs and outcomes.

That means ensuring that the targets are meaningful and challenging. As Members know, several school building projects have been financed in ways other than the traditional options, and proposals are being developed for other projects.

Mr Kennedy expressed disappointment at the delay in bringing forward the special educational needs and disability Bill. The Assembly is learning that it takes about 18 to 24 months to bring forward a major piece of legislation in an orderly manner with due consultation and consideration of all the issues. That so many Members are busy in Committees today dealing with legislation confirms that. The special educational needs and disability Bill has not yet come to the end of that gestation period. The Department for Employment and Learning, with the Department of Education, has undertaken to provide legislation that will provide further access and opportunities for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities in schools, further education colleges and the youth sector.

A joint consultation paper has been produced, and the aim of the proposals is to ensure that the provision of comprehensive and enforceable rights to education for all disabled people is on the same basis in Northern Ireland as it is in the rest of the United Kingdom. The Executive have just granted the Departments clearance to issue the paper for a public consultation that will last until the end of November. It is likely, therefore, that a draft Bill will be available in the middle of next year and, therefore, not within the lifetime of the present Assembly.

Monica McWilliams referred to unambitious targets for the Youth Service. The draft Programme for Government makes it clear that we recognise the importance of the Youth Service and that it is not just about the number of people in youth clubs, although widening access to them is an important commitment. The Youth Service plays an important role in cross-community work, including deploying outreach workers in difficult interface areas, and the draft Programme for Government emphasises our intention to continue to support its work. However, we would welcome suggestions in that area during the consultation period, and I trust that Members will make their opinions known.

Assembly Member Ms Lewsley referred to the location of Civil Service jobs. Commitments were given in a previous Programme for Government about the scope for relocating Civil Service jobs, and the possibilities are being examined through the review of office accommodation. Pending the outcome, opportunities for relocation will be considered as they arise. A recent example is the decision to relocate one of the new pension centres to Derry. Factors that must be taken into account in making an assessment about relocation include the total number of Civil Service jobs in an area in relation to the total workforce; new TSN indicators, including levels of unemployment; the regional development strategy; the effect on equality of opportunity; the service delivery and business efficiency that would be achieved; and a comparison of the likely cost.

Several Members raised concerns about the farming industry and the difficulties experienced in rural areas. That the number of Members who spoke on that matter was lower than in previous years, is not symptomatic of any improvement in the problems in the farming industry. However, the budget for the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development totals approximately £780 million for the next three years, which is an increase. It provides £60 million for animal disease compensation; £48 million for the support of hill farmers in the less-favoured areas; £6 million for scrapie eradication; £6 million for beef quality assurance; £27 million for agri-environment schemes; and £33 million for the implementation of the vision action plan. Farmers also receive a substantial amount of support outside the departmental expenditure limits, which the Minister of Finance and Personnel outlined in his statement on the draft Budget. The figure for 2003-04, under the annually managed expenditure, will be £193 million.

The Executive remain aware that there are many problems in rural areas and in the farming industry, and we are working to address them. Indeed, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development has focused on them in its vision document.

Perhaps relating to that - and we have to be careful that we do not contradict ourselves here - enquiries have been made, by Mrs Carson among others, about whether County Fermanagh should be designated a national park. In June, the Minister of the Environment announced that he had commissioned a study into that possibility, and he has now received a report from Europarc Consulting. He will make a statement in the near future. However, I am allowed to give a sneak preview of the report. Its key conclusion is that on grounds of landscape, biodiversity and cultural value, national park status would be appropriate for four areas of outstanding natural beauty: the Mournes, the Ring of Gullion, the Causeway Coast, and the Antrim coast and glens. However, the authors stress that other areas of Northern Ireland may also merit consideration as national parks. In that context, we must seriously think about what should be done in rural areas, because if they are designated in a particular way, there is limited scope for what can be done there.

Mrs Carson also asked whether the Executive will revive the grants policy for historic buildings. As a member of a family that is the custodian of a historic business that could do with a new roof, I have an interest in that. The Committee for the Environment is currently considering a revised historic buildings grant policy. The sheer volume of applications for such assistance in earlier years considerably exceeded the resources, and the processing of new applications had to be suspended from 1999-2001; however, that suspension has been lifted for now.

The Planning (Amendment) Bill, which is proceeding through the Assembly, will introduce building preservation notices. That will increase the Department of the Environment's ability to respond quickly to protect buildings that may be worthy of being listed, but that are at risk. Speaking personally, I recognise that the burden of maintaining some of those buildings can be considerable. However, if we were committed to supporting such buildings on a widespread basis, Members might be stunned at the amount of money that could be consumed.

Mr McCrea, on behalf of the Committee for the Environment, criticised the sustainable development strategy of the draft Programme for Government. I disagree with his criticisms; the Executive are committed to sustainable development, and it is a key theme that runs through the programme. Commitments to it are made several times in the programme, and one of its key plans will be our work to modernise the planning process to make it more effective in helping us to integrate economic, social and environmental needs. We are committed to ensuring that our environment supports healthy living, which is part of sustainable development. The focus on improving health, supporting education, and tackling poverty and social exclusion is relevant to the wider principles of sustainable development, as is our focus on energy, with an emphasis on renewable energy.

I emphasise again that this is a draft programme, and we are keen to improve it. We will consider carefully any further suggestions about how the principles of sustainable development can be articulated in the document and run through it more strongly.

Members tend to side with the applicant in regard to many planning applications. If Members were to change their attitudes and side with those who are concerned with preserving the environment, it would give more evidence than anything else of their commitment to preserving Northern Ireland's clean, green image.

Mr Deputy Speaker, you will be glad to know that I am drawing to a conclusion.

Mr Close returned to his familiar theme of bemoaning the absence of tax-raising powers for the Assembly. That script has been rehearsed quite a few times, as Members will recall. Mr Close should bear in mind that, if we were to have a differential rate of income tax, it could have unforeseen consequences for local employment and affect the attractiveness of Northern Ireland as a place to live and work. It might also make inward investment more difficult to attract. Also, we have no mechanical administrative facility to collect any such tax, and although the Inland Revenue would collect it, if asked to do so, it would charge for the process.

Mr Neeson's comments follow the remarks of the Minister for Regional Development, Mr Peter Robinson, when he addressed the Assembly; remarks that could have been made far more effectively to the full Executive Committee. It is peculiar that Mr Robinson chooses to come to the Assembly, where members of Sinn Féin are in attendance, but neglects to put in an appearance at the Executive Committee, where the cast of representatives is the same. Members will ask whether the Minister is best serving the needs of his Department by behaving in that way.

Mr Robinson told us that the considerable infrastructure deficit within the remit of his Department cannot be addressed through the allocation of funding made to him. He has completely failed to examine other sources of funding or revenue that could be made available to him to cover that deficit if he so chose. The Water Service is funded out of the block grant, which does not happen in other parts of the United Kingdom. Industrial use of water is metered and paid for, but the private use of water is not, and that is a potential source of revenue that the Minister must consider if he is serious about getting more money for his Department.

The same principles could apply in the transport sector to the rolling stock and the road system. Other countries with funding problems have moved to a user pays principle. Recently I met with representatives of industry, who said that if building better roads could reduce the time taken to get their goods to the ports, they would be prepared to contribute to the cost through some form of toll.

I trust that the Chairperson of the Committee for Regional Development will take account of my comments in his discussions with the Department. It is extraordinary for the Minister to come to the Assembly to demand more money and yet not volunteer to raise money through the activities of his Department, when that is possible and has been accomplished in other places.

That concludes my coverage of matters in my bailiwick, and I look forward to dealing further with this business over the coming months.

The debate in the Assembly begins the period of scrutiny of the Programme for Government. We have made a constructive start. There is no substitute for the vigorous cut and thrust of Assembly debate, with the exchange of witty sallies across the Floor and extravagant excursions into the upper stratosphere of high policy. It is very invigorating.

Members have had an opportunity to express their concerns about the Programme for Government, and Ministers have had an opportunity to listen to those concerns. I stress that this is a draft programme; James Leslie has already said that, but it is worth repeating. The comments made today will inform the work of Ministers as they reconsider the sections of the Programme for Government that are relevant to them. As we seek to improve and tighten the programme, today's points will inform the work of the Programme for Government drafting group that James Leslie and I chair.

The most frequently made point, to which we will have to give careful consideration, concerns the belief of some Members that the programme does not deal adequately with community relations. Eileen Bell, Alban Maginness and others raised this issue. I am not sure that I would go as far as they did. In the draft Programme for Government, the Executive committed itself to implementing a cross-departmental strategy and framework for promoting community relations. We have committed ourselves to ensuring an effective and co-ordinated approach to sectarian and racial intimidation. Those are important commitments.

The consultation paper on this matter is at a very advanced drafting stage, and it is anticipated that it will be submitted to the Executive very soon. After it receives Executive approval, it will be published and there will be two months' consultation for Members, the public and organisations to communicate their views to the Department. We intend to ensure that the consultation paper and the strategy derived from it will have as broad a base as possible. For that reason, the Executive intend to convene meetings of political parties, the social partners and other organisations, including churches and community groups, to discuss the consultation paper and the actions that may be derived from it. Those meetings will form the basis of an effective strategy on community relations.

As the Deputy First Minister made clear this morning, we recognise the importance of local solutions to many of the difficult community relations problems. We will support communities in developing their own solutions to those problems. I refer Members to the agreements reached, after much painful discussion, between the Apprentice Boys of Derry and the Bogside Residents' Association. They reached an agreement that defused a great deal of the tension that arose from marches and demonstrations in Derry. That is an example of a local solution being found to local difficulties. With some capacity building, some effort and some goodwill, local solutions can be found.

The Programme for Government also makes it clear that responsibility for promoting good community relations lies with all Departments and in every part and every priority of the document. There are many actions in the programme that will promote good community relations. The introduction of a citizenship module to the curriculum was mentioned earlier, for example. As children moved through the education system, the module would affect how they saw the community and its institutions.

The Programme for Government contains a policy of support and respect for cultural and linguistic diversity that promotes tolerance in the community.

There are also measures relating to the removal of flags and emblems, sectarian graffiti, and so on.

The Harbinson review was not, and was never was intended to be, the new community relations strategy. The purpose of the Harbinson review was to inform the new community relations strategy and help in its elaboration.

I will now turn to some points made by Bob McCartney and Peter Robinson about overmanning and the huge bureaucracy that had developed within the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. This is a sad example of grossly ill-informed remarks being made by an irresponsible commentator who was completely ignorant of the facts, and those comments being seized upon by enemies of the Administration and the agreement to make spurious and specious points.

The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister is not comparable with the office of the Prime Minister, the office of the Taoiseach, or, God forbid, the office of the President of the United States: it is a Department of Government. As all Ministers do, we frequently report to our Colleagues on the range of activities carried out in our Department.

I have a pro-forma listing 28 different functions of government carried out by OFMDFM and I will refer to some of them. One is the responsibility for the whole equality agenda, which involves problems relating to the equal rights of the disabled, gender equality, racial equality, as well as equality between the two sections of our community. There is a team dealing with that responsibility, a responsibility that in other Administrations would be dealt with across a wide range of departments.

The Economic Policy Unit within OFMDFM shares certain functions with the Department of Finance and Personnel. In other administrations, economic policy would either be contained in a department for economic affairs or perhaps be housed in a department of finance.

We have responsibility for implementing European policy. Bob McCartney referred to the need to tighten up on the implementation of European Directives - that is our responsibility. We are responsible for co-ordinating such work across the Departments. In other Governments, the function would be carried out within a department of foreign or external affairs.

We have responsibility for the review of public administration; the re-investment and reform initiative; community relations; targeting social need; promoting social inclusion; the whole e-government agenda, which in other Governments would be entirely housed in another department; race relations; ethnic minorities; the Civic Forum; the Programme for Government exercise itself; and so on. It is mistaken and wrong to suggest that a working Department, because it has a staff commensurate to the functions that it performs, is in some way overblown by comparing it with the private office of a Prime Minister or a Taoiseach.

I also want to make a point about European Directives. Bob McCartney cited that as an example of the failure of the Administration. In fact, it is one of the success stories. There had been a chaotic backlog of untransposed Directives deriving from the long period of direct rule. This Administration has finally got on top of that, and is compiling a database of Directives listing the progress of each one in terms of transposition and implementation. The British Government does not have such a database, and, unbelievably, neither does the European Commission. We are compiling a database here, and it is a success story, not a failure of the Administration.

Sam Foster referred to the core funding of victims' groups, and I want to say a couple of things about that. The Northern Ireland Office (NIO) and OFMDFM are working together to develop a new scheme. The scheme will have funding of £3 million over a two-year period, and should be operational around the end of the year. Many victims' groups have been consulted on the development of the new criteria for core funding. The responsibility for core funding of all victims' groups currently rests with the NIO, and we have had no involvement in any decisions about core funding that have been made to date.

There is no reason why Fear Encouraged Abandoning Roots (FEAR) cannot apply for core funding under Peace II or the new core funding scheme that is to commence before the end of the year.

Mr Foster mentioned the location of new hospitals, which is a serious constituency concern for all Members. It is extremely difficult to provide modern, efficient, high-quality services in a way that is fair to everyone. The organisation of our hospitals must change if people are to get the services they need and deserve. Society here could not afford to sustain 17 or 18 acute service provision hospitals indefinitely, and, arguably, it does not need to. Careful consideration must be given to the distribution of acute service hospitals in the North.

After Executive discussions, the Health Minister issued a consultation paper 'Developing Better Services: Modernising Hospitals and Reforming Structures' on 12 June. That paper sets out the agenda for a major modernisation of the acute hospitals system, and proposals for the reform of the health and personal social services administrative structures. The consultation period will run until 31 October. No decisions have been reached on any aspect of the proposals. All the information arising from the consultation will be considered carefully before any final decisions are taken. It is intended that those decisions will be made before the end of the year.

Seamus Close asked whether we had considered a tax-imposing regime. Mr Leslie has already dealt with that matter. He said that it might not pay to open that can of worms unless it is done carefully.

Sammy Wilson gave us a characteristic bit of good old knockabout stuff. The review of public administration is not a cost-cutting exercise, nor is it necessarily a rationalisation programme. Its purpose is to determine whether it is possible to deliver better, more relevant public services more efficiently and in a way that represents good value for money.

Sammy Wilson also made the allegation - and he is no stranger to making allegations - that nothing has been delivered through the Programme for Government. The programme outlines the Executive's key plans and priorities, which are developed and agreed by all Departments and parties involved in the Administration. Since devolution, much has been achieved in the framework of the Programme for Government. We have provided additional resources to support the Health Service, raised standards in education and introduced new initiatives under both Ministers for Employment and Learning to increase student support.

We have introduced free travel for the elderly on public transport - I wonder why Sammy Wilson did not recognise that provision, because a DUP Minister was quick to claim credit for it. We have also developed many new public health policies. We have contributed a good deal to investment in infrastucture - gas pipelines and roads, including a trans-European network plan for the road from Larne to Newry. The Programme for Government has delivered a great deal that we might not have seen had we continued with direct rule.

Monica McWilliams wanted to know what was being done to address the crisis in the voluntary and community sector. The Executive are acutely aware of the crisis facing that sector, and that is why we decided to allocate a further £6 million of Executive programme funds to be used to address any fresh action deemed necessary to alleviate the continuing funding difficulties in the voluntary sector.

Ministers agreed that we should provide additional funding to help meet immediate pressures in that sector, while at the same time helping to provide space to begin to address the longer-term issues of sustainability in the community and voluntary sector. That is a serious issue that we cannot avoid. We are facing a situation five or 10 years down the line where the availability of funds may not be as extensive as it is now. Therefore, we must look at the community and voluntary sector to see which areas of the service we need and how we provide for those, and also to see how the bodies and associations that provide those services could sustain themselves in circumstances where funding provision might not be as extensive as it is now.

The Executive agreed that resources should be used to try to retain important voluntary and community sector services that might otherwise be lost while the long-term issues relating to self-sustaining capacity are addressed.

Mark Robinson referred to housing provision and housing fitness. Unfitness levels as recorded in the 1996 Northern Ireland house condition survey carried out by the Housing Executive indicated that there were varying levels of unfitness right across the housing sector, including rates of 15% of all private rented housing and 5·8% of owner-occupied housing. It is anticipated that the 2001 survey will show that public spending on housing in Northern Ireland has been effective in addressing policy objectives and unfitness of houses. Public resources directed towards the problem have been used economically, efficiently and with good value for money, with an expected reduction in unfitness levels across all types of tenure. The draft Programme for Government sets out commitments to maintaining the drive to reduce housing unfitness levels across private and social housing.

The provision of new social housing is a matter for the Minister for Social Development. However, I understand that a review is being carried out in the light of new research done by the University of Ulster that showed that we need about 1,500 new housing starts every year. The current figure is 1,400. The Minister has commissioned a review to determine if we are starting enough new houses to meet the need. It is not possible to say what the outcome of that review will be, and, given the studies carried out by the University of Ulster, the suggestion that we are not meeting the need must be taken seriously. That matter is in hand.

Mark Robinson asked if he could have an assurance that there would be money to deliver the commitments in the Programme for Government. The draft Programme for Government is supported by a draft Budget, and actions and commitments set out in the Programme for Government are underpinned by provision in the draft Budget. That is the way they work. However, they are both draft documents, and they will be revised, if necessary, and finalised in the light of debate in the Assembly.

Today's debate has been wide ranging and valuable. We have focused on issues that reflect the Executive's priorities across the range of government, and we have addressed matters that relate to the economic, social and environmental context within which we operate. Members have made suggestions that will inform the process of refining and finalising the Programme for Government, and the Budget that supports it.

All Ministers will carefully consider the points made. We look forward to receiving the views and suggestions that will follow the document's scrutiny by the various Committees and the wider consultation with bodies, associations and groups outside the Assembly structures.

The consultation period will end on 15 November. In the light of responses, the Executive will consider the revisions that will have to be made to the Programme for Government. The revised programme will be presented to the Assembly in early December.

TOP

Education and Libraries Bill:
Committee Stage (Period Extension)

The Chairperson of the Committee for Education (Mr Kennedy):

I beg to move

At present, the Education and Libraries Bill, which passed its Second Stage in early July, stands referred to the Committee for Education. The Bill is an important and substantial piece of legislation. It is outlined in four parts, and contains 42 clauses and three schedules. The main purpose of the legislation is to enable the Department of Education to introduce a single common funding formula for all schools funded under local management of schools (LMS) arrangements.

Although there is general agreement that there should be a common formula, its make-up is still to be finalised, and the Committee is considering the Minister's response to the recommendations in the Committee's report on the matter, which was published in early January 2002. The rest of the Bill covers a range of important issues: the duty of best value; the duty on boards of governors to safeguard and promote the welfare of pupils; child protection measures; school discipline measures to prevent bullying; admission to special schools of children resident outside Northern Ireland; consultation of schools by sampling; and the extension of the abolition of corporal punishment to independent schools.

The Committee for Education is committed to rigorous scrutiny of the Bill, which is the first piece of primary legislation in the area of education since the Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1998. We are also keen to provide an opportunity for the main stakeholders to submit their views and comments on the Bill, and we have received detailed written submissions from several organisations and individuals.

Scrutiny of the clauses has already begun, and several issues have already emerged. Those will require full and careful examination. The Committee, therefore, requests an extension until 22 November to provide enough time to consider all the measures covered in the Bill and to produce a report to the Assembly. I assure the House that the Committee is giving priority to the Committee Stage of the Bill and will complete its work as quickly as possible. To ensure that there is no delay, members have agreed to hold several extra meetings.

Adjourned at 6.15 pm.