No. I have only a few minutes.

Neil Lennon's only crime was to play football for his country. What sort of brainless people would treat their fellow countryman in such a fashion?

Despite this type of activity, there no reference to the introduction of related legislation in the programme. There is no mention of the problem of sectarianism in sport. An opportunity has been missed, and Mr McGimpsey will not get peace from the Alliance Party or myself until he takes the appropriate action to rid us of this cancer. We do, however, give credit to Mr McGimpsey for his outright condemnation of last week's deplorable incident at Windsor Park.

The Alliance Party is fighting more than just sectarianism. We are fighting for all groups to be more fully integrated into society. I am concerned that the Executive do not do enough to help the elderly. I have tabled motions in the House calling for an increase in pensions - and we have had some limited success. I have sought for pensions to be linked to incomes, but we have had no success as yet. We have also called for the provision of free personal care for the elderly, as recommended in the Sutherland Report. We were successful in getting the Executive to fund free travel for the elderly 100%. We are thankful for that.

I understand that the Executive, because they lack tax-varying powers, cannot change the rate of pensions. However, we, in the Assembly, should have the right to vary taxes and decide how to spend any extra moneys that are raised. We ought to be fully capable of implementing the recommendations of the Royal Commission to ensure that the elderly get the support they need, particularly free personal care, so that our old folk do not have to sell their homes to pay for health care when they need it most. Our Scottish neighbours are doing this, our Welsh neighbours are considering it, and we can do it if the will is there. However, the Executive make no mention of this in their Programme for Government. Also, they do not provide the fresh start promised in the Belfast Agreement -

Order. The Member's time is up.

I welcome the Programme for Government. It is undoubtedly the first time in many years that we, and the public, can see what is set out to be done and so ensure that it is done. That is called accountability. We can use this programme to tick off where we see something positive has been done and mark an "X" where it has not been done. We can then check up on it in the next year. That is excellent accountability.

The Alliance Party has spoken lucidly about the insufficient focus on the need to be more proactive in our fight against division and sectarianism. I recognise that need. There are two areas where more work could have been done. First, Mr McCarthy mentioned the idea of the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure extending legislation to Northern Ireland to prohibit and outlaw racist chanting in sports grounds. Something concrete must be done to eradicate this sort of ugliness in our society.

Secondly, divisions arise in the area of education. Addressing that issue is vitally important at primary level, at secondary level and at further and higher education level. Obviously, there is the field of integrated education. I am very disappointed that targets have not yet been set. The integrated education fund has set a fundraising target in an attempt to get 10% of children to go to integrated schools by 2008. Why was that not mentioned in the Programme for Government? I declare an interest, because I am a member of the integrated education fund, fighting for integrated schools.

I also want to mention further and higher education. Why is there not integrated teacher training to combat division? We have the financial duplication of two teacher training institutions, teaching people of different religions exactly the same thing. Does that make any sense? It is the only area of third-level education that is divided. I totally support what the Alliance Party said concerning much more focus being put on bringing us together rather than confirming our separateness.

I would have liked to compliment the Programme for Government in more detail, but time is limited. I have compared the draft with the new programme, and I like the emphasis on equality, particularly on gender equality. Much more reference to that has been made in the new programme. Moreover, the valuable area of sustainable development has also been slotted into the new programme.

In some areas, however, I would like to make constructive criticism of what could be done this year or, if not, next year.

Regarding accidents and road deaths, I am disappointed that more is not being done to reduce the amount of casualties on our roads. Our attitude should be one of zero tolerance.

We talk about education programmes and primary schools, but what about traffic calming? I notice that the Department for Regional Development talks about "minor issues" including traffic calming. Traffic calming is not a minor issue. We want many more resources to reduce speeding - they are called sleeping policemen.

We have all seen in our constituencies the numerous gatherings supporting the rail service, yet has anyone looked at the figures for rail compared to those for road? Off the top of my head, £187 million has been allocated to roads this year and next year, and £97 million to all public transport, with £30 million going to rail. That is half of the amount for roads. What is going on? Where is the commitment to public transport? Let us put our money where our mouth is. Our railways need to be protected. Where is the money for that?

I would like to make a plea for renewable energy. Not enough has been written about that by the Department of the Environment, the Department for Regional Development or the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. Not enough is being done about environmental issues. Waste management, recycling and renewable energy are vital. The Prime Minister today announced an allocation of £100 million for renewable energy projects. How much are we getting from that?

Concerning planning and the environment, it has been announced that there will be 40% brownfield and 60% greenfield development in the Belfast metropolitan area. It should be at least the other way round. In London, the figure is 75%. How far behind are we? Let us get our priorities right.

My final point concerns cancer. I have just returned from a valuable cross-party meeting on combating cancer. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has mentioned that, but not nearly enough resources are going into it. We have the lowest survival rate in Europe. The Minister must do something to change that.

I am pleased to welcome the Programme for Government. This is the first time in 30 years that our own politicians are making the decisions for Northern Ireland. There is much to welcome in the document. However, it is not perfect, but we have to start somewhere and, it is to be hoped, learn for the next Programme for Government. I am pleased to see issues mentioned in the document that are important to all the people of Northern Ireland - a healthy society, encouraging children, creating jobs and education for all.

I wish to concentrate, however, on the environmental issue - one that is missing from the Executive's list of priorities on page 9. Five principles are mentioned, but the environment is not among them.

In the chapter entitled "Growing as a Community" on page 13 the document mentions "sustaining and enhancing local communities". How can we do that without taking the environment into consideration? On page 28, under the heading "Working for a Healthier People" one of the priorities is listed as

"ensuring that the environment supports healthy living".

The document does not state how that will be accomplished.
Page 33 of the document states:

"We will work to ensure".

The document also mentions safer food production but does not say how that will be achieved. Under the action points the aim is to

"progressively eliminate the backlog in transposing and implementing EC Directives on air, land and water quality".

Again, how is that going to be done?

On the same page we find these words:

"By March 2003, achieve a 20% reduction in the 1996 level in the number of high and medium severity water pollution incidents".

The aim to achieve 20% reduction of water pollution incidents from the 1996 level over seven years is not good enough; it must be done more quickly.

In chapter 4 - "Investing in Education and Skills" - there is no mention of educating our children and young people in protecting and caring for the environment.

The section headed "Protecting the Environment" mentions the provision of an additional 12,000 places for environmental training for farmers. I am glad to see that point.

On Page 63 there is a reference to this aim:

"By 2005, achieve 80% compliance with the waste water treatment works discharge standards set by the Environment and Heritage Service".

Does that go far enough?

I am really disappointed with the Department's public service agreement. Objective 1 is:

"To protect, conserve and enhance the natural and built environment for the benefit of present and future generations."

It could also have included the word "care". The Environment Committee asked for this to be included but was ignored. You can have education to protect, but we also require education to "care" for our environment.

The action columns are meaningless and could be more specific as to what needs to be done. The target columns are inconsistent and merely use dates - this makes it totally incomprehensible.

On page 119 we read that the Department is to

"assist district councils in implementing acceptable arrangements for the disposal of waste by production of Group Waste Management Plans."

How are district councils to be assisted? Will this be merely with advice or finance? That has not been explained.

This is typical of the majority of the entries in the action columns. There are statements of intent but no indication as to how they should be carried out.

On page 120, with reference to the historic buildings grant, there is no Programme for Government reference, but there are for the other entries. Also in connection with the historic buildings grants, all that has been restored has been the receipt of applications, with no grants being available until 2002. That is even with the funding being doubled from £1·7 million to £3·4 million. It is still not enough. If more funding were required for immediate restoration of grants and reinstatement of the grants, why was there no bid or effort made to sort this problem out?

Overall the Programme for Government is a valiant first attempt for the Northern Ireland Assembly to deliver accountable objectives and outcomes. I am looking forward to the next Programme for Government. I recommend that there should be more definite targets and actions.

If I were giving marks for effort, as an old teacher -

Former teacher.

As a former teacher, I would give it six out of 10.

I support the motion and reject the amendment.

As a former pupil, I think that this is beginning to feel like detention.

I will try my best to make sure that it is.

I, of course, support the Programme for Government. All of us here are aware of the historic nature of the document. Both those who support this Government and, interestingly, those who are opposed to it see its real relevance.

As the Executive and the Assembly grow more permanent and begin to deliver the benefits of a devolved Government, is it any surprise that those who have railed against these arrangements and have opposed the will of the people from the start should have demonstrated their fear of failure yesterday and again today? We heard them today repeating - with a mounting degree of panic, in my view - the same, several-years-old arguments that are now beginning to take on the well-worn transparency of a cyclist's old jockstrap. They are beginning to realise that despite their opposition and the many problems and political tripwires that have been placed in their path, these arrangements are not only capable of working but are working and are beginning to deliver.

A document of this nature is going to create a considerable number of views because of the many issues that it deals with and because it is, as has been said often today, aspirational in nature. However, it is a remarkable document. As Séamus Mallon said this morning, to have come from scratch to this in a relatively short time is a job well done.

I have to place on record a number of concerns. First of all, as Chairman of the Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee I raise three issues that we put into the draft programme which we feel did not get any attention at all. Some of this has been referred to by others from different angles today.

Many references are made to joined-up government, but there are no specifics about how Departments will work together in practice towards mutual goals.

It was also the view of our Committee that there appeared to be too many short-term goals - things to be achieved in one year or two years. The programme covers a three-year period. For example, only one Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure goal is for 2003. That, incidentally, is to prepare a strategy to develop the recreational potential of inland waterways as a tourist attraction.

The third point is that we also have concerns about whether the targets are challenging enough. For example, why will it take until April 2002 to produce a strategy for the development of centres of curiosity and imagination? Maybe there is a wee bit of that missing.

I also want, on behalf of the Committee, to make a few further comments about the draft public service agreement. When considering the Department's public service agreement, the Committee waded in against the definition provided and took into account the difficulties that the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure - as a new Department - had in establishing baseline information by which to measure performance.

The Committee welcomes the Department's statement of its commitment to promoting equality of opportunity, good community relations, protecting human rights and meeting the objectives of the new targeting social needs policy.

However, it might have been helpful to give some indication of how the Department proposes to do that. It is left to the reader to establish the connection between the statement of commitment and the Department's targets, programme and budget. The introduction of the PSA also states that the Department is committed to modernising the provision of its services and improving efficiency and effectiveness. It might have been helpful to clarify exactly what this means, and how it is connected to targets, programmes and budgets.

We wish to welcome several changes. The extension of the interim safe sports grounds scheme to improve the physical infrastructure of sporting facilities has been extended in the final programme. I commend the undertaking of an audit of an initial 40 culture, arts and leisure venues as part of a programme to improve accessibility for people with disabilities who are socially disadvantaged. I welcome the target of increasing private sector funding to at least 50% of the Northern Ireland Events Company annual budget. There will be a great benefit from that.

By the same token, we noticed that some issues have slipped between the draft and the final document. Paragraph 2.5.2 states that action to

"make key information available in languages other than English including the development of services for Irish and Ulster Scots in support of the Charter for Regional or Minority Languages"

has slipped from April 2001 to May 2001. Also in the PSA, the

"review of community-based arts and work with district councils to enable them to develop integrated plans of culture, arts and leisure"

has slipped from April 2001 to June 2001. We do not see any particular reason why that should have happened, and I wish to highlight that issue.

As an Assembly Member, I am concerned about the statement in 2.3.2 of the "Growing as a Community" section on page 21, which states that secure permanent tenancies will be provided for 70% of accepted homeless cases within three months. Do we really have room to allow for 30% of confirmed homeless cases?

The Member's time is up.

I am amazed by Mr ONeill's comments. He spent some time criticising the DUP because it opposes the Programme for Government. Then he read out a long list of all his objections to the Programme for Government. Of course, he has followed criticism from Sinn Féin, criticism from the Alliance Party and criticism from the Ulster Unionist Party, all of whom listed, line-by-line, opposition to this Programme for Government. He implies that I am a hypocrite. At least I will be voting against it. He is nothing more than lobby-fodder - to be marched through those lobbies on behalf of this pro-Sinn Féin/IRA Government. That is all he is. I am amazed that he has the audacity to take my party to task because we are being honest with people. Yes, we are opposed to this Programme for Government. We have stated reasons, just as his party has stated reasons for its opposition, but at least we will be putting our vote in the right place as a result of that.

The person who wrote the chapter headings for the Programme for Government must have had a very wry sense of humour. Perhaps it was the junior Minister. "Making a difference" - well, this programme really will make a difference to the lives of people in Northern Ireland. We have already seen the difference - hundreds of prisoners are out of jail, the RUC has been destroyed, and it will go on. We will see the difference of having gunmen in Government - their words, not mine. That is what they have done. Yes, they have made a difference in the Government they are supporting by these programmes that they will be putting in place.

There is a section entitled "Working for a Healthier People". We have a Health Minister who justified the allocation of, I think, £32·7 million for the running of her Department. She justifies, again and again, the wasteful use of resources that are being put into the Irish language - as if she is the Minister to promote the Irish language. Hundreds of people are crying out to get a place on a hospital waiting list, or to get into hospital for operations, or to get hip replacements.

She can then justify spending tens of thousands of pounds on the promotion of the Irish language. "Working for a healthier people"? I do not think so, Mr Speaker.

Then we have the sinister Minister of Education, Mr Martin McGuinness. He says that he is investing in education and skills. He had the cheek to offer some educational resources to the Leader of my party - he was going to get the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment to give him some.

Given that the Minister of Education does not have a spirit level let alone an O level, he has a cheek to talk about people getting a better education. Indeed, I would say "Physician, heal thyself", but as he cannot go to the Minister of Health to be healed because she is too busy spending money on the Irish language, I really do not know whom I can advise him to go to.

What has the sinister Minister - who is supposedly investing in education - done? He has prevented money from going to Protestant schools - that is the reality. A few yards from this Building is one of the largest primary schools in Northern Ireland - Strandtown Primary School. I know it well - I was educated there.

I thought they were going to close it.

It may as well be closed. The principal of that primary school says that the rooms and facilities are not fit to rear chickens in. That is an indictment of the Minister of Education. What is he prepared to do? He is prepared to spend nothing, absolutely nothing, on that school.

Over the past few months the Minister of Education has been gurning about the terrible sectarian attacks in my constituency of North Antrim. However, he has allocated not one pound in his recent announcement to any of those schools in North Antrim, let alone to the many other, more needy projects in North Antrim for which the North Eastern Education and Library Board has put in claims. He is indicted by his own policy.

Then there is the heading "Working Together". The unfortunate fact is that this Government is not working together. The First Minister banned Sinn Féin from participating in North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) meetings. When that was proved to be unlawful, he withdrew his own people and followed the DUP line of not sending people to the NSMC.

On a good-news day we have the ludicrous situation of his Ministers making announcements for other Departments. However, on a bad-news day with a serious issue such as foot-and-mouth disease, we cannot find a Minister to support the Minister of Agriculture. No one demonstrates any cohesiveness in the Government to show that they are all working together for the benefit of Northern Ireland. It is "stand alone" when it comes to bad news.

Edmund Burke said that the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. If good men do nothing tonight and allow the Programme for Government to go through, they will be allowing evil to triumph. They will be supporting a programme that does nothing to stop Sinn Féin from being in the Government of Northern Ireland and that does nothing to prevent the destruction of the Union that we care for. Nothing is being done to prevent Sinn Féin from having a say in the future of Northern Ireland.

I say to those people "Do not to allow evil to triumph tonight by supporting such a programme." Indeed, they should allow good to prosper by taking on the challenge and opposing the Programme for Government. It will not make people's lives better, it will destroy their lives. The Programme for Government offers neither a healthier nation nor education to our people. It offers a self-serving allocation of resources to petty little men running certain Departments. I oppose the Programme for Government.

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I will be very brief, for I have listened carefully all day to many Members. While I welcome the Programme for Government as a vision and a basis that, like the Good Friday Agreement, commits us all to a shared vision of peace, stability and inclusiveness, I was not elected to promote a vision.

I was elected to be the voice of and to represent those who, in good faith, put their trust in us, as politicians, to deliver a better society. The Programme for Government is the basis for that better society. However, a better society can be delivered only if the Programme for Government is underpinned by a dedicated department of equality.

If we really want to make a difference then we must make the issue of equality central to everything that we do. This will not happen if we relegate equality to an all-kinds-of-everything list in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.

I think that everyone accepts that the Six Counties is a profoundly unequal place. If we are to address the historical, political, social, economic and cultural inequalities that are the hallmark of the Six Counties and recognized throughout the world, then we need to prioritise the issue. The lack of equality is at the heart of the divisions in this society, division between Protestant and Catholic, between men and women and between this island and that other island, England.

We could start by using the Programme for Government as a basis and by building alliances among the groups that are most affected by inequality. Some of that is already mentioned in the programme. I am speaking about the Nationalist community, the travelling community, ethnic minority groups, disability organisations, ex-prisoners, young people, the elderly and Irish-language groups.

The commitment to equality is enshrined in the Good Friday Agreement, which places equality at the very heart of current and future political developments. I want to echo the words of Mr McElduff, who said something very profound in the Chamber today. He said that we should all go forward with the Programme for Government in one hand - [Interruption]

And the Armalite in the other?

We should go forward with the Programme for Government in one hand and the Good Friday Agreement in the other, and those two together should add up - fully clothed, of course, Sammy - to a department of equality. Go raibh maith agat.

I will try to get you out of detention as quickly as possible, Mr Speaker. It is unfortunate that the role of the Social Development Committee was largely overlooked in the drafting of the social development public service agreement. We were given very little time to view the proposals. We were not given sufficient opportunity to consider the proposals in detail and decide whether we thought that they met the needs of the people whom we are charged with representing.

We have a new child support system that will have major implications for the whole area of child maintenance in Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. [Interruption]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Before Mr Kennedy troubles himself, the clock will be changed back to the appropriate time when the Clerk at my right hand has returned.

I was going to ask you to hasten the clock, Mr Speaker.

I have become familiar with Mr Kennedy's heckling of everybody else. The fact that he is now heckling his Colleague, Mr Cobain, is a departure.

What he does not know is that he has to speak after me.

A new child support system will be introduced that will have major implications for the whole area of child maintenance in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the United Kingdom. The new system will make radical changes to the way that child support is handled. I accept that that should lead to a more straightforward system and that cases will be processed more quickly, and I welcome the fact that modern and more efficient information technology systems will be used to achieve this.

I fear that, without improved planning, the transition period will undermine the whole project. Staff will be required to operate two systems simultaneously. The Committee has some concerns that it has expressed to the Department about the likelihood of the agency's achieving the ambitious targets that are set out in the public service agreement. The situation needs careful attention, and the Committee will be monitoring it closely.

We are concerned about three areas of the Department's housing commitments - fuel poverty, replacement programmes and urban/rural regeneration. When the Minister proposed the Domestic Energy Efficiency Scheme II programme to tackle fuel poverty he told the House that it was targeted at those members of society most in need. The qualifying criteria show that that is not the case. Nor is it the case when we consider the amount of finance that is available to the programme. How can one say that £2,000 - whether in an urban or rural community - is sufficient to install a functioning central heating system? My Committee took evidence that indicated that £3,000 is a more realistic figure. How, therefore, will people in receipt of benefits find the additional £1,000 to ensure that their homes are adequately heated?

How can one say that a person on benefit is not a person in need, irrespective of whether they are over or under 60 years of age? The Minister has stated that the purpose of the scheme is to help those people most in need. Is it right that a person who is under 60 and who is chronically ill can only qualify for £750 to cover the cost of draught-proofing and a person who is over 60 and in good health can qualify for a grant - albeit inadequate - for a full central heating system?

The Department has explained that the intention behind the scheme is to protect those in society who are most vulnerable - the over 60s on benefit. While I respect that, I have difficulty in reconciling that explanation when I see someone who is over 60 living in deplorable conditions, and he or she is not entitled to the grant because a small occupational pension disqualifies that individual from benefit. How is such a person any less vulnerable than a person who is over 60 and receiving benefit? How is someone under 60 who suffers from a severe disability any less vulnerable? How are low-income families who live in poor conditions less vulnerable? Perhaps the Minister could explain his criteria for assessing vulnerability.

No significant sums have been set aside to replace Economy 7 heating in Housing Executive properties. It is the most expensive way to heat a home because it uses electricity. It is often the elderly who find themselves burdened with Economy 7. Converting homes to gas or oil-fired central heating will save tenants £3 per week. If we are serious about tackling fuel poverty we must be serious about our commitment to funding the area properly. We must address the needs of the most vulnerable. My Committee is serious about that. We will re-examine the effectiveness of the Domestic Energy Efficiency Scheme II programme after its first year.

The Committee also has concerns about the replacement programme and the issue of raising the quality of our housing stock. That area needs to be considered in the context of the Minister's assumed rent increase of gross domestic product plus 2%. However, the Minister decided not to implement his proposed rent increase, and that reduced his revenues to such an extent that he needed to cut programmes. One of the first victims of the cuts was the improvement schemes. No kitchen or bathroom improvements have started in this financial year. Apart from those homes eligible for the multi- element improvement schemes, there are no plans to start upgrading kitchens or bathrooms in any other Housing Executive homes. The Programme for Government, through its public service agreements, shows a commitment to raising the standards of housing stock and thereby the quality of life for tenants. How can that be achieved when the Department concerned neglects to make basic improvements on bathrooms and kitchens over 25 years of age?

On the issue of urban and rural regeneration, the Committee was disappointed to note that the Department is only committing itself to a strategy for reinvigorating city and town centres. I am alarmed to see that there is no additional funding commitment in this field. Regeneration requires a bigger effort. I call on the Minister to recognise that his Department needs further commitment in this area.

I support the Programme for Government, including its vision of a cohesive, inclusive and just society. In June 2000 the World Health Organisation confirmed what most people in these islands already knew - that the United Kingdom has a third-rate Health Service. It is rated eighteenth in the world for the effectiveness of care delivered per every £1 spent, and twenty-sixth for its responsiveness to patients and its ability to treat them professionally and with dignity.

The National Health Service is failing in its purpose. Given that the UK is a wealthy nation, its cancer survival rates are appalling; they are far lower than equivalent rates in the rest of Europe, the United States and Japan. Patients with life threatening diseases have to wait unacceptable lengths of time for operations, which means that they live in fear and anxiety. Often, when they do get to hospital, their operations are cancelled.

That was the situation last summer - things may have improved a little because some funding has been made available, but numerous patients still have to wait on trolleys in our A&E departments. Patient discharges from hospitals are being delayed because there are inadequate funds for providing community care and long waiting lists for occupational therapists. These problems are causing great distress to the old and vulnerable in our society. Sadly, similar difficulties are being caused by a lack of resources for the health care of children, the mentally ill and those with physical or learning disabilities.

The NHS Confederation, which encompasses all four health authorities, recently produced figures which show that, in terms of financial resources, Northern Ireland is far behind England, Scotland and Wales. The comparative figures are available.

My Committee held an inquiry into residential and secure accommodation for children in Northern Ireland. It made 36 recommendations. One of the most important of these was the introduction of a commissioner for children, and we are delighted that this is going ahead. Having looked at the public service agreements, it would appear that other recommendations are to be followed through. I hope that all 36 recommendations will be taken on board and that the Children (Northern Ireland) Order will be fully implemented.

It is essential to have good quality community care to meet the needs of young people with learning disabilities, including those discharged from Muckamore Abbey. Those services should be well developed before patients from Muckamore Abbey are resettled.

There has been a good deal of talk about the recent report by the Royal Commission on Long-Term Care for the Elderly, and I am pleased about the introduction of free transport. However, the funding of nursing care but not personal care will lead to inequalities in treatment. As a result, those nursing homes which are intended for the most dependant will be slightly cheaper than residential homes intended for the less dependant. It is also likely that they will be cheaper than certain packages for intensive domiciliary care. Care of the elderly is part of the review of primary-care services, and my Committee will continue to monitor its progress and development.

Our Health Service not just not good: it is the poorest. Our people have to pay the highest price for their health. Inequality in health is evident in every age group. I welcome the Minister's document 'Investing for Health', and I will make two main points to her. First, the term "targeting social need" appears throughout 'Investing for Health' and in the public service agreements. We have a few health action zones in Northern Ireland. Each board, the Department and the Chief Medical Officer does its or her own thing in response to targeting social need, but there is no overall co-ordination. I appreciate that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, and the Minister herself, will be looking at all these matters. However, one person should be made responsible for co-ordinating these issues. The Health Promotion Agency is a good organisation, but it is not responsible for such co-ordination.

Secondly, my Committee is very involved in the future of primary care. I would like the Minister's assurance - if not today, then at some time in the future - that there is no reason why we cannot look at the organisation of the health service within the review of public administration and local government. There is no reason why communities who have lived in deprivation for 20 years should have to continue to do so.

I am not talking about extra resources; I am talking about organisation. There is no reason why we cannot look at that issue. In the Minister's document on primary care the reason is given over and over again that we cannot look at the boards because there is to be a review of public administration. I resent that, and most of my Committee would support me in my hope that we can look at those other bodies.

I have several concerns about the Programme for Government. At the outset I will, like others on this side of the Chamber, take the opportunity to voice my opposition to the North/South Ministerial Council and equally to the North/South Implementation Body as agreed on 18 December 1998.

Many people in my community are angered by the resources and funding being made available to those bodies. They believe that it is to the detriment of many other services, which are underfunded.

First, as a member of the Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee I want to comment on those areas. The efforts of the Minister and the Department over the past six months in relation to the crisis facing Irish League soccer must be acknowledged. There are two aspects: the safe sports grounds scheme and the soccer strategy report.

I hope that the proposed extension to the Safe Grounds scheme from April 2001 will include those premiership clubs that missed the initial round and the first division clubs, all of whom were previously left out.

Despite the growing calls for a new national stadium, I hope that the refurbishment of existing grounds will take preference as a reward for the clubs' efforts to keep sport alive in Northern Ireland over three decades of our darkest days.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>