The focus of the evaluation so far has been on identifying the levels of need for public spending here compared with levels for comparable services in England. The evaluations should be completed next spring so the results will be available in time to influence next year's work on the Programme for Government and the Budget.

We are developing new approaches in other areas to meet local needs. The Executive are reviewing current rating policy and consulting on the role of the commissioner for children. We will shortly be making proposals on promoting sustainable development and producing new strategies for the regeneration of the most disadvantaged urban and rural areas. The key difference under devolution is that local politicians are taking the decisions on the issues that matter after full consultation with local people. The draft programme comprehensively sets out the plans of the Executive for the future government of Northern Ireland. Our challenge is to set aside politicking and focus on good and stable government.

The first challenge in the delivery of good and stable government is to ensure that the institutions provided for in the Belfast Agreement are given the opportunity to work effectively. We have seen their value. For example, the benefits of the structures for improving east/west and North/South co-operation were demonstrated during the foot-and-mouth disease outbreaks earlier in the year. Those structures helped us to control the situation.

There have been recent meetings of the joint ministerial councils on health and Europe. North/South implementation bodies have been set up to launch the crucial tourism company. We can now move to ensure that the North/South Ministerial Council delivers all the functions that were envisaged for it.

We must develop and focus our presence in Europe and North America and ensure that our interests are represented and protected and that our policies have communicated effectively. Good government should be provided in partnership with others. A top-down approach is not desirable.

During the Depression of the 1930s, Franklin Delano Roosevelt said:

I hope that we are leaving behind the unhappy times, but I agree with the rest of that sentiment. We must ensure that our plans build from the bottom up, not simply from the top down. That means that we must work in partnership with others.

We can turn our political structures, our permanent coalition Government, to our advantage. Those structures can provide stable policies that will encourage other stakeholders and players to recognise the Programme for Government, with its public service agreements and the service delivery agreements, as reliable long-term documents in which they can have confidence. Our form of coalition Government can become a guarantee of stability and allow others, whether investors or voluntary groups, to plan with some certainty of the continuity and steady development of Government policy. They can enjoy such confidence because they have been involved in policy development.

The Executive position report on the Programme for Government and Budget was presented to the Assembly in June, within days of Ministers receiving it. The draft Programme for Government and the public service agreements have also been with the Assembly for consideration. It is a transparent process that is open to all.

Furthermore, there can be confidence in the future because we have proved, in a short period, that four parties, responsible for as many as 11 Departments, can produce an agreed programme that can be developed as a planning tool to help us to agree, to set priorities and to work together.

I have already outlined the Assembly's important role as a key partner. However, we must ensure that other partners, actual and potential, play their part too. We must work more closely with local government and the wider public sector, sharing our vision and aspirations, and ensuring that their programmes and services support and complement the Programme for Government. We must also work with our social partners in business, the trade unions and the voluntary sector, playing our part where it is our job to do so, but also ensuring that others have an opportunity to influence and contribute to the development of policies and the delivery of services. The Civic Forum will have an important role to play in that.

The establishment of local strategy partnerships at council level provides a unique opportunity for a new approach that will ensure that the partnership ethos becomes a key element of local and regional administration in the delivery of the Programme for Government.

The draft Programme for Government has been prepared by the Executive, and they stand ready to take responsibility for its delivery and for the important Budget decisions that will be taken to support it. We look to Assembly Members to help to finalise the document and to guide its annual development. I return to the words of Franklin D Roosevelt, who said:

I hope that we can put aside the doubts of today and move forward to realise the vision for tomorrow that is set out in the Programme for Government.

With the agreement, we have changed the form of government here. In the Assembly and elsewhere, we can change the face of government in ways that are radical but practicable, innovative but stable, and both responsible and responsive.

The Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development, at its meeting on 9 November, agreed the contents of my contribution.

When the Committee responded to the Executive's position report in July 2001, one of its main recommendations was that a new sub-priority should be established under the "Securing a Competitive Economy" heading, outlining an action plan for the short-term recovery of the rural economy. What has been included in the draft Programme for Government, in sub-priority 8, is a commitment to develop an action plan for the agrifood industry only. That goes part of the way towards what the Committee believes is necessary. There are other references, within the sub-priority, to the fair provision of public services, to conservation of the built heritage and natural resources and to the improvement of the management and co-ordination of local economic development initiatives in rural areas.

The Committee welcomes those intentions but remains convinced that a rural economy action plan, incorporating specific actions by specific Departments and agencies, would be the best way in which to ensure that good intentions are translated into tangible results. For example, LEDU - or, rather, the new Invest Northern Ireland agency - could make a specific commitment and set targets for rural areas. The Committee believes that such an action plan would be consistent with, and would complement, the longer-term objective of rural proofing, which will consider all significant new policies and actions being proposed by Northern Ireland Departments.

Seven months on from the target date for the establishment of the ministerially led group for rural proofing, the group has not met. Indeed, to our knowledge, it has not been formed. The four months spent fighting foot-and-mouth disease accounts for much of that delay, but rural proofing was heralded as being of vital importance to giving rural areas a fair deal. It must begin to work - and be seen to work - and make a difference to the life of rural people.

The Committee is due to meet the Minister at the end of this week, and I am sure that we will question her on implementation. Until then, Committee members can rely only on the working definition of rural proofing provided by the Department this year:

It is not described as clearly in the draft Programme for Government that we are debating today. The draft refers to rural proofing as a way of ensuring

Pending the receipt of further information from the Minister, the Committee suggests that the Programme for Government reference be strengthened from "routine consideration" to something that reflects the intention to have an active examination of policies and describes better the objectives of that examination.

Rural proofing must also be demonstrably effective. It is by definition, a negative procedure, attempting to ensure that policies are not harmful to rural interests. Would it not be better to have a positive procedure, running in tandem with rural proofing? For example, there could be a plan of positive actions to benefit those rural interests.

The Chairperson of the Agriculture Committee, Dr Paisley, drew attention last week to the plight of the fishing industry and of the communities depending on that industry; I must do so again. In July, the Committee felt that there should be a specific mention of the sea fisheries fleet and those who rely on it in any economic priorities. That position is unchanged.

Sub-priority 8 refers to participation at European level to ensure the recovery of Irish Sea cod stocks. The draft public service agreement (PSA) for the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development also refers to the viability of the industry, relating it to the recovery of cod stocks and the value of fish landings. There is no reference to fisheries, however, in the policy analysis in sub-priority 8, and the Committee believes that that omission must be corrected before the final version is published.

There are other omissions from sub-priority 8 of the draft Programme for Government. Although strategic development of the agrifood industry is covered, the Committee considers that previous references to modernising and diversifying the structures of farming should be reinstated. That would allow for consideration of an early retirement scheme for farmers, should that be shown to be a viable possibility. People should be given the choice as to whether they want to use such a scheme.

In sub-priority 9 of 'Securing a Competitive Economy', there are references to farming about which the Committee has concerns. The third paragraph begins with the welcome recognition that farmers are "custodians of our countryside". People should not forget that. However, the paragraph also refers to a plan

We understand that the Department of the Environment recently issued proposals to introduce those regulations. The Ulster Farmers' Union recognises the need to reduce the number of pollution incidents attributable to agriculture, but it is unhappy about the way in which the Department of the Environment proposes to do that. One of its concerns is the prohibitive cost for farmers.

The Committee notes that there is to be a farm waste management scheme, one of the small-scale schemes being carried out by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development with Executive programme funds. It is doubtful, however, that that scheme will assist all those affected by the new regulations. The Committee therefore calls for close co-operation between the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and the Department of the Environment to allow for sensitive and proportionate action, with adequate financial support for farmers, rather than draconian measures that farmers cannot afford to implement.

In attempting to concentrate on outputs, as recommended by the Executive's position report, the Committee has tried to judge progress against the current PSA. We found that the level of detail in it was insufficient to enable the Committee to assess the outputs fully. We are told that the new PSAs will contain even less detail and that service delivery agreements will record the detailed actions. In that context, the Committee accepts that the new draft PSA probably reflects the main targets, although objective 2 includes targets at a much more operational level than objective 1. The Committee is more likely to obtain a better picture of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development's performance by measuring progress against the service delivery agreement targets. We look forward to receiving the draft agreement in the near future.

The Committee feels strongly about those points. The Deputy First Minister this morning quoted President Roosevelt. I shall repeat a proverb: any man can make money, but it takes a wise man to spend it.

I want to compliment the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister on their introduction of the Programme for Government this morning. It is the vade mecum of political life in Northern Ireland, touching on every aspect of how we live, sustain and enjoy ourselves and, eventually, on how we die - in the comfort and company of our families, thanks to care in the community.

The report also suggests that there is increasing co- operation between the parties in the coalition. Despite much of what we see in daily headlines, that coalition has brought together the Programme for Government. We are on the threshold of a new, more settled political situation.

The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister this morning showed the clarity with which they intend to proceed and the openness with which they intend to be assessed on their delivery of a complex and detailed programme. I am glad to hear them reiterate their commitment to full consultation with the community at all levels - elected, sectoral, almost individual. Only in that way can we understand the feelings and needs of the community and bring it along with us.

The essential element of any programme of good government is that we have peace in the community and international peace, though that is slightly beyond our remit. We have peace here, compared to what we had several years ago, but we do not have peace everywhere. Violence is more localised than before. We must try to address the underlying sense of injustice, be it social or economic, that propels such intercommunal violence. At the same time, we must isolate the remnant paramilitaries who exploit that sense of grievance.

We do not have total autonomy in how we raise funding, so we cannot fund all the areas that we would like. There are two aggravating points relating to UK taxation that I must mention at the start. Those points have the constant attention of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and the other relevant Departments. First, there is the ongoing impact of excessive fuel duties, which are particularly devastating to family industries and economic life along the border. Then, there is the aggregates tax, which, it is estimated, will cost around 3,500 jobs, if, as threatened, it is fully put into operation from April 2002. I give full support to the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the Minister of Finance and Personnel in their endeavours to ensure that there is a revision of that tax.

The impact of the increase in supply and use of drugs in our community is a major social problem that must be tackled. It must be provided for in the greatest possible way. Unfortunately, at this stage, it is beyond the devolved powers of the Administration and remains in the reserved powers area. Not only do drugs have a detrimental effect on people, they have an ongoing effect on the life of the community and general social and economic well-being. Drug use is often promoted by paramilitaries, and, along with the smuggling connected with the aggregates tax and fuel duties, creates an additional lawlessness that we must address urgently, if we are to establish the society that is envisaged in the Programme for Government and which we desire.

I have no departmental axe to grind, and no departmental axe to wield. I want to refer to some departmental aspects of the Programme for Government, which also dictates the Budget. Mr Savage referred to the concerns of the agricultural community. I have a great fear for the future of that community, in the broadest sense of the word. The BSE crisis, the foot-and-mouth disease crisis and the exchange rate difficulties have taken up the headlines and disguised the underlying dramatic fall in farmers' income. That will have an impact on the structure of farming.

We must consider how we see farming evolving as our basic industry. We talk about revitalisation, and we can do a certain amount through diversification, value- added programmes and schemes and creating additional outside jobs in the rural community. Although I have not yet read the full details, I welcome the additional £100 million announced this morning for revitalisation. We must also consider the basic structure of farming. We must allow the older farmer and the non-viable farmer to leave the industry in an honourable, voluntary and secure fashion. At the other end of the age spectrum, we must make it easier for young men and women to enter a viable farming industry. One of the criteria should be that it must be viable. Nonetheless, we must give farmers assistance. That could mean additional funding, by way of soft loans or interest-free loans, or ensuring that they have the technical knowledge of modern farming to compete in world markets and specialise in what they do. That is the only way in which we can survive.

I am a strong supporter of the land management scheme proposal. It treats farming as a holistic industry that provides not only a livelihood but a rural social fabric. It enhances and safeguards the environmental assets of which we are so proud. All those matters should be managed as one idea, and the proposal for land management should be given a new impetus. It is already being applied in France and has been proposed in Scotland. We must move faster to assess its value for Northern Ireland.

Two of the fishing ports are in South Down. The structure of the fishing industry must be examined. The £5 million decommissioning fund was introduced this year. Its purpose is to diminish the industry on the back of the conservation of stocks. I submit that the Northern Ireland fishing industry has contributed more than its fair share towards the conservation of stocks in the Irish seas. It is difficult for our fishermen, tied up in port as they were from January to February last year, to watch other fleets fishing the common fishing grounds, especially in the Irish Sea. Restrictions are based on scientific information that often proves to be wrong, which calls its validity into question. A critical mass must be maintained, not only for the farming of the sea but for the onshore added values that sustain the communities of the Down coastline and further afield.

The issue of flood plains is another farming and environmental matter that has not been given adequate attention. We are still building on areas that are liable to flood. There must be assessment and new ideas on that issue. We need an interdepartmental approach to helping rural communities. Certain communities in Northern Ireland cannot be helped by single-departmental approaches. Cross-departmental teams must work with them. Those communities are important; they are socially deprived and, in theory, they are priorities for support. That support is not being delivered.

I accept with joy the news that we are to create up to 35,500 new places in tertiary education. I hope that many of those will be in the new technologies that are so important to industry in Northern Ireland.

The Programme for Government is a broad canvas. Just a few brush-strokes can be put to it in the time available. However, there are some general issues. One of those is infrastructural commitment. In the past 50 or 60 years, many areas suffered from gross underinvestment. There are many reasons for that. Some are palatable and others are not, but I will not go into them now. There is no point in pursuing a grand design unless we have an infrastructure that reaches out to areas that were not provided for in the past. So much depends on that, including inward investment, farming, tourism and the general well-being of rural areas. I ask that the regional development plan be considered in that context. There are many areas that do not have a proper share of the cake, although I know that there are restrictions. I hope that the regional development plan will be audited financially and politically in order to ensure equity.

Leaving the need for inward industrial investment and expansion aside, health is our single greatest problem. We read about it every day and there have been debates in the Chamber about how to improve the situation. However, all we see is an increase in the number of people on waiting lists and decreasing facilities for care in the community. That is not about levels of income, or enjoyed leisure time; it is about pain and human suffering, and we must concentrate on that.

We have limited finances. The allocations to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety have been substantial, as have the subsequent add-ons over the past 18 months. Indeed, the February 2001 allocations were approximately £18 million. However, we need to examine how that money is spent. We should audit the systems, under which considerable sums are not being properly applied and do not reach the point of delivery of alleviation of pain and suffering. That is what our Health Service should concentrate on.

At the weekend, I talked to some prominent cancer specialists. We have a deplorable history of provision when it comes to cancer. We fall behind the whole of Western Europe and North America. Our techniques and our standards of diagnosis and treatment are woefully low. We have all had experience of cancer among our families, friends and acquaintances. There was to be a cancer centre of excellence four years ago, but there has been no progress. The machines used to treat cancer break down every day. A machine was ordered some months ago, but now it has been discovered that two machines are required. Procrastination, bureaucracy and red tape prevent us from moving forward. Correcting that state of affairs must be a high priority.

We are running into difficult times with regard to inward investment. The tragedy of 11 September has put tourism on the back foot. However, it would be appropriate if grant aid to industry were structured in such a way that communities that did not previously benefit, or suffered from a lack of investment, could be given an advantage by receiving structured grants to encourage them to set up and develop jobs locally.

There is a finite amount of money to spend, and all of our ambitions are restricted by that. I hope that the Minister of Finance and Personnel and the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will accelerate the re-negotiation of the Barnett formula to give us additional funding.

Ministers from every Department indicated in their statements that over the past 30 or 40 years a disproportionately small amount of money was invested in our infrastructure, the Health Service and education by comparison with the rest of the UK. A hidden injustice has been done.

Not only do we need a restructuring of the funding devolved for the current year from the Treasury at Whitehall; we urgently need a clawback of money from past years so that we can rectify underfunding and underrenewal and revitalise our basic services. If that does not happen, it will be an enormous uphill struggle to maintain our current provision, let alone catch up with modern provision. It is to be hoped that this matter will be treated urgently otherwise we will be unable to provide adequate, modern services for the environment and for people.

I compliment the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and other Ministers on their presentation of the Programme for Government and the resultant funding. As a parting shot, this is a coalition programme, and it is the responsibility of all the Ministers severally and jointly. In future, I do not want to hear Ministers blaming other Departments by innuendo or inference. They are in it together. They must deliver together, and I hope that that will be the way in which this community will work.

I will speak first as the Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment and then comment as a constituency representative. I trust that Members have noted the important paragraph entitled 'Promoting sustainable living', on page 8 of the draft Programme for Government. It states:

The Committee for the Environment will note the designation of sustainable development as a key theme to cut across the five priority areas.

Those are fine words. However, the draft Programme for Government falls short of reflecting the Executive's commitments in their priorities and sub-priorities. Sustainable development is not the old environmental agenda dressed up in new language. It is about going back to the most basic assumptions about the workings of the economy. Sustainable development is about learning to live once again within ecological and social limits. All of the challenges will require innovation in policy-making and new mechanisms for cross- departmental implementation.

The final paragraph on page 39 states:

Those are laudable phrases, but what do they mean? In regard to the Department of the Environment, little information is to be found on the conservation and protection of the built heritage. That is due to the meagre finances that are made available to ensure that our built heritage is protected. That paragraph indicates that the Executive will continue to view the environment primarily as a constraint, rather than an opportunity to enter and develop new economic activities.

Last October the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry told a conference that the global market for environmental goods and services is currently estimated at $335 billion - comparable to the world's market for pharmaceuticals - with a forecast that it will grow to $640 billion by 2010. Progressive European, particularly Scandinavian, economies now recognise that the embedding of environmental protection and eco-efficiency in their approach to production and consumption is integral to their competitiveness, given the emergence of multibillion dollar markets for environmentally sound products.

Let us look at some of the recommendations in the draft Programme for Government. On the sub-priority of energy on page 41, the reference to renewable energy sources should be expanded to highlight the importance of research and development and the development of the local renewable energy sector. In considering energy in the context of sustainable development, the question of domestic consumption must be addressed. We also need to embed energy efficiency in our thinking on the overall efficiency of the economy, including opportunities to develop and export new technology.

On the sub-priority of planning, the current text fails to adequately acknowledge and address the major interest and concern about the lack of accountability, transparency and grass-roots access to affordable or free technical and legal assistance to engage effectively with the planning authorities, notably the Planning Appeals Commission.

Under the sub-priority of the promotion of entrepreneurship, innovation and creativity, there is a need to include more concrete commitments, involving our economic development agencies, to explore research and development for the promotion of new markets for recycled products and new approaches to production and ecological design. That is essential to implement the important shift in our approach to resource use, as set out in the Northern Ireland waste management strategy, to which I will return.

I note that the specific support actions listed under the sub-priority relating to the environment are restricted mainly to traditional pollution abatement and environment protection measures. In other words, they are all "end-of- pipe" solutions.

My Committee views the 'Working Together' section as an area where the Executive have a prime opportunity to "walk the talk" and to stimulate practical support for sustainable development in Northern Ireland. The Executive should demonstrate leadership by giving commitments to improve their own environmental performance and develop environmentally sustainable Government procurement policies across the Departments. That single action could dramatically impact on markets for recycled and recovered materials.

The development of such markets is one of the crucial foundation stones for the success of the Northern Ireland waste management strategy. Public procurement policy can play an important part in stimulating and supporting developing markets for recycled products. Resource efficiency can also play a role in the drive to reduce departmental costs. That is a laudable desire and would free moneys for the development of new services.

The Northern Ireland waste management strategy commits all Departments to set targets towards the recovery of a minimum of 40% of total office waste, with at least 25% of that recovery coming from recycling or composting in 2000-01. The strategy specifically states:

It is time to include these commitments in the Programme for Government so that those in authority can take a credible position on promoting a sustainable society among other stakeholders. Lead, therefore, by example. According to figures released by the Environment and Heritage Service, public administration, health and social services and education account for 33% of the commercial and industrial waste generated in the Province each year.

The draft Programme for Government states that we need to consider the environmental impact of all key policies. That should be strengthened by a time-bound commitment to develop a methodology and implementation plan for sustainability impact assessments for all Government policies and objectives. Executive programme funds should be used to bring that about.

A commitment to, and understanding of, sustainable development is not measured by the rigour of environmental policies alone, but by an ability fully to integrate environmental considerations and opportunities across all Departments and policy objectives.

The Committee for the Environment had invited the UK Sustainable Development Commission to a lunchtime seminar in Parliament Buildings on 20 November. Unfortunately, the seminar has been postponed by the commission until March 2002. That will allow Members to be brought up to speed on sustainable development by leading experts in the field.

I have many points that I wish to raise, but other members of the Committee will address some of the environmental issues. As a constituency Member I will now raise some other matters.

The draft Programme for Government on page five states:

Everyone is horrified at the state of our health and the Health Service. People are lying on trolleys in hospitals; people are lying at home; our elderly are forsaken. They believed that they would be cared for by the Health Service, having worked and paid for it all the days of their lives. Now we find that home helps' hours are to be cut, and many of our elderly are left on waiting lists for home helps. We have 90-year- olds waiting for home helps to help them out of bed, to dress them or to light a fire. Is such a service appropriate in any age, never mind in the year 2001? We hear fancy terms like "care in the community", but where is that care? The Department decided to put people out of hospital into the community and promised them care packages.

I support care in the community, but it is not being provided. Care in the community was an easy way for the Department to get people out of hospital, to get them off its hands and then to forget about them. This was done in the hope that someone else, especially family members, would look after the elderly in their later days.

It is a tragedy that some sick and elderly people in the community might die before they receive care. They cannot even get a scan or the basic attention that they ought to receive in any vibrant Health Service. I do not believe that we will get an appropriate Health Service simply by throwing money at it. There must be a proper approach. Many in the Department do not have a clue about how to deal with the present crisis, let alone prepare for the winter months.

In my constituency of Mid Ulster, there is a great difference between the spending of the different education sectors. For example, in Mid Ulster or the district of Magherafelt, there is massive spending on maintained schools. I have no objection to that. However, because there are limited resources, what has happened to the controlled schools? Children from the Protestant community go to state-provided, controlled- sector buildings that are dilapidated, depressing and deteriorating. What do they see in the maintained schools in the same towns? They see new buildings and millions of pounds being spent. Surely, if money is limited, as we are told, the resources ought to be spread across the community. The delivery of resources to only one section of the community drives a coach and horses through all the phrases about community that are contained in the document that is being presented today.

Finally, I want to speak about the farming community. I come from a rural area, where farming is still a major industry. We do not have any of the multinational companies found in many other regions. Perhaps that will spare us from the effects of the multinationals pulling out, if the present economic trends continue.

I note that the events of 11 September are being blamed in this debate for all of our ills. For example, it was suggested that British Airways pulled out of Antrim as a result of the events of 11 September. Nothing could be further from the truth. British Airways intended to pull out long before 11 September. It is our national carrier, but it has turned its back on the people of Northern Ireland. It ought to be condemned for that decision. Let us not blame all failures on the tragic events of 11 September.

We face economic difficulties, none more severe than those affecting the farming community. Farmers are told, "Diversify, diversify, diversify." However, little or nothing has been done to ensure that they can diversify. The farming sector has faced BSE, foot-and-mouth disease and many other problems. However, we have no details of a retirement scheme for those farmers who wish to retire, nor of young entrants' schemes. We talk about ensuring that young people enter the farming industry. Young people with a vision for the future of farming should be encouraged to stay in the rural community. However, the burden of diversification is placed solely upon the farmers.

Imaginative action is needed from the Department to ensure that the countryside is not left derelict, that those farmers who are able to diversify can do so, and that those farmers who put food on the table can continue to do so for the betterment of our people.

As I have said, I intend to suspend the sitting at 12.30 pm to allow Members to attend other meetings.

A LeasCheann Comhairle. I will speak now, because I have other meetings to attend this evening. I will speak first as Chairperson of the Finance and Personnel Committee.

Last week the Deputy Chairperson, James Leslie, spoke in the Budget debate. The Programme for Government and the Budget are the most important items to come before the Assembly. Each is dependent on the success of the other. To have a view on one, you must be aware of the other issues involved. On behalf of the Finance and Personnel Committee, I call on the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to take on board the views and concerns of Committees before the Programme for Government is finalised.

I congratulate Mark Durkan, who is currently absent from the Chamber, on his appointments as Deputy First Minister and as leader of his party. The Committee found him to be an effective and popular Minister in its dealings with him. I am sure that he will prove to be just as effective in his new roles.

The Committee for Finance and Personnel welcomed the opportunity to comment on the Programme for Government and the Budget that will fund it. The Committee first did so after the Executive position report was issued in June. The Committee issued a report on its findings. Since then, the Committee has reported on each departmental Committee's response to the Executive programme funds. The Committee found that some bids had little to recommend them as regards cross-cutting initiatives and, as such, the rationale for the funds. That raises questions about the funds' effectiveness. There must be new ideas and cross- departmental roles and programmes in order to maximise those funds in the future.

The Committee's latest report on the draft Budget will be finalised by the Committee today and published this week. I recommend that the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the Executive read all of these reports and deal with the recommendations in them before finalising their own commitments.

Today we are looking at the Assembly's priorities and how far they will meet the public's needs. The challenge in the Programme for Government was first set out in the Belfast Agreement, but it remains relevant today: to create a peaceful, cohesive, inclusive and prosperous society that will be stable and fair to all. The Programme for Government and the Budget can put in place the means to achieve that goal. We must decide whether the Programme for Government, and the priorities in it, will produce that society. The decisions made in the coming days will determine how we spend the many billions of pounds that the programmes will need. It is vital that those decisions impact on how the Budget is spent in the next year and the years to come.

There is a chance today to call for effective programmes that can make a real and positive difference. The Committee for Finance and Personnel looked at the key priorities set out by the Executive for the Department of Finance and Personnel in the Programme for Government. Committee members examined, and were generally content with, the thrust of the five key priorities.

I warmly welcome the Executive's work in setting out the strategic framework for each Department and the priorities that can be set. The public service here has been working in individual departmental boxes for far too long. Little effort has been made to co-ordinate and deliver cross-cutting services. We need to develop that in the future so that there are cross-cutting themes. The public has suffered from the boxing-in of the past. Each Department dealt with its own work and did not examine how effective cross-cutting roles could be achieved. Spending plans must reflect the change in priorities, and will be informed by an objective analysis of those priorities.

Questions were asked about the sub-priorities. I wrote to the Minister of Finance and Personnel and to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister about those matters. Issues addressed included the work to reform the public administration in areas of public procurement. Members were concerned that the reforms should give value for money. Financing the programmes is the most important issue, and the Committee considered Section 7, sub-priority 4 of the draft Programme for Government, which deals with new ways of financing public services. It states:

We all know that money is very tight and that it is not available for the programmes that we would want, but we must ensure that the correct priorities are in place. How we obtain additional sources of finance is important, and that will determine our success in meeting the public's needs. Members will recall the Committee's recent examination of the use of public-private partnerships to finance public services. One of the key findings of the report, which was published in July, was that public-private partnerships were not always the best answer and should not be seen as the saviour of all public services. Alternatives are public money and other sources of finance such as bonds.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>