On page 63 of the draft Programme for Government the Executive appear confident that additional sources of finance, including partnerships, will be secured - not just that they "may" be secured, but that they "will" be. How will that money - hundreds of millions of pounds - be made available? I have asked the Department of Finance and Personnel to confirm the sources and extent of the additional finance. Public- private partnerships may help in some situations, but they are not a panacea for all ills. The events of 11 September reinforced that opinion. The world economy suffered, and it is no longer in its healthy position of six months ago. As a result of the downturn in the economy the private sector may not be willing to invest in our relatively small market, nor is the British Treasury likely to be so liberal. Obviously, the war chest has been opened and its contents spent. We may have missed opportunities for a peace dividend in our new situation.

The Executive also say in the draft programme that arrangements will be put in place to ensure that the contribution made by rates towards public expenditure will be at an appropriate level. My Committee has commented in the past on the use of rates to finance public service. The Deputy First Minister, as Minister of Finance and Personnel, is well aware of our views, but it is perhaps premature to expect a significant contribution prior to the review of the rating system.

We must discuss with the Treasury underinvestment and the role of the Barnett formula in determining changes to the block grant. It is often pointed out that public spending per head is higher here than in England, Scotland and Wales, but we must compare like with like. We must ensure that there is an increase in direct payments, for example towards health and the infrastructure. Direct payments have been made in England, Scotland and Wales, and our allocation has not been fair. We need to look at the block grant as an add-on, and we may have missed out on it. Mr McGrady pointed out the need to rectify the lack of money spent in the last few years. We must ensure that we get the money that we should have had in the past.

From the evidence that was revealed in a debate last week in the House of Lords, it does not appear that the Barnett formula will be reviewed quickly. In responding to the debate, the Government spokesperson, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said that the formula had stood the test and was as relevant now as it was in 1978. It had been updated in different spending reviews, but that was of no benefit to us. The Barnett formula does not meet our need.

My Committee supports the general thrust of the draft Programme for Government -

Mr Molloy, this is perhaps a good time to interrupt. The sitting is by leave suspended and will resume at 2.00 pm.

I wish to acknowledge the references that Members made to environmental issues. Mr McGrady referred to flood claims and to building in areas that are liable to flooding. I take that point on board; my officials are aware of that issue and will watch out for it, especially after the debacle in England a couple of years ago.

Dr McCrea referred to sustainable development. What we do today should be valuable for tomorrow; what we do for today's children should be valuable for tomorrow's children. He referred to the fact that finances were not available for built heritage. I am aware of our financial constraints, which make it difficult for us to maintain built heritage. He also noted that new technology was required for energy efficiency. He mentioned that there was not enough transparency and speed in planning. I was pleased to hear Dr McCrea advocate transparency, because we recently had a difference of opinion about transparency in other matters. Planning is a difficult issue. People are often dissatisfied with it - if someone is successful, it is fine; if someone is unsuccessful, it is not.

Several Members mentioned markets for recycled products. It will be difficult to create such markets because the size of Northern Ireland means that it cannot compete in large markets. However, the cross- border bodies may provide us with the opportunity to open markets on an all-Ireland basis. The waste management strategy is a big issue and will be a learning process. However, councils' waste management strategy plans are at an advanced stage. Those strategies constitute the Department of the Environment's aim. It is neither intended to be a wasted effort nor an effort in waste. Members said that the draft Programme for Government contained a lot of rhetoric. However, a lot of us are filled with rhetoric, not merely one or two of us.

I welcome the challenge. The environment was the poor relation under direct rule, and, unfortunately, I inherited massive backlogs in the planning system and in environmental legislation, as well as a depleted road safety organisation. The situation that I inherited shocked me. My first priority was to obtain more resources for the Department of the Environment, and I was pleased to secure an extra 26% for the Department's budget. That was the second largest increase achieved by a Minister. However, we must remember that that came from a small base. The staffing of the Planning Service has increased from 450 to 500 and continues to rise. Staff at the Environment and Heritage Service will number more than 320 in 2002, compared with 260 in 2000. The number of road safety education officers has almost doubled from 11 to 21.

Resources are only a means to an end. Although the Department of the Environment does not build roads, hospitals or schools, which one can see and touch, it delivers a range of services that touch on the interests of every citizen in Northern Ireland. Since I have been Minister, the Planning Service has dealt with an ever increasing number of applications. There were 20,000 per year when I took office; that number now runs at around 24,000. This year, the Planning Service is preparing 11 development plans. For the first time, the Planning Service is on course to achieve full plan coverage for Northern Ireland by 2005. That includes the Belfast metropolitan area plan. Planning is controversial. We could scour the world and not find a planning system that does not attract criticism. That is because, in the small minority of controversial cases, someone is always disappointed with the decision, and the disappointed often make the most noise.

If the environment does not work, nothing will work. Northern Ireland's clean, green image is central to what makes it a desirable location for visitors and business. We are blessed with good air, river quality and an appealing and varied landscape. However, we must be vigilant in protecting those assets and improve them where necessary. In particular, the amount of river pollution incidents, which do so much damage to fish stocks, habitats, leisure and tourism, has disappointed me. To meet that threat - and others - I have accelerated plans for local air quality management; increased the monitoring of rivers; introduced enhanced powers to prevent and remedy pollution; and brought forward plans to improve the protection and monitoring of our most important environmental sites. In addition, steady progress is being made towards bringing Northern Ireland's environmental legislation into line with EU requirements - a huge task that was seriously neglected under direct rule.

Perhaps the greatest environmental challenge is that posed by the radical changes needed in waste management. Put simply, to protect our environment, we must reduce, reuse and recycle. We must ask ourselves what right we have to pollute, litter, waste and destroy our biggest asset - the planet itself. There is not much point building houses if we have no planet to live on. What is the economic sense of putting valuable materials into holes in the ground? I am pleased to have helped to put the flesh on the bones of the waste management strategy. District councils, under guidance from the Department of the Environment, are now well advanced in the preparation of waste management plans.

I pay tribute to Driver and Vehicle Licensing Northern Ireland and the Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency. I was pleased to oversee a £57 million contract that will transform all our MOT centres into state-of-the-art, high- tech arenas. I also welcome the value for money and care for the environment achieved in the delivery of cheaper motor tax for smaller cars. It is a rare pleasure in government to be able to return money to people's pockets.

The issue closest to my heart is road safety - a big issue. The hard-hitting publicity campaigns that I have introduced on drink-driving, speed and seat belts are changing public attitudes. The doubling of the number of road safety education officers creates a brighter prospect for road users. While one death is too many - we have had 123 deaths this year so far - this year has, thankfully, seen some improvement on the previous year. We are finalising a road safety plan that should allow us to continue the downward trend in deaths and serious injuries.

Devolution has been a success - it has certainly been better than direct rule. However, the fact that Ministers are drawn from Northern Ireland's elected representatives does not mean that they have magic wands. The successes that I spoke of required a massive amount of hard work by my staff. The same applies to all Ministers and Departments. We must recognise that our devolution system reflects our historic and current divisions. The system contains all sorts of checks and balances, and, as a result, it is not built for speed.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the environmental aspects of the Programme for Government. We do work hard and the Department of the Environment exists to serve people. It is more of a service agency than a providing agency. I am pleased to be part of that.

I echo the words of Mr Foster: there is no magic wand in the current devolution system. However, expectations are higher than they were under direct rule, and there is a need to satisfy those expectations.

Last year, the first phase of the Programme for Government was said to be ambitious. It now seems to be overambitious. A member of our research staff gave me six pages of unfulfilled commitments. Many of those could be expected to be achieved only by the end of the year, but there were many commitments in last year's Programme for Government that had completion dates in June, August, September, October, autumn and summer: they have disappeared from sight.

The Executive must explain not only their Programme for Government next year, but how they are achieving what was set out in the Programme for Government this year. The introduction to this year's programme says:

That is at variance with the figures that we have, which suggest that there is much lacking in many areas. I set that in the context of the words of the First Minister on 5 March in proposing the adoption of the Programme for Government:

If the programme was realistic, organised and costed, and the Executive have apparently failed to deliver, our ambitions have not been proven, but neither have theirs. Something must be at fault if nothing has been achieved. Members trust that the Executive are not only writing a programme for next year, but are devoting energy to achieving the targets that they set for this year.

There appears to be some woolly thinking about the future programme. This time last year, it was said that public service agreements would make sense of the Programme for Government and apply it within Departments. I refer Ministers to section 5.10 on pages 48 and 49, which is predominantly about agriculture. Thirteen aspirations that are set out in the early paragraphs are reduced to six specific bullet points, only four of which appear in the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development's public service agreement. How can there be coherence when woolly ideas become a limited number of bullet points and do not appear in the relevant Department's plans? The talk was of joined-up government, but the Executive are failing to meet their own standards.

The Department of the Environment's public service agreement on page 96 of the programme refers specifically to best value for district councils. The Minister can be assured that I am not attempting to recreate last Thursday's row over the Department's best value proposals and the Committee's concerns. However, there is a reference to section 7.5 of the Programme for Government, which does not comment on best value for district councils. It seems that the Department's agreement is not endorsed by the Executive. It does not appear to flow from the Programme for Government to the Department, which seems to be creating items that have not been thought of by the Executive. Where is the coherence? Where is the joined-up government?

The current plans lack credibility. There was an admission in the Budget debate that health and social services needs, considered by many to be main priorities, cannot be met by the budget that has been allocated to that Department. What is the point of a Programme for Government that will create difficulties when it is not achieved, especially if it has already been admitted that it cannot be achieved? If the Executive cannot allay public concerns about health and social services and cannot deal with concerns about acute hospital services, community care, childcare and psychiatric services, what is the point of the programme?

Last year, Members were concerned about community relations and tackling divisions. The Executive took no notice of Members this time last year or during the debate in March 2001. I welcome the fact that, since then, they have addressed some of those concerns. Some references have been strengthened. If the Executive are going to put in place a cross-departmental strategy during 2002, has that plan started with the cross- departmental working group that my Colleague Mr Kieran McCarthy proposed in the House some time ago? Can the Executive be sure that they will deliver a strategy that they have not begun to think about? The Executive have not given us the impression that they move so fast that only a short time is needed between early consideration of an issue and having a strategy in place to deal with it.

Ministers will have to explain the meaning of the formulation in paragraph 2.4 on page 12:

It seems that when they refer to the "capacity of communities", it is an excuse for public authorities to do nothing about offensive graffiti, murals, paramilitary flags until the local hard men allow it. I would like to hear Ministers say that they will allow 95% of the community to tackle the problem, in conjunction with public agencies, rather than waiting until the local hard men allow them to do so.

Integrated education is another issue that falls into the important category of promoting sharing. Page 32 states:

Provision of integrated education has certainly grown. However, a few weeks ago, the Minister told me that there was an excess of demand for places in integrated schools in comparison with other schools. Clearly, provision of such education has not grown in response to the wishes of parents. Had it done so, there would be sufficient capacity to satisfy the desire of parents. It is time to tidy up the language a little. No doubt, by the time that Mrs Eileen Bell has further explored that point, Ministers will be able to assure me that my fears that their language does not convey what they wish are utterly unfounded, and that they will move forward when they revise the programme.

Last year, I said that the test would be how well the Programme for Government dealt with the specific problems of Northern Ireland and its divided society - which are not those of other regions of the United Kingdom - in order to promote sharing over separation. There have been some small steps forward in this year's draft, compared to last year's. However, the Executive have much to do to convince us that they are tackling those problems.

I agree with the remarks of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, particularly Mr Durkan's observation that we have reached a defining moment in the operation of the Assembly. We have spent a great deal of time concentrating on the political nature of our intertwining and interlocking relationships and on the establishment of what we hope will be good government. It is time to concentrate on proving to the people that we can deliver good government. That is what the programme should be about. For three years, we have promised change. I do not deny that huge political change has occurred. However, our duty is to now ensure that that change filters down to the streets, so that people can not only see, but touch, feel, hear and smell change for the better in our society.

The first overall objective must be the eradication of poverty from Northern Ireland. It is an indictment of our society that one child in three lives in poverty. We must tackle that problem and reduce the ever-widening gap between the haves and the have-nots.

The second priority is to tackle divisions in society - an issue referred to by Mr Ford. We must make real change and tackle the disease of sectarianism that stalks our streets at its root. We cannot afford to ignore it. However, we need help from churches and schools. Integrated education is an important instrument, as Mr Ford said, but we also need help from other groups that work in the cross-community field, for example, the youth organisations and community groups and leaders who do such wonderful work. Furthermore, we must recognise and reward them for that work, in the form of solid financial backing. It is all right to commend workers for their efforts to end strife in the community, but grand words are not enough - they need money and support. There is superb funding available in the European peace and reconciliation programme to help community groups with that type of work, but we as a Government, as an Assembly, must do much more to support the tremendous work that is being done on the street.

The terrible state of the Health Service is plain to see, and we have heard that many times in the Assembly. We have heard how waiting lists have grown in the past two years. The Executive seriously need to get their heads and their money around that. We need support for our hospitals. Patients are dissatisfied; nurses are seriously concerned about their own health because of the pressure that they are under and worry about their professionalism being compromised because of lack of funding and resources. The situation must be addressed immediately, and funding must be made available for that purpose.

Free nursing care for the elderly was to be in the programme, but funding has been withdrawn. I would appreciate an explanation and possibly a commitment to reinstate it.

Does the Member agree that some of the crises in the health sector are due to a lack of funding over the past 30 years? That is a test for the Executive. The Health Committee requested that Ministers look at their own budgets and that the Executive consider additional money for the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.

I am not necessarily in the business of blame, but it is necessary to find money. It does not matter where the money comes from, but it must come fast.

Cancer services is another area of vital importance. I can recall a serious incident from personal experience. My father died of cancer two years ago. A month after he died, we received a letter from his consultant asking him to come for an appointment. What does that say about the Health Service? A consultant who never saw my father asked a dead man to come for an appointment and was not even aware that he had died.

I am glad that we are starting to get to grips with what I can only describe as a Dickensian education system, which puts children, teachers and parents through the trauma of the 11-plus. I must admit to the House that I am going through that trauma at present, along with my son, his teachers and our family. Leaving my son to do his first 11-plus exam last Friday was possibly worse than facing the wrath from certain quarters of the Assembly when I changed designation. We cannot put children through the 11-plus any longer, and it is good that there is now a commitment to change. I am sorry that it is not happening faster. Two years is too long.

I want to pinpoint two transport issues - trains and road safety. I was glad to hear the Minister of the Environment talk about his plans for road safety. That is well and good, but it is not enough. The Minister quoted the figures - 120 or more have already died this year on the roads. Much more must be done, in a totally concerted effort. We need traffic-calming systems, home safety zones and reductions in speed limits. Is there not something called a governor that can cap the speed that a car can do? Lorries have them at a limit of 50 miles per hour. Why cannot cars be governed - I am talking about those driven by young men who persistently break speed limits - so that they cannot be driven over a certain speed? Creative thinking is needed, and it is vital that we do something.

Our train service is a shame and a disgrace. Good commitments have been made, and money is coming in, but we are impatient. We want to get on a train and sit in a clean carriage in comfort. We want to be told where we can get off, why the train has stopped or even that it will not be delayed any longer. We need a first-class service in everything here - I am not just talking about trains.

The importance of the social economy is being examined by the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, Sir Reg Empey. It is essential that we build on the important work that is done in that area - the voluntary sector - and adopt the same business-like approach. I also underline the importance of social responsibility in business. Groups such as Business in the Community must be commended for the work that they do to encourage businesses to get involved in the community and realise that the bottom line is not always profit; it can also be about people and contributing to the community.

Another issue related to the economy is energy, and renewable energy is something in which I take a keen interest. It was mentioned earlier and covers energy sources such as wind - offshore or onshore - solar, biomass and agriculture. We passed a motion at our annual conference that we should aim at drawing 30% of our energy from renewable energy sources by 2020. That is a long way off. If we are to get there, we must start providing incentives for pilot and demonstration projects. We must encourage the use of renewable energy, because, as we well know, fossil fuel energy will not last forever: renewable energy will.

My final point on the economy is one that is obviously close to my heart - the euro. There are 50 days to go, and we act as though we are in an isolation box and will not be affected by the single currency. It is good that there are euro preparation forums up and down the country telling businesses what to do, but if I were to walk into the Canteen here with euros in my pocket, would the staff say, "Sorry, I cannot take those"? The public and businesses want to know what they are to do when someone from Dublin arrives and says that he wants to spend euros? We must get to grips with what will happen.

I want to compliment the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and the Executive for progress on the post of children's commissioner. It has been said that the commissioner will be in place by next April. Let us hope so; it is important. The finance for the post is important. The establishment of the post of children's commissioner is not about handing over responsibility for children to one office and removing it from our jurisdiction. That must not be the case.

TOP

As I said earlier, one child in every three in Northern Ireland is born into poverty. Per capita spending on children's services in Northern Ireland is £143; that is £74 less than in England. More children live in poverty here, yet we are spending less money on children's services. That must be recognised, and something must be done about it. This issue is connected to the Department for Regional Development's publication, 'Shaping our Future'. Play strategies are important, but I do not see them anywhere. Local councils and other bodies need play strategies, not just playgrounds and street corners. The important issue is child care and the way in which we interact with children - [Interruption].

Order. The Member is keen to promote family-friendly hours. By my calculation, if all the other Members whose names are currently on the speaking list speak for only the length of time that Ms Morrice has been on her feet, we shall not leave the House before 10.00 pm. Can the Member bring her remarks to a close?

I appreciate the need for family-friendly hours. Perhaps we could have play strategies in the Assembly - [Interruption].

I thought that we had them already.

In view of recent events, I am not so sure. Perhaps the playground out there should be declared as being out of bounds for a while.

Twelve months down the line, when we examine what has been achieved by the Programme for Government, we will want to see results. We should be able to go to every man, woman and child in the street and ask what devolved government has done for them, and they should have a positive response.

I welcome this second draft Programme for Government. I would like to focus on public service agreements.

There are some general issues concerning public service agreements. If used properly, they are a useful innovation in governance. However, there is a danger that if the goalposts are shifted, they could become less meaningful. That may be happening in the Department for Employment and Learning. In the draft Programme for Government of February 2001, a target of attaining 550 Investors in People awards was set for March 2002. However, the current draft Programme for Government does not refer to such a target. The Department's business plan for 2000-01 implies that the March 2002 target has been reduced from 550 to 535. Unfortunately, that change and the shifting of the goalposts in respect of public service agreements is not explicit in the current draft Programme for Government. That may seem like a quibble on my part, and, although a decrease in Investors in People awards by 15 will hardly revolutionise the Northern Ireland economy or society, the principle of transparency in respect of public service agreements applies. I hope that other public service agreements that have been altered in an attempt to make them more attainable are not scattered throughout the draft programme.

There are many welcome references to the Department for Employment and Learning. In the First Minister's introduction, he rightly heralded the major increase in the number of study places in further and higher education. The Committee welcomes that increase. On page 17 of the draft programme it is recognised that there are some non-transferred areas of policy that have an impact on the vital cross-cutting issue of employability - for example, the United Kingdom Government's proposals for the integrated child credit and employment tax credits.

The horrendous problem of poor performance in respect of basic adult literacy and numeracy is highlighted on pages 30 to 31 elsewhere in the draft. As Chairperson of the Committee for Employment and Learning, I must ask whether the resources allocated to tackling these problems are adequate.

I want now to broaden my comments, no longer speaking as the Chairperson of the Committee for Employment and Learning. Mr Ford mentioned community relations, and few issues are more pressing for the Executive and the Assembly. I am pleased that the Executive aim to complete a review of community relations policy next year, which is indicated on page 13 of the draft.

As was revealed in the recent deliberations of the Committee of the Centre on a community relations strategy, £100 million of public money has been spent over the last 10 years in an attempt to improve community relations. That prompts me to ask what actual improvements were achieved by the £10 million per annum being spent on something that is clearly desirable. I hope that in the concluding deliberations of the review the right vision for a community relations policy will be borne in mind.

Of the Arab-Israeli problem, Amos Oz wrote that "rivers of coffee will not solve problems of land". The same is true here. Worthy initiatives in which children are taken to Portrush, or sent to France or the United States, may have a certain degree of benefit. However, it is unclear whether those schemes tackle the roots of poor community relations. Our conflict is not simply driven by a lack of knowledge of the "other" community, although it might be determined in part by that.

Does the Member agree that the difficulty with community relations in this society has been that providing cucumber sandwiches and tea has been seen as the way forward? Does he agree that what we need before we have community relations is a community development base on which to build? Furthermore, does he agree that we need to implement conflict resolution policies and that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister should consider all of those matters and produce a report on the subject?

I thank the Member for his mini-speech. He has raised many points that are worthy of attention. The wrong vision for community relations would be one driven by a socially engineered attempt to assimilate differences. It should be about the toleration and management of difference, and some of the points made by Mr Hutchinson would help to advance those.

On page 15 of the document, the Executive undertake to consult by next year on the question of physical punishment of children in the home. Cruelty to children is possibly the worst form of cruelty. However, at this point, Northern Ireland is likely, in view of the general attitude here, to be closer to the approach that the Government in England and Wales have taken than the recent policy development in Scotland. The Scottish Parliament seems determined to introduce a politically correct ban on smacking.

Finally I will comment on the modernisation of public administration, the removal of unnecessary and duplicate layers of bureaucracy and finding new sources of funding. Those issues are covered from page 62 onwards of the draft Programme for Government. Ideally, we could do with a bonfire of the quangos, although that would have to be well considered.

Page 64 of the draft Programme for Government states that we should

that is, the regional rates -

That is a noble aspiration, but it would prove difficult to achieve.

Keeping an up-to-date valuation for the rates is an issue that must be considered. In previous debates many Members expressed the feeling that there was an inequity on the commercial rating side. For instance, the perceived low level of rates paid by some of the newest and, presumably, highly profitable shopping centres are not relative to the levels paid by traditional shops on arterial routes such as those in the city of Belfast. There should be a low rate of tax but a wide base from which that tax is collected, and the two are related.

Do any of the rates exemptions need to be re-examined? Being in the teeth of a possible economic recession, this is probably not the right time to collect the possible £50 million to £60 million per annum of rates from the industrial sector - which is currently exempt. However, the Executive should perhaps think of what may be possible in two or three years' time, when it is hoped that we will be moving into a cyclical upswing. Blanket rate exemptions have been a blunt instrument for improving industrial competitiveness. That applies to all firms, be they immense, multinational branch plants or small, entrepreneurial, rapidly growing companies. That incentive to industrial development was introduced several decades ago under conditions that are less applicable today.

I welcome the second draft Programme for Government; it is a significant achievement. Regional government is something to be cherished. Mistakes will continue to be made - that is only human - but at least they will now be made by local politicians.

I will confine myself to commenting in my role as Chairperson of the Committee on Culture, Arts and Leisure. As will be clear to any observer, the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure has a significant contribution to make to each of the Executive's priorities. In that regard, the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure welcomes the fact that the revised draft Programme for Government highlights - in much greater detail than before - the role that the Department will play in the delivery of those policies. Almost all of the priorities refer in some way to the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure's activities.

The Committee revised the presentation and content of the document, and, in particular, it included a section setting out the actions completed since the first Programme for Government. However, the Committee feels that it would have been helpful to have also included a brief summary of progress on some actions and of those that may have slipped.

The Committee welcomes the recognition given to the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure's responsibilities by the inclusion in 'Growing as a Community' of a new sub-priority relating to cultural and linguistic diversity and maximising the benefits of culture, arts and leisure activities. We are concerned, however, that the draft Budget proposals for 2002-03 do not appear to support that important commitment through the allocation of additional resources to address clearly identified pressures in those areas.

The chapter 'Working for a Healthier People' in the draft Programme for Government has obvious implications for the work of the Department, and the Sports Council in particular, in promoting the benefits of sport and physical activity. Comments in the debate on the Budget left me feeling that we would be foolish to suggest large cuts in the funding for Departments such as the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure. While that might result in immediate help to the health budget, in the longer term there would be disastrous consequences for the prevention of ill health. All modern research shows that one pound spent on prevention is worth hundreds of pounds to the future health budget. I draw Members' attention to a document produced by the Sports Council entitled 'The Value of Sport', which highlights the contribution that increased participation in physical activities can make to the health of our community and, consequently, to the health budget.

The Committee welcomes the reworking of the sub- priorities in the chapter entitled 'Investing in Education and Skills' in the Programme for Government. It notes that 50% of the sub-priorities now include a focus for the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure. They recognise the Department's broad partnership role in promoting a culture of tolerance, developing creative potential and providing lifelong learning opportunities. I am glad to see the commitment to begin implementation of the unlocking creativity strategy.

We must recognise that the Department faces significant infrastructural challenges in respect of sub-priority 6, 'We will preserve our cultural and information resources and make them available to the widest possible audience'. The Committee is glad that the draft document makes specific reference to the rich cultural and information resources in our museums, the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland (PRONI) and our 126 public libraries.

We are, however, concerned that while some additional moneys have been made available for the electronic library project and for PRONI, funding for the National Museums and Galleries of Northern Ireland (MAGNI) continues to be based on an annual battle for inadequate baseline allocations. I have raised this critical issue before. It is resulting in the continuing neglect of the fabric of our museums and the accumulation of an operating deficit of some £2 million this year in MAGNI.

The Committee has agreed that if the draft Programme for Government sets out a commitment to developing electronic access to archives, libraries and museums, the draft Budget proposals must ensure that these valuable resources do not continue to suffer from the effects of pre-devolution cuts and years of underfunding.

Chapter 5, 'Securing a Competitive Economy', has implications for the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure in respect of creative industries. The commitment to a programme of research on the potential development of creative industries and the production of a related action plan is noted. However, significant work has already been done in that area - for example, the unlocking creativity strategy, the future search process and the recent production of the Arts Council's five-year arts plan.

The Committee hopes that the additional research required will be completed quickly and that the production of the action plan will be undertaken without undue delay, to avoid putting at risk the goodwill and support of the creative sector. The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure also has an important role to play in increasing Northern Ireland's attractiveness to visitors. The Committee welcomes the recognition given to its activities by sub-priority 6.

The Committee is particularly pleased that sub-priority 9 reflects the recommendations made in its report on inland fisheries - which, incidentally, was unanimously accepted by the Assembly - on agricultural and industrial water pollution incidents and the need to protect wild salmon stocks.

Chapter 6 deals with the development of North/South, east-west and international relations. The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure has an important contribution to make. The Committee notes that six of the seven sub-priorities relate directly to the Department's area of responsibility. In particular - and I cannot emphasise this strongly enough - the Committee hopes that the broad support indicated under sub-priority 5 for Imagine Belfast's bid to be named European Capital of Culture 2008 will be reflected in the final Budget proposals and Executive programme fund allocations for next year.

Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle. I will be as brief as possible, given that so many Members are waiting to speak.

The development of an agreed Programme for Government and Budget by the Executive represents an important milestone in the peace process and the process of conflict resolution. Ultimately, the success of the peace process and the Good Friday Agreement will be judged by the changes delivered to those living in disadvantaged communities across the North, and in other parts of Ireland. This programme will address the social and economic needs of our people, as opposed to the conflict that has been addressed for the past 30 years. The Programme for Government is very important in that context.

The programme is not a socialist document, nor a radical agenda for change, but it points to a better future. It is not a static document, like the Good Friday Agreement, but a transitional programme for the future. One cannot be blinded to the programme's shortcomings, which stem from how the Budget is determined and allocated. Even the architect of the formula for determining the Budget allocation, Joel Barnett, has criticised its use because it does not reflect need and, in our case, has never done so. The present system is untenable, and its replacement must be a priority for the Executive in the days and months ahead. The Budget and the limitations of the Programme for Government are a direct consequence of our being chained to the Barnett formula and the British Exchequer.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>