The Minister, in her comments about agriculture at the weekend, mistakes verbal attacks on the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development and its Chairperson for good policy. She should instead deal with the major policy issues that have been flagged up. The Department's failure to deal with those crucial issues focuses the Minister on making verbal attacks on the Committee Chairperson.

The vision group's report has been commended from many quarters. It is an interesting project which will also require serious resources. As Mr McGrady rightly identified, the Programme for Government does not appear to have the resources set aside, or even have them in mind, to put into action the proposals outlined by the vision group. I hope that the vision group's report will not be shelved. However, according to the Programme for Government, it is likely that it will be shelved due to the lack of available funding.

Will the Member please bring his remarks to a close?

The first Programme for Government promised to find a definition for rural proofing that would affect every Department and would allow all Departments to reflect seriously on the needs of the rural community. It is a scandal that the Programme for Government and the Administration have yet to find a meaningful definition, working title and working commitment towards rural proofing across every Department.

I appreciate the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure to many of the comments that have been made on the Programme for Government.

The programme is an earnest statement of our commitment to devolved government in Northern Ireland. It also highlights the concept that the people of Northern Ireland are best served by representatives from the Province who know the issues; who know the people's needs; who are accountable to the people for delivering those needs; and who speak the people's language. It is important that we all play a full role in agreeing and implementing the Programme for Government.

I met with the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure last week to discuss my Department's commitments, and I am grateful for its input and views. A Programme for Government will only be meaningful and achievable if Departments, Committees and the Assembly all play their part in shaping the document and ensuring that it is fully implemented.

My Department is committed to delivering the community's needs, and we punch above our weight, in contrast to Mr Paisley Jnr's remarks about not delivering. In the first Programme for Government, the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, with less than 1% of the available funding, accounted for 10% of the total 257 actions. It was signature to 28 actions, of which 14 were completed. Twelve are still ongoing, but they are on time because it is envisaged that they will run for more than one year. Two are incomplete - they are inland fisheries matters awaiting clearance from Brussels. This was no fluke. This year, of 164 actions in the Programme for Government, my Department accounts for 21. The extent of our remit demonstrates just how much the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure can contribute to improving the lot of everyone in the Province. Our remit is central to the aim of building a better life for all our people.

To give some examples, under the first Programme for Government we extended the interim safe sports grounds scheme to improve the infrastructure of sports facilities. Anyone who is involved in local football, Gaelic sports or rugby will see the tangible results of those improvements. In partnership with the Arts Council we developed tailored education and training programmes for individual artists to allow them to develop to their full potential. We offered support and expertise to the emerging creative industries, and took action to ensure the conservation of fish stocks. That is another example of work in partnership with the Committee, whose fishing inquiry played an important part in our work on inland fishing and fish stocks. We implemented a strategy for securing a programme of high-profile international and cultural events.

In the second Programme for Government we are taking several steps - some 21 actions of the 164 identified. These include making tangible improvements to our sporting facilities and working in support of the Belfast bid to become European Capital of Culture in 2008, an issue which the Committee Chairperson, Mr ONeill, highlighted. Today's presentation of Imagine Belfast will have given a flavour of the importance of the bid for Belfast and the Province. It must be submitted by March 2002 and, while the event is in 2008, the groundwork has to be done long before that. The Executive have allocated £0·5 million to support the preparation of that bid, and to stand any chance of success the culture and arts infrastructure needs to be improved. A strong bid is being prepared for the next round of Executive programme funds in April, aimed at improving the infrastructure in Belfast, including the Grand Opera House.

We will also work with the Sports Council to implement a code of ethics and good practice for children's sport, which we all agree, is vital. In addition, we will complete the electronic libraries project for Northern Ireland. That is a key part of libraries investment - a large capital programme providing new technologies to deliver information, at the same time allowing us to develop a common electronic gateway, giving access to the resources of archives, libraries and museums.

Those are some of the issues that we want to address through this year's Programme for Government. They give an idea of the range and importance of the Department's work to substantially and tangibly improve the lives of the people of Northern Ireland. They are not simply feel-good factors that do not stand up to economic scrutiny. I will present some hard facts to the contrary. On the sporting front, £800,000 is spent every day in the Northern Irish sports industry. The wealth that is created is equivalent to 2% of the gross domestic product. Crucially, the Northern Irish sports industry supports 12,500 jobs.

One of the cornerstones of the Department's initiatives in partnership with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, the Department for Employment and Learning and the Department of Education is the unlocking creativity strategy for the creative industries. That is a new, sunrise sector, but it currently employs 15,000 full-time people in around 3,500 businesses in Northern Ireland. It has a total turnover of £600,000 per annum. Overall employment in that sector has increased by 75% since 1995 and represents 3·5% of the Northern Irish economy. Our target is to raise it to 4% by 2004 - 4% is the average in Great Britain.

Members raised concerns about the lack of resources for culture, arts and leisure. Much of that is a product of historic underfunding. The Department has made some progress in addressing that legacy, but there is still a mountain to climb. Mr ONeill mentioned the current position of the National Museums and Galleries of Northern Ireland (MAGNI). I share his concern. It is another example of historic underfunding. While we currently face significant deficits across the whole museum sector, I am determined that those problems will be addressed in a strategic way. The Department is engaged in a budget needs assessment of the museums, together with assessments in sports and the arts. Those assessments will identify both the extent of historic underfunding and the action that must be taken to address it. It applies across the board in several areas.

Mr Kennedy suggested a good causes fund for organisations that will not apply for National Lottery funding. A section of the community has moral objections to money emanating from gambling. I have noted what has been said. It is a matter for more than one Department. Additional funding would need to be made available and I will raise that issue. It is not a unique proposition - other countries have adopted that approach.

TOP

Mrs Nelis mentioned the possibility of opening a regional office of the Sports Council for Northern Ireland in the north-west. I do not want the health and well- being of those in the north-west to be in any way disadvantaged compared to the rest of the Province, but the work of the Sports Council throughout Northern Ireland should be acknowledged. It would be difficult to argue that the council's good work would be enhanced if outposts were to be set up in other parts of Northern Ireland - in the north-west or anywhere else. I would be concerned about duplication and wasting precious resources.

The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure is a small Department, but it has a major contribution to make to the delivery of the Programme for Government. I have fought hard for the funding that it needs. I will continue to do so, because I am aware, as Members and the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure are acutely aware, that this is a Department where small investments can create large outputs. Small inputs can lead to big outputs - the Department can make a difference.

I support the motion. I welcome the statements from the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and wish them well in their joint endeavour to lead the Assembly and Executive in implementing an agreed Programme for Government.

People, whether they be students, patients, workers, old-age pensioners or unemployed, want to see devolved Government work effectively to improve the quality of their lives. Naturally, the public are eager to see real, meaningful benefits, and we have seen some examples in free transport for pensioners, more student support, some investment in public transport and more widespread provision of nursery education. All of those are welcome.

The Executive's recent decision on the provision of a North/South gas pipeline and the extension of a gas pipeline across the north-west is welcome. Sadly, Tyrone and Fermanagh will still be gas-free zones.

There is disappointment at the provisions for healthcare, community care, the long-term unemployed and the limited investment in and support for the small business sector. Some want quicker and more effective progress.

The First and Deputy First Ministers outlined the way in which commitments have been delivered and progress made since the first draft Programme for Government a year ago. The second programme signals progress in that 27 of the 250 designated initiatives have been tackled or accomplished. The First and Deputy First Ministers have indicated their willingness to see a Programme for Government that delivers change and an improvement to the public services that affect us directly, such as health, education, job creation and employment.

Political stability and peace are essential if devolution is to work. The political functioning of the Assembly is crucial, and the smooth, collective operation of the Executive is vital. The recent progress on the appointment of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister is welcome and has given a positive signal to the wider community. The public now look for practical and tangible benefits. Good government is the declared objective of the draft Programme for Government. How do we get that in a region which has had 30 years of direct rule? People want devolution to work and are desperate to benefit from the devolved Administration.

A major question among the public and their representatives, however, is how to get devolved government working effectively and smoothly. There is major concern, and residual doubt, about the capacity and willingness of the entire public administration machine in Northern Ireland to implement a programme of change.

Public service agreements and service delivery agreement initiatives have been highlighted and are welcome. There is, however, a culture of custom and practice in administration in Northern Ireland. How do we as politicians and Members of the Assembly help to get a more dynamic and objectives-led approach on policy implementation? The permanent Government must be reformed by a process of cultural and administrative change. Public service administration is largely cautious and slow to change, and that is even more the case in a region like Northern Ireland. We have had 30 years of direct rule, with virtually no political scrutiny or accountable analysis and evaluation.

The public service agreements and service delivery agreements embarked upon a year ago were a new policy initiative. Public service agreements need to evolve into more strategic high-level statements of outputs and outcomes, so that each Department is working with its allocated resources to deliver. The approach of public service agreements and service delivery agreements is welcome and potentially worthwhile, especially given that Northern Ireland is more dependent on the public sector as a percentage of the gross domestic product than is any other region of the UK. I welcome the Executive's lead on that initiative. It is to be hoped that good benefits will be realised which will enable a better economic performance by this region. Northern Ireland must become more productive and generate more locally based economic activity.

During the draft Budget debate, I raised my concern about the fact that the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment's allocation for 2002-03 is roughly the same as that for the previous year. Since then, I have become aware that the Department cannot use all the funds that it was allocated for inward investment projects or to support locally based businesses in the current year.

I note that 600 business start-ups were signalled for the coming year. It is disappointing that the Department did not use all its budget last year because many entrepreneurs and owners of small businesses feel that they do not get adequate support and aid from the client executives who are designated to deal with their cases. I hope that Invest Northern Ireland will be more effective and less cumbersome in processing potential inward investment projects. I would like to see an effective public sector agreement for the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment that delivers more economic activity.

Key targets were outlined in the public sector agreement for the Department for Employment and Learning. I welcome the increased quota of higher education places; it has risen from 800 extra places last year to over 2,500 extra places this year. In total, 35,500 full-time higher education students will attend courses in Northern Ireland. It is important to allow more young people to stay here and realise their dream of doing a degree here. I welcome the increased quota of further education places on vocational courses. I want the further education sector targeted so that students and communities see their colleges as the centres of community and local development. The targets for the individual learning accounts and the Jobskills and Welfare to Work programmes are welcome, as are the NVQ qualification targets for the students or trainees who enrol on those schemes. There should be a stronger commitment to increasing public finance investment in university-based research and development. There should be a qualitative assessment of all publicly funded research projects to give a better evaluation of that investment. Currently, only university-based research is annually assessed by the UK universities research assessment exercise.

Many Members have mentioned the crisis in the Health Service. The public is experiencing a big problem with ever-longer waiting lists for surgery and specialist treatment. There is grave concern in my constituency about the response rate of the Ambulance Service. Recently, it took five telephone calls from Gortin to Omagh before an ambulance arrived 45 minutes later; in the meantime a patient had died. There is something wrong when an ambulance cannot arrive within eight minutes.

There is a crisis in community care. Home care packages for home helps are inadequate. The review of acute hospital services was delayed, and one of the saddest features of the Health Service has been the consultation after consultation. There is a severe lack of concrete decision making. The concept of equality is being violated by the haphazard and disjointed delivery of patchy health care. There is neither equality nor equity in the system - be it determined by geography or patient category. Many who need hospital or community care feel grossly let down.

There has been a lack of capital investment in regional development for decades. The provision of good infrastructure is vital to the social and economic development of the region. Roads, rail, water and sewerage need major capital investment. I welcome the near 15% increase in this year's allocation. Almost £100 million is needed to counter the severe backlog of roads' maintenance work. That reflects an historical accumulation of neglect, particularly in the more rural and distant areas. The Executive recently allocated £40 million to the road from Larne to Newry, via Belfast, a designated trans-European network, for major upgrading. That, along with the upgrading of the Westlink, is welcome.

Northern Ireland's other trans-European network roads - the two that stretch from Belfast to Derry along the northern route, north of Lough Neagh, and the two southern routes from Belfast to Enniskillen and Ballygawley to Derry - are badly in need of upgrading and investment, particularly the western sections of A5 and the A4. I encourage the junior Ministers to take our remarks on board, and I thank them for being present.

There are some efficient parts of the Programme for Government, but there are other deficient aspects, one of which is the section that deals with the fishing industry. Rev Dr Ian Paisley spoke about this issue in a debate last week. The allocation in the Budget is anything but adequate. For a long time, those involved in the Northern Ireland fishing industry have been made to feel like the farmers' poor relations by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. If they have felt that way over the past few years, one can only guess how they felt when they found out that their industry had been given an increase of only 1·1%, when the Department's overall budget was increased by 4·3%.

The Government and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development have constantly failed fishermen - they have not recognised the industry's needs. The Government's bad management is strangling the fishing industry. The Department has earmarked just 1·1%, or £100,000, for the cod recovery programme. Many will remember the debate in the Chamber earlier this year. The Gallery was full of fishermen from the major ports. They wanted £750,000 for the cod recovery programme, but even after that debate and the hype, only £100,000 has been set aside. If the Department had bothered to ask the two fishing organisations, it would know that £750,000 is needed to develop the programme - not £100,000.

The programme has led to the closure of the waters off the coast of County Down. It sends our fishermen into other countries' territories and leaves some of our white-fish fleet with nowhere to go for several months of the year. This is a big issue in the fishing industry that affects many people.

Some fishermen thought that they could turn to fishing for nephrops or prawns, but limits were then placed on that type of fishing too. The door was closed on their only other option. Scientists have pointed out that a 10% cut in nephrop fishing would result in only a 2% recovery of cod. So men and women lose their jobs, homes and communities for the sake of a paltry 2% increase in the numbers of cod in the Irish Sea. That is hard to understand when we see people on the cold quay of despair.

The scheme for decommissioning fishing boats is probably the only honest and tangible decommissioning scheme that has ever taken place. There is, at least, an inventory of the boats that are decommissioned. You can count which boats have been destroyed, and see them burning and being broken up so that you know that decommissioning has actually happened.

On 2 March 2001, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development's officials advised that £8 million had been allocated for decommissioning. On 28 March, an announcement was made that £5 million was being allocated. Perhaps the missing £3 million went to the other decommissioning scheme - the other programme that nobody knows about. This is the type of ineptitude that characterises the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development's dealings with the fishing industry. One moment, the Department tells the fishermen to invest in their boats, and even gives them grant assistance, and the next moment it tells them that there are restrictions on where they can go and what they can catch.

A lot of money is being allocated to the North/South implementation bodies. For example, £300,000 is being spent on the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission. One would think that the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development could learn a thing or two from their Dáil counterparts. Fishermen from the Republic of Ireland do not have to pay a penny towards light dues, whereas fleets from Northern Ireland pay almost £85,000 per year. That is unfair.

The fishing industry is on its knees, and the Department can only allocate £100,000 for the cod recovery programme, which no one can guarantee will make a significant difference to fish stocks. Other factors, such as global warming, may influence the dwindling numbers of fish on the Irish coast. Cod prefer cold waters. However, the seas around the island are heating up, particularly the Irish Sea, and fish are going elsewhere. If this information were made available to the Department, focused decisions could be made.

More than a paltry sum of money is needed to help the industry, which is one of the oldest in the world. A firm commitment from the Minister and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development is needed - not flannel, not "Yes, we will do that, but Europe comes first." Focused responses and results are needed. A substantial investment would keep the industry going for the next five, 10 or 20 years. We must look beyond the short-term future.

The Minister could talk to the Dáil and to such Administrations as the Dutch Government and the Spanish Government. Those Governments gave their fishing industries adequate compensation and investment to rebuild after the crisis resulting from the introduction of closures associated with the North Sea cod recovery plan.

The North Sea is our local pond. The Dutch and Spanish Governments, which are some distance away, have helped their fishing fleets through the crisis, while the Government next door are snubbing the problem. It is scandalous that every Assembly debate about the fishing industry centres on complaints that the Government are fobbing the industry off with a derisory sum of money.

The months-old demands and requests of fishing fleets have not changed. They request that they should receive a weekly subsidy for all vessels that are required to remain in ports. If the cod recovery plan stood at £750,000 rather than £100,000, that would help. A percentage of that financial assistance should be used to compensate fish vendors, the Northern Ireland Fishery Harbour Authority and producer organisations for their inevitable loss of income, should vessels be forced to tie up.

Financial assistance would allow trawler owners to maintain repayments of bank loans, insurance and equipment hire costs, as well as providing crew members with a weekly wage. Crew members cannot afford to sit around for three or four months; they need an income. Training schemes should be developed that could run when the fisheries are closed, and the Department should have in place a strategy. Those proposals must be implemented in order to address the long-term problems that have been caused by the neglect of the fishing industry.

It is essential that the fishing industry be brought in from the cold so that it can be a key contender in Europe. The fishing industry wants to play its part but is unable to do so. The Department seems painfully unaware of that, although the industry generates millions of pounds for the economy each year. Of the fish caught, some 70% is exported. If the Department considered that information, more money would be forthcoming from the Programme for Government.

If the Minister or the Department does not grapple with the fishing industry crisis, perhaps someone else could re-designate for the purpose of signing that piece of paper to ensure that the fishing industry receives its £750,000? If neither the Minister nor the Department can do it, let someone else do it. I would love to have one week to sign the papers needed to give fishermen the industry that they deserve. They need assistance. Once again the Programme for Government has failed to deliver. I record my concern and annoyance on behalf of the fishing industry.

Many important issues such as health, the environment and the fishing industry have been highlighted. I shall comment briefly on three areas of the Programme for Government. Progress has been made by the locally devolved Administration, and there has been consultation on the way forward. However, the Alliance Party feels that there are still shortcomings in the addressing of the deep divisions and inequality in Northern Ireland. The new beginning that everyone hoped for cannot be achieved until we begin to understand, tolerate and accept one another's traditions, perceptions and beliefs. The Programme for Government must go much further if it is to help us even to like each other.

Integrated education has still not been given the opportunity to develop sufficiently to cope with the parents and children who want to be become part of that system. That is illustrated by the many children who cannot be admitted to integrated schools. The Programme for Government does not state clearly how it can live up to the recommendation that a more pro-active policy is likely to accelerate the growth of integrated education, which was made in the report, 'Towards a Culture of Tolerance: Education for Diversity'.

Furthermore, the education and library boards' policies are not consistent. The programme should have encouraged a strategy, for example, that could enable all education and library boards, organisations such as the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education and the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools to develop an integrated section and a more realistic transformation process that would involve all interested groups, particularly those in the maintained sector - as yet no schools from there have been involved in that process. There should be more community audits of new schools to ensure that an integrated option is included. That would show people that integrated education is a viable and necessary part of education.

The incidents at Holy Cross Primary School, and their repercussions, show how bad relations have become between the communities in north Belfast. The review of community relations suggests that there should be more basic and relevant projects that have a direct impact on and in communities, so resources must be made available to set up projects to tackle the divisions and concerns of all sections of people and foster mutual understanding and respect for diversity. That must be done in a cohesive rather than an ad hoc manner by all sections of society to enable community groups, the Police Service and the social services to bring people together.

We must put an end to the sort of statement that was printed in 'The Times' today after the killing of the young 16-year old Protestant, Glen Branagh. There was a quote from one of his friends, I think. He declined to be identified, but he said:

That is the sort of attitude that we must get rid of.

The cross-cutting strategy detailed in the Programme for Government must be implemented as quickly as possible. The Executive must show strong leadership and directly and completely address issues such as flag flying and racial and sectarian intimidation. Communities' efforts to increase tolerance and respect for all people, regardless of their background, must be supported. The Mediation Network for Northern Ireland has said that community relations must no longer be seen as the indulgence of moderately minded people on the margins of society.

The debate about human rights in the Chamber some weeks ago illustrated clearly the many misconceptions and concerns about guaranteeing human rights for all. I wholeheartedly welcome the appointment of a children's commissioner and would encourage the appointment of a victim's commissioner. I pay tribute to the Human Rights Commission's efforts to draw up an effective, relevant and equitable human rights Act. The ill-conceived ideas about human rights for all and the prejudices of some people who would restrict human rights for other citizens must be dealt with. Again, the Executive should encourage pluralism and equal treatment for society as a whole.

One of the main weaknesses of the Programme for Government is the continued assumption that we live in a two-community society and that diversity should still be regarded as the difference between Unionists and Nationalists, Catholics and Protestants. That might mean, for example, that the expanding ethnic community here would feel marginalised. It is for that reason that we put forward our paper on hate crimes legislation, which I am glad to say the Secretary of State appears to have taken up. However, there is no mention of it in the Executive's programme. There is also a weakness in the language and the many definitions of terms such as "sectarianism", "community relations", "integrated education" and "equality". The Assembly must start to think in a pluralist and diverse fashion, so that all our citizens will feel included and looked after by the Executive.

The programme is a start, but it must expand its vision of a peaceful, cohesive society to include all communities in Northern Ireland rather than just the usual two. As Albert Einstein said:

The Committee for Social Development met the Minister for Social Development in early October to discuss the draft Programme for Government and the associated draft budgets. On 12 October, the Committee made a detailed submission to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. The Committee was keenly interested in section 2 'Growing as a Community' and section 7 'Working Together'.

The Committee was content to endorse the priorities and sub-priorities in those two sections, and it was broadly satisfied with the associated actions and commitments. However, we expressed reservations about the precise way in which social need is to be tackled and how the needs of those in poverty will be addressed in practice.

The Committee was deeply concerned to discover that the format and content of the public service agreements had been changed, apparently without consultation. We have still to be convinced that it was necessary to take such an early decision to make the targets in the public service agreements high-level. The Programme for Government is supposed to provide a more open and accountable programme.

Mr Mark Durkan acknowledged that part of the role of Statutory Committees is to scrutinise the work of Departments. The details in the original Programme for Government helped to inform us about the actions that Departments would take to deliver the programme, but we now find that it is impossible to compare performances year on year because the format has changed. We have heard that the service delivery agreements will show the details, but we are having the debate today without having seen those details - details that should influence the strategic objectives of the Assembly. We have been told that the Department would consult us about the service delivery agreements - but not until next month.

The Committee favours a bold "bottom-up" approach for calculating the Budget, based on the cost of funding particular priority programmes, rather than setting a broad-based agenda and then facing the dilemma of assigning resources to a range of programmes that is far too broad. Inevitably, the jam is spread too thinly, and we run the risk of underachieving.

The priorities in the Programme for Government are legitimate, but are they too ambitious? Are we in danger of promising much but delivering little? Should we not adopt a more radical approach, whereby we eradicate fuel poverty once and for all and then move on to the next issue on the list? Much is made of our collective determination to tackle social need and poverty. My Committee accepts the cross-cutting nature of those issues and the role that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, along with other Departments, has to play. The Department for Social Development is particularly well placed to make an effective contribution to the resolution of those issues, and it should be given a greater opportunity, and the funding, to do so.

It is the Committee's view that, with some re-ordering of priorities by the Executive and the Department, the eradication of fuel poverty could be achieved more quickly. The Committee has urged the Minister for Social Development to extend the scope of the scheme in order to accelerate progress. We recognise the cost implications and the competition for funding, but the costs associated with warm homes schemes are indisputably one-off capital payments, rather than a recurring drain on public resources. It is also evident that the effects of poverty result in recurring demands on, for example, the health budget. The early eradication of fuel poverty would not only ease the recurring financial problems on the health budget, but would contribute positively to the health and well-being of people who are among the most marginalised in this society.

The Social Development Committee also welcomes the inclusion of a reference to "Supporting People", a new scheme for funding housing support from 2003. However, we have concerns about how that is likely to be financed, as there appears to be no reference to it in the draft Budget.

I want to make some concluding remarks specific to the Department for Social Development's objectives. The Committee welcomes the performance targets for the Social Security Agency and the Child Support Agency. However, we have voiced concerns that the investment in systems, which was aimed at improving efficiency, has not yet produced the promised substantial savings in running costs. We intend to monitor that situation carefully.

We had a positive and constructive debate on housing yesterday. Without exception, Members from all parts of the House acknowledged the continuing importance that social housing plays and that it deserves to be properly funded. The Committee considers that housing is an area in which tangible targets can be introduced to good effect. We are disappointed that the draft Programme for Government now includes only three high-level targets, compared with six targets in last year's programme.

The first target is as follows:

That is fine in itself, but there are no interim targets that would enable the Committee to monitor progress. The second target relates to housing unfitness. The current Programme for Government has a target of reducing unfitness by providing grant aid to 7,500 homes in 2001-02. The draft programme contains an altogether different, immeasurable, wishy-washy target:

I challenge anyone to tell me how the Social Development Committee, or anyone else, could say how, when and to what extent the Department had met that target.

The Social Development Committee recognises that many of the policies for tackling disadvantage and community development are under review. It will be necessary to await the outcomes of those reviews before establishing meaningful targets. However, the Committee would welcome stronger references to the relevance of, and scope for, improved efficiencies. We have suggested to the Department that the commitment to introducing a target aimed at avoiding the duplication of services and running costs for the provision of those services might usefully have been included.

Mr Nesbitt and I have listened with great interest to the debate, which has ranged widely over most of the issues covered in the draft Programme for Government.

Since the document was launched on 24 September, the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, in conjunction with colleagues in the Department of Finance and Personnel, has been involved in consultation on the draft programme and the draft Budget with representatives of all sections of the community. It has been a thorough consultation, and it is through consultation that we will build on all the good work that has been done.

It is important that we consult on the programme and the Budget, and that we consult on them together, because, obviously, they are directly linked. Budget allocations support the programme's policies and activities. We should not, as a prudent Administration, commit ourselves to actions that we cannot afford to resource.

It is a question of priorities, and we must explain the hard choices that must be made.

Promoting equality of opportunity cuts across the five priorities and all 11 Departments. That has been a core element of the discussions in the consultation. In the draft Programme, we have set out to produce a strategic forward-looking document that includes fewer, better focused and higher-level actions than before. We have also set out narratives that explain more fully the policies from which those actions come.

The debate and the responses to consultations on the draft Budget and the draft Programme for Government will lead to a better focused set of policies and actions that will address the key issues and challenges that we face as a community. It has already been stated that it is all about trying to make a difference. The benefit of having a locally elected Administration in charge of its own affairs is that we decide how to make the best use of the resources available in order to address the needs of the community.

Members have raised a wide range of points, because of the detail in the draft Programme. I will deal with as many as possible. However, in a debate involving 20 or more people, it is not possible to deal with every point, and I do not propose to do that.

If Members have made observations on judgements made or priorities set in the draft Programme for Government, I will take note of those observations and comments, and they will be input into the final draft. If Members have asked specific questions or raised specific points that must be addressed, I will try to do that as well as I can. However, if I miss a few or do not have the information available to answer some of them, Members will get a written reply.

I will comment on a point made by David Ford, the leader of the Alliance Party, who referred to difficulties such as sectarian flag-flying, graffiti and so on. In the draft Programme for Government, we have made clear our commitment to supporting local communities in addressing these matters. That does not mean, as David Ford has suggested, that we are simply standing about waiting for local communities to solve their own problems. David Ford and most Members know that simply removing flags and graffiti is not a long-term answer to the problem, unless there is local community agreement. The graffiti and flags are replaced, and therefore simply responding to every situation where graffiti - [Interruption].

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>