The Committee is grateful to all who helped in compiling the report. I give particular thanks to the Clerk of the Committee and his staff, whose expertise greatly assisted us. The Committee also thanks the Assembly for scrutinising its work; that has created an in-depth report, and one that has considerable weight of expertise.

The report has 32 recommendations, many of which follow on from the work of the Audit Office when it drew up its report. Its work was backed up by the Public Accounts Committee. Their contributions are most welcome. However, the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development has examined those areas and has discovered some gaps, which it draws to the attention of the House.

I hope that the Department, when it is competent to do so, can address those matters and close many of the gaps, rectifying them for the benefit of the farming community and those who are associated with the rural development programme.

The House should be aware of the Minister's statement on the importance of the rural development programme so that it can put the issue into context. The importance of rural development is highlighted in the Department's current business strategy, which states:

The Northern Ireland Executive Committee's Programme for Government recognises the importance of rural society and that the rural economy has been neglected in the past. The Programme for Government contains commitments to regenerate rural areas, particularly the most disadvantaged, and sustain rural life and the countryside for the future."

That extract highlights the importance of rural development in the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development's strategy. We must measure the importance that the Department, in those words, attributed to rural development against the resources that it allocated to fulfil its objectives. At the back of the same strategy document, the Department outlines exactly how much of its budget it allocated for rural development: £9 million, or 3% of its budget.

The allocation of only 3% of the Department's budget for rural development shows how few resources it has to apply to the needs of 688,000 people. We must put that in context. Considerably more than £9 million will be required to address the needs of 43% of Northern Ireland's population. That problem was identified in the past, it is identified in the Committee's report, and I hope that the Department recognises it.

The Department must cut its own cloth and decide how it wishes to allocate its budget. However, many are sceptical when, having heard about the Department's commitment to rural development, they see how little money it allocates to fund the rural development programme. I am sure that the Department will wish to comment on those issues.

We must recognise not only that the resources to fund the rural development programme have been woefully inadequate, but that the Department, if it wishes to address the problems that the Committee identified, must choose to apply more resources for that purpose. Administration and salaries account for over 30% of the Department's entire budget; rural development accounts for 3%. The Department will want to make its own judgement on how it allocates its resources. Many people involved in rural development are fairly sceptical about the extent of the commitment to the programme and want more resources to be applied to make it work better for the community.

Last Friday, the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development discussed rural development with departmental officials. One official said that all departmental services should be seen in the context of broad support to the farming and rural community. In other words, one can marginalise the figure and say that only £9 million was spent on rural development, or that all the programmes funded by the budget are designed to assist the rural community.

I want the Minister to confirm that European Union subsidies do not constitute rural development.

The farming community's rights to subsidy under EU legislation must not be confused with the issue of how the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development allocates its money to the rural development community. No other Department would do that. Rural development must be measured by what it does for farmers over and above their existing entitlement. It must be seen to make a significant difference beyond the existing rights of the rural and farming communities.

Many in the farming community are sceptical about the value of the rural development programme. That scepticism is identified in this report. However, that does not prevent those people from taking up these programmes, and it is good that they have done so. The Minister was very helpful in a reply to me, dated 13 May 2002, which indicated the level of uptake. Indeed, it is important to put this on the record of the House. In that letter the Minister stated:

However, she continued:

Individual farmers may bring forward projects under the LEADER+ Programme. It is expected that LEADER+ Action Groups will be in a position to call for project applications around August/September 2002."

It is, therefore, incumbent on the Department to recognise that 87% of farmers, farmers' groups and collectives made applications under the programme's "for profit" element. We would like to see that figure increasing. In the "not for profit" area we want to ensure that those resources also go to assisting the farming community. I am sure that the Minister is as disappointed as I am that only 5% of applications under the Peace II programme have come from farmers' groups or collectives. I am sure that the Minister will draw her Department's attention to those issues and address them.

The Department must do more to convince the farming community that the rural development programme is more than just "nice-speak" or Government gobbledegook. It must be seen as a solid programme for adding value to the work of the farming community and quality to the lives of those who live in the farming and rural communities.

I turn to some of the other points in the report that I hope the Minister can address - although not necessarily today, given the fairly detailed nature of the report. The Committee and I certainly look forward to seeing the Minister's detailed response to the report.

Committee members wanted the report primarily to focus the minds of those in the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development on ensuring that the programme is targeted at the people who need it most. Both the Audit Committee and the Public Accounts Committee identified that. They looked to both the Department and the Rural Development Council to

The report of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development went on to say, in relation to the programme, that members

It is essential that "the backbone of the rural community" does benefit. That phrase is often used, but it should not be used glibly, because without the farming community there is no backbone in the rural community. Farmers make the rural community what it is, and they must benefit from the schemes.

The Committee is realistic about what rural development can achieve. Indeed, the report goes on to say that

The Committee recognises that what we have is not a panacea; however, it does provide an opportunity to assist the backbone of the rural community. The Committee has addressed the ways in which that could be done. Deserving groups in the farming community should be targeted to ensure that they receive funding. Dedicated form-filling assistance must be provided to farmers. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development should lobby the Department of Finance and Personnel to simplify the process, particularly where small amounts of funding are involved. If we could overcome the cumbersome, complicated and off-putting form-filling processes of the past, it would be of great benefit to the farming community.

The Deputy Chairperson referred to eligibility. Those who are eligible must know that they can claim funding. A sickening aspect of today's society, in claiming both social benefits and funding for rural development programmes, is that, although many people are entitled to claim benefits, a large proportion do not because they either do not realise that they can or they are put off by the process. The Department must ensure that people are aware of their right to claim. Of course, it is up to individuals to submit claim forms. I hope that the Minister will address those issues when she has considered the report fully.

The Committee considered the rationalisation of the programme structures. Rural planning is a pet subject of mine, and the Committee felt that the interdepartmental committee could play a role in dealing with cases in which legitimate regeneration objectives are hindered by the strict application of planning policy. That issue involves the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and the Department of the Environment. The Minister must address those issues and ensure that the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee's excellent report is used effectively and expeditiously.

I support the motion.

The report's recommendations are thorough, and it is to be hoped that good will come of them. In formulating the report with the Committee, I considered some of the many other reports. I hope that they will help the Minister to effect sustainability in the rural communities by creating additional jobs. Although the administrative offices are kept busy catering for those who work in the industry now, the future of the rural communities cannot rely on them. If that is the only result to come from the rural development programme, it is not worth implementing it. That is why the Committee stresses the need to focus on the participation and, as the Northern Ireland Agricultural Producers Association points out, the role of farming organisations and farmers in rural development. To some extent, placing most of the emphasis on rural development has blurred that.

Due to modulation and the adoption of EU policies, farming is in decline because it is pitched against rural development to attract funding. Much EU money is allocated as subsidies. That is our current position with Europe. If farming declines to the point where we will have to work with countries such as the United States, which will support its own farmers when it suits it, and we have to deal with unfair prices, I am unsure whether we will have an industry in the future. We must look at globalisation, which was driven by Margaret Beckett and others to drive prices down. Will we have a rural community with all that? That is my main worry. If we cannot sustain the rural community in its present state, I fear for how it will look in 20 or 30 years' time.

Many aspects of rural preservation depend on current farming practices. One only has to look at the Sperrins or similar areas that are kept in prime condition purely because they have livestock. If it becomes no longer profitable for farmers to keep livestock, the countryside will come apart and people in cities and towns may not want to visit it. I commend all the work that the vision group is trying to do for the future, but I also commend the work of the Rural Development Council, the rural community network and others who are trying to examine those programmes and listen to what we are saying about the future.

This programme contains much of what was discussed in the past, and we must ask what lessons of the programmes from 1991 to today will be learnt and acted upon. I am sure that many lessons on monitoring, evaluation, appraisals and so forth will be learnt, considering what has happened locally. Lessons will have been learnt about money and value for money. However, that can make it more difficult for people to find the programmes useful. The amount of paperwork and form filling involved discourages many farmers and people whom we tried to target, such as the most deprived or those who are most unable to access the funding and devise projects that will be useful for their areas. There will be no results unless we can do that.

People may ask how many farmers can avail themselves of the rural programme and how many young people can do off-farm work? A White Paper could facilitate the necessary research. How many people are currently full-time farmers? How many are part-time? How many could access any of those programmes? Do we know that? Are we merely gazing at crystal balls? Unless we know all that, we will have difficulty knowing whom to target and whom to help with mentoring, to whom the Department should give hands-on support and to whom we should give the resources.

CAB International carries out farm audits, and perhaps that should be extended because there are many farms that, even if they could diversify or move into micro-businesses or whatever, could not afford the energy or the time to do so because that would undermine their ability to pay banks and so on. People face huge difficulties when trying to take part in the programmes. In two years' time we could be talking about how little effect those programmes had had. I am unsure about the amount of work that has been done on those areas. The capacity-building programme that supports developing the coaching of communities is of prime importance, and I know from talking to people that many feel that the results of some of the last programmes were not good. I refer to area-based strategy action groups (ABSAGS) and other programmes that were meant to help people in rural areas for whatever reason. If they did not receive funding, they will say that the programme was not good for them and that they will not get involved this time.

We must avoid that situation.

The Committee's many recommendations on what must be done are accurate; however, without increased resources, many of them will not be implemented. In addition, many of the vision report's recommendations for sustaining rural communities will not be implemented unless resources are provided, and I am not sure that that will happen.

How much more farmers' money will be diverted through modulation? People may find reasons for diverting money away from farming. Ian Paisley Jnr asked about the £9 million that the Department allocated for the rural development programme. In addition, farmers worry about how much more money will be taken from them to fund what could turn out to be an administrative exercise, rather than a programme that can deliver what is needed. That is an important matter.

People have not always been able to make the best of the North/South aspect of the rural development programme. Perhaps even those on the Southern side of the border tend to be more interested in looking after their own positions than co-operating so that both sides can access the programmes. We should put more emphasis on that.

I have spoken many times about the lack of hands-on support for small businesses, which need a mentor similar to LEDU. If we are to start small businesses, we cannot simply ask people to complete a form and leave them to get on with it. We must support them throughout the process.

The Committee wants the Minister to listen to what it said in the report. There is no point in detailing all the recommendations. We dealt with issues such as women's involvement in agriculture. The Minister visited Fermanagh to see what could be considered to be a pilot programme for women in agriculture. It may be a conduit to deliver some of the programme, as women are often more open to new ideas than men. They can see matters differently to farmers, who do not have time to consider new ideas. That programme should be made mainstream, rather than simply added to other women's initiatives. It has a great deal to offer and may help to deliver some of the recommendations. I mention it as a possible approach to the delivery of the programme.

The Ulster Farmers' Union has made many points about farming families and the past exclusion of farmers from many programmes. That has left farmers with a bitter taste and has affected how they consider the concept of rural development. Therefore, there is a job to be done in educating people. Cross-departmental work on health is needed. Rural action zones, such as the one in Dungannon, are required to look after the health of farmers.

Much can be achieved by working together, rather than establishing many separate programmes and co-ordinating groups that work to their own agendas, often to the detriment of the overall programme. We do not want that to be the outcome of this or any other programme.

I have pleasure in endorsing the report of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development on its inquiry into the preparation for the next phase of the rural development programme 2001-06. The programme is valuable in providing financial assistance and promoting rural development through the strategies established by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. However, will it regenerate agriculture, or will it merely create circumstances in which people will be happy simply to have tried even if people in the agriculture industry do not participate in the rural development programme? Therefore the Committee felt that it was of the utmost importance that the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development encourages full participation in the new strategy by under-represented groups - particularly the farming community - and guides and supports them in planning and completing every application. One group that had no input was young people in rural areas who intended to go into agriculture, and the main reason for this was that they were not there.

The Committee also wanted to ensure that the Department was thorough in delivering its strategy and financial efficiency. The main criticism of the rural development programme was the lack of expertise of those delivering the project. They should provide farmers with clear, easy, readable documentation and unambiguous help in completing applications. They should also ensure that the application process is straightforward. A project such as this could help farming families throughout Northern Ireland. However, the Committee found that the farmers were required to form groups to avail of this funding, and they would have neither the time nor the expertise to prepare themselves for such applications. The long, complicated applications deterred completion. In fact, the Committee found that there were different funding rights available for farm diversification.

The Committee was concerned that projects might lead to uncertainty for prospective applications. It is often difficult to gain access to funding, and that is the case with the rural development fund. Proper assistance for groups would have helped them to apply for such funding. This would help the groups that deserve the money most to access resources. Guidance by departmental staff on form completion must be improved, and the Committee recommends the use of experts to provide necessary assistance in rural areas to ensure that dedicated support is available.

The Committee welcomes the programme, as we welcomed the countryside management scheme and good farming practice. However, farmers in Northern Ireland need a decent income. The rural development scheme is welcome in theory, but it must provide practical support for farmers. It provides support for people in rural areas, but not for farmers. The Department could assist in the application process by simplifying the form.

I also endorse some of the concerns of the Public Accounts Committee, such as the lack of appropriate training for staff and poor standards of business plans prepared by consultants for major projects. It is fair to say that the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development has made positive moves in addressing some of these problems, but there must be continued improvement. Farmers want to know what the Department is doing to evaluate the rural development programme; they want the Department to acknowledge others' suggestions on how to improve it.

I also want to make a few points on rationalising programme structures. Close relationships should be developed with every local delivery organisation. The agriculture industry must be given every assistance, and this would be helped by rural co-ordinators working in all areas. Meeting producer and consumer would lead to a more efficient and quantitative agriculture sector.

The application process must be made as straightforward as possible so that money will be used efficiently to strengthen agriculture. I commend the staff of the Agriculture Committee on their forbearance with the Committee over the past few months. It is important to urge the Department to renew its programme and to accept the criticisms of the Agriculture Committee. The Agriculture Committee does have a vision for the future.

The proper appraisal of rural development projects and the Public Accounts Committee, which I shall speak about later, have been referred to on several occasions. It is important to remember that following the publication of the Public Accounts Committee's report, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development accepted its recommendations in their entirety. That should be welcomed.

In future, we can expect community groups to carry out the work without the difficulties that many of them experienced in the past when managing projects that had not been fully appraised for their viability. All too often, consultants offered poor advice to community groups and did not stay around to address the failures. It is my understanding that, in future, where they are deemed necessary, consultants will be selected solely through the Government Procurement Agency. The selection of poor-quality consultants is not exclusive to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. The Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development got poor value for money when appointing a consultant. In that respect, we must share the disappointment.

Some projects represented poor value for money and did not contribute greatly to rural regeneration. However, much has been learnt from the mistakes and inexperience of the past. An operating manual now exists, and there is appropriate appraisal training for staff. Business plans of a poor standard that were prepared by consultants will no longer be tolerated. Indeed, they have not been tolerated for a considerable time. The Committee welcomes those developments, as it outlines in the report.

The Rural Development Council will play a vital role in ensuring that socially excluded groups play their full part in the implementation of the new programmes, and the rural community network is also fully involved.

My main concern is that resources will not be adequate to address the various inequalities that exist in rural communities. In the past few years, the viability of many farmers has been in crisis, and special measures are needed to ensure that their futures as valuable members of the rural community are addressed. Young people find themselves in a difficult position, with income from farming too low to provide them with an acceptable standard of living. Training programmes must address their needs. Planning departments must be more flexible when considering planning applications for rural industries, which many young farmers have now turned to as a substitute for the agriculture industry.

The Rural Development Council must represent the many families on low incomes, as well as victims, ex-prisoners, people with disabilities and ethnic minorities. As a member of that body, I am glad that they subscribe to the motto "not for profit-taking".

In future, farmers will have to consider collective action. In that respect, I am delighted that the principle of co-operatives is once again a focus of attention in rural communities. I am also pleased that the Minister has promised to encourage the development of co-operatives, and I accept fully her insistence that people in the community must accept responsibility for the establishment, development and running of rural co-operatives. Nevertheless, for the foreseeable future, the Department has an important advisory role to play and will be called on for seeding grants and expert advice.

Members will recall that there are four target groups: the farming community; women; young people; and the long-term unemployed. The Minister has identified the special role that women have played in agriculture in the past. Research is now being carried out by her Department to ensure that women will be afforded equality and will not be taken for granted, as a handy form of cheap labour or, dare I say, slave labour. That is of fundamental importance, and I simply want to put on record my acknowledgement of the Minister's determination to address the problem. As she is a woman, would we not expect her to?

Partnerships are a feature of life today. They have a vital role to play in agriculture and rural development. The LEADER+ programme has much to contribute to the development of successful partnerships, which will add value to the rural community in a variety of ways. The monitoring of those partnerships over the next few years will be critical, and that cannot be overemphasised.

I want to return to the role of the Public Accounts Committee, and I must issue a word of caution. Although the Committee will scrutinise the accounts and check that business plans, policies, aims and objectives are not ignored, it will not become a handy excuse for inaction. It would be very unfortunate if the dreaded Public Accounts Committee became a firewall between the public and the Department and its agencies. There was too much talk about that this afternoon.

Rural development projects are high risk; otherwise they would be seized upon by the private sector. The regeneration of our rural communities is worth the risk, provided that that risk is within the parameters laid down by good governance. I would not want to see the Public Accounts Committee going beyond that.

I want to place on record my appreciation for the hard work performed by officials in the Rural Development Division of the Department, and we can rely on them for their continued support. Their contribution to the whole peace process and the regeneration of towns and villages throughout Northern Ireland is far too often underestimated.

I support the recommendations in the report. I will not go over the issues that Members have already mentioned, and I will keep my comments short and to the point.

There is a need for a rural development programme. With that in mind, and with the comments that have been put forward on the four target groups, I recognise that the farming community needs special help. That is what this programme is about. We want to ensure that the detrimental effect on the farming community over the last few years - BSE, foot-and-mouth disease and the introduction of large supermarkets - can be addressed, and give the farmers opportunities and options that they have not had.

I want to highlight the issue of women in the community. It is not just a matter of saying that behind every male farmer there is a woman. In many cases, the woman does as much work as the man. Not only is she rearing the family and looking after the household, she is also doing farm work.

Young people are drifting away from farms and the countryside into the towns. That is a concern for those who live in the rural community, and it must be addressed. That is one of the target areas for this programme, and we welcome that.

There are more long-term unemployed than ever in the rural community. I hope that those who have little prospect for the future can find something there.

Recommendation 12 refers to active monitoring, and that will address those four issues. The Committee has concerns about the take-up and the slow response by farmers' groups. It requests that sufficient resources be made available to the Rural Enterprise Division, which is farmer-oriented. Who understands the needs better than those who are involved at the coalface, so to speak, and understands what the farmer needs? If those resources could be made available, it would be a way forward.

Recommendation 6 refers to hold-ups and shortcomings in the system. We must make it more accountable and easier to understand.

I and other Members believe that clarification is needed to differentiate between the farm-based rural development plan and the wider rural-community-based rural development programme to ensure that what is available in each is clear for those who are looking for assistance today. That must be highlighted.

My last point refers to the previous reports that have been introduced to the Assembly and other Committees. There is a need, and in the past it has been identified as the needs of the rural community.

The Audit Committee and the Public Accounts Committee identified those needs; however, we have waited for those Committees to table recommendations for implementation, and for some reason they have been delayed. We now have the recommendations of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development, and it is to be hoped that the Minister will be able to respond and affirm that the recommendations will be implemented quickly.

We agree on the thrust of the report's proposals. They are focused on helping the most needy in the rural community, and that is what we are trying to achieve. I commend the report.

I welcome the report on the rural development programme and thank the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee, Mr Savage, for his recognition of the work already done to implement the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee. Appraisal is essential to ensure that we continue to refine and better focus the Department's rural development programme. I welcome Mr Dallat's recognition of the risks that have to be taken in rural development work.

The rural development programme provides a valuable review of our progress on several important issues. I shall give careful consideration to all its recommendations. The rural development programme is co-financed by the EU structural funds, and so, in developing and implementing the programme, we have had to work closely with the European Commission, the Department of Finance and Personnel and the Special EU Programmes Body. None of us had anticipated the amount of work that would be involved in negotiating the programme with the Commission, or putting in place the arrangements for implementation.

Although considerable progress has been made on all fronts, we have not advanced as far as we hoped. Nevertheless, the report of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development shows that all the key issues on which we were focused have been, or are being, addressed.

I wish to thank the members of the Committee for the time and effort that they have devoted to the exercise, and for the constructive recommendations that they have made. I also thank those Members who contributed to today's debate for their interest in the rural development programme. Many of the report's recommendations have already been taken into account, or are currently being dealt with. I shall give my initial comments on each of the recommendations and deal as far as possible with additional points that have been raised in today's debate.

I agree with Mr Bradley's comments on the changes that face the farming community. At every opportunity, I shall seek to highlight to the farming community those changes that are beyond our control and make them aware of the need to meet the challenge of those changes. There are opportunities for farmers in the rural development programme, and I encourage farmers and farmers' groups to avail of those. I know that many Members, Mr Bradley included, do their best to help farmers and encourage them to take up opportunities.

Several Members referred to the full participation of under-represented groups. The Public Accounts Committee's report on the rural development programme drew attention to the fact that not all groups in the rural community participated in the 1994-99 rural development programme. Women, youths, farmers and the long-term unemployed were highlighted in the report.

The Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development has recognised the efforts I have made to alert all sections of the rural community to the opportunities offered by the programme for 2001-06. The Committee has recommended that the Department and the Rural Development Council maintain that effort. It is intended that promotion of the programme will continue and that progress will be regularly reviewed.

Promotional material will be updated when it is appropriate to do so. The Committee has recommended that the Department introduce early development services for farmers' groups to help them to secure grants through the programme. The matter requires careful consideration.

Mr Paisley Jnr mentioned the relatively small uptake by farmers. He is correct in saying that rural development programme money does not come from agricultural subsidy. It is up to each applicant to decide what measure to apply for, and farmer collectives are applying mostly under the "for profit" measure. That does not surprise me.

The Department is in discussion with the Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU) about how best to help farmers and their families take advantage of the opportunities offered by the range of programmes and measures available. I will await the conclusion of those deliberations before deciding what assistance is appropriate. I have had public meetings with farmers in some areas, and I am aware of the problem.

I accept the Committee's recommendation that there should be a series of calls for projects from the profit-taking sector and that funds should be ring-fenced for each call. I am keen to give the profit-taking sector in rural areas as much opportunity as possible to develop worthwhile projects that will be eligible for funding under the programme.

I note that the Committee has welcomed the considerable effort that has gone into producing explanatory material for the programme. The Department will continue to review the need for further interpretative material.

The Committee has recommended that the Department put in place form-completion assistance for farmers. I have already explained that the Department, in conjunction with the UFU, is considering how best to help farmers to take advantage of the opportunities offered by the range of measures available. However, I am not yet convinced that there is a significant problem with completing the application forms, but I accept that they are long.

The real problem may be the lack of ideas that can be transformed into projects that will be eligible for funding under the rural development programme. If completing the form were a significant problem, I would expect it not to be confined only to farmers. Therefore if such a scheme were considered necessary, it would have to be open to the whole rural community. Farmers and other applicants can get advice on completing the application form from the rural development co-ordinators and the Rural Development Council.

I welcome Mr Dallat's comments with regard to the Rural Development Division staff, because I see, at first hand, the results of the work of rural community groups assisted by the Rural Development Division staff as I travel throughout Northern Ireland. I agree that the impact of the programme is often understated, and I am happy to endorse his comments about the work of the rural development staff. Farmers and other applicants can get advice from the rural area co-ordinators.

I am happy to bring to the attention of my Colleague, the Minister of Finance and Personnel, the Committee's recommendation that there should be a simpler application form for small grants. The Department is adopting a top-down and bottom-up approach in the programme. The Department has already commissioned a study into the needs of rural women. The rural development division, as part of a consortium, is discussing with Youth Action how the needs of the rural youth sector could be addressed. The Rural Development Council has been asked to consider how the participation of the long-term unemployed might be encouraged.

I hope that Members will recognise that what I have said in a few words represents a considerable amount of work. The study on the needs of rural women will be presented to the interdepartmental steering group on rural development so that other Departments can consider what, if any, of the identified needs they may address.

Gender balance is not a problem only for the rural development programme, as can be seen from the membership of the Assembly and from some of the departmental Committees. It is a much wider problem. I am committed to encouraging women to participate fully at all levels in the rural development programme. My Department will encourage natural resource rural tourism partnerships and LEADER groups to be proactive in that respect.

I have visited and had discussions with Fermanagh's Women in Agriculture, Mourne Ladies in Agriculture, and Omagh's Women in Agriculture. Mr McHugh said that women are more open and more adaptable, and I also find that. That is why I want to encourage women to be more proactive in accessing and having their capacity built to bring forward new ideas and to think outside the box. Women are particularly good at that, and I am sure that Madam Deputy Speaker agrees with me.

The gender balance of these groups will be monitored, as the Committee recommends. I intend to monitor the participation of women, youths, farm families, and, as far as possible, the long-term unemployed across all the elements of the rural development programme. Although I am committed to encouraging the participation of these groups, I am not convinced that they should be given preferential treatment in project selection. At this stage, individual projects should be selected on the basis of the quality of the proposal.

We will occasionally review the participation of under-represented groups based on monitoring information, and a judgement can be made at the time of the review as to whether any further action is appropriate. I assure the Assembly that every effort is being made to get the monitoring systems fully operational.

In section 3 of the report, 'Full and proper appraisal of all projects', the Department will give guidance to natural resource rural tourism (NRRT) partnerships and LEADER groups on the economic appraisal process and will also check compliance. The Department will keep its procedure manuals under review and will update them to take account of advice from the Department of Finance and Personnel.

The Rural Development Division procedures for the Northern Ireland building sustainable prosperity programme have already been scrutinised by the Department's Internal Audit Division, and a forthcoming audit will check compliance with procedures. The operating rules for the NRRT and LEADER programmes form part of the contract with the respective groups. The groups will receive the operating rules at the same time that they receive their contracts to administer the programme.

I do not anticipate the rural community network having to use consultants to prepare economic appraisals under the rural development programme. Therefore, the question of managing such consultants should not arise. The Department appoints consultants in accordance with guidance from the Government Purchasing Agency (GPA). It reviews the performance of the consultants after each assignment, and the outcome of this review is held on the GPA's central database. The Department's economists would bring any shortcomings in a consultant's economic appraisal to its attention. These arrangements meet the objectives of the Committee's recommendations. The recommendation that the Department should increase the checks by economists on pro forma economic appraisals has resource implications, and I will have to consider it further. The Department will review its policy on economic appraisal training after economists have considered the first tranche of project appraisals.

In regard to recommendations 21 and 22, I agree that the selection of project appraisals for scrutiny by economists should be independent from the rural area co-ordinators and Department agents undertaking the appraisals. The Department will consider how this can be best achieved.

I accept the recommendation that the Rural Development Council should amend its procedures to incorporate assessment of marketing and management needs in the appraisal pro forma. The Department will instruct the council to adopt the same pro forma as used by the Department.

I want to address section 4, 'Rationalisation of programme structures'. It is one of the key roles of rural area co-ordinators to keep close links with local delivery bodies. LEADER and NRRT partnerships are also encouraged to develop such links. Rural area co-ordinators are prepared to engage with and assist those in the profit-taking sector who need advice on the rural development programme and how to apply for a grant. However, it must be remembered that the grant scheme is competitive, and co-ordinators cannot give one applicant an advantage over others who also seek help. Within the parameters they will assist as best they can.

The Department has sought to maximise the amount of funds available for rural communities, including farmers, and to that end it has drawn on all the EU schemes available. Had the Department restricted its efforts to one scheme for each sector, it would undoubtedly have limited the available funds. I agree that it would be ideal to have one scheme only for each sector, but Members will agree that it is important to access as much EU funding as possible, and that means meeting the separate financial and organisational requirements of each programme or initiative.

Mr McHugh mentioned the rural health action zones, and I have given my full support and finance to that work, but the rural development programme is small and cannot cover everything.

I accept that the rural development plan, which is farm focused, and the rural development programme, which is aimed at the broader rural community, have the same acronym of RDP, and that causes confusion. The rural development programme has been in place for about 10 years and is unique to Northern Ireland in its work to engage rural communities in regenerative action. The rural development plan was one of four UK farm-focused plans that were put in place under the 2001-06 structural funds. I will consider the Committee's recommendation on that further.

I intend to provide regular public information on funding allocations to successful applicants and on expenditure on and uptake of the various schemes. I accept the recommendation that, where rural development regeneration projects appear to be at odds with planning regulations, matters should be discussed through the interdepartmental steering committee mechanism.

I welcome the Committee's recognition of the importance of the rural development programme for ensuring appropriate numbers of properly trained staff. I do not need to remind the House of the pressures on departmental running costs. At this stage I await the outcome of the staff review. However, I encourage modernisation in the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, and there is a real challenge for the Department, in conjunction with agrirural interests, to best forge and deliver rural development measures that address the needs of the rural communities and the demands of wider society. Last week at the Balmoral Show, I announced that I intend to create a stakeholder forum to consider the strategic issues that must be addressed.

I accept the Committee's recommendation on early agreement of the Rural Development Council's annual budgets. However, I must point out that there is much debate between my officials and those in the council on the details, which can sometimes cause unavoidable delay.

There is much to consider on rural development funding beyond 2006, such as the mid-term review of the common agricultural policy (CAP), the post-Objective-1-status situation, the amount of EU support that will be available after 2006-07, the pressures from accession countries and the various fields of agriculture and non-agriculture development action.

I would like to deal with some of the issues that were raised in the debate. Mr McHugh's comments on the future of the agrifood industry, the rural economy in general, the vision report and the work of the rural development programme were welcome. He has often heard me speak about the need to manage the coming changes that are outside our influence, such as the reform of CAP and globalisation. Undoubtedly, the rural development programme has a role to play in helping to sustain rural communities and their way of life, which is worth protecting.

Mr McHugh also referred to modulation money, which is not used for the rural development programme. The rural development programme aims to encourage innovative thinking to complement traditional agriculture, not to replace it.

The rural development programme is aimed at the whole rural community, including farming families. Modulation money is returned to the farming community through programmes such as organic farming, agrienvironment schemes, and so forth.

As regards North/South co-operation, the INTERREG III programme will comprise a specific rural development measure that will be delivered through the cross-border steering committee, which operates under the North/South Ministerial Council. I remind Mr Armstrong that it is to be hoped that individual farmers will be able to apply to local LEADER+ action groups in early autumn. Farmers and their families will need to have innovative projects on which to base their application. I encourage them to think along those lines - outside the traditional box of farming - in order to access the funds.

I am encouraged by the call from Mr Dallat and others for additional resources to deliver the rural development programme. As the Committee is aware, resources are very tight, but I will consider carefully the comments on the matter. I welcome Mr Dallat's recognition of the risks inherent in rural development.

The matter will continue to be considered in the coming years. Although changes to farming, farm families, rural communities and the Department are inevitable, I assure the Committee and Members that my Department and I will continue to strive for the best possible rural development deal for Northern Ireland. The Assembly and, in particular, the Committee agree that Northern Ireland's rural communities are an important part of its social fabric. It is extremely important that those communities remain viable and that locals can remain there and have a prosperous economic future. They should not - as was mentioned by a UUP Member - be forced to move into towns to take up jobs outside the community in which they have lived, and where they feel comfortable.

Mr Savage: I thank the Minister, who gave up her time this afternoon, and Members, for their contribution to the debate. They showed that rural issues are close to our hearts.

The Committee embarked on its inquiry when the Department was preparing for the next phase of its rural development programme. Circumstances led to a delay in the completion of the inquiry, so Members were able to take into account the programme's launch and the implementation of its first schemes. The delay made the inquiry all the more relevant, enabling it to take into account the Committee's aims in respect of scrutiny, and the report of the Public Accounts Committee. The Committee's recommendations will improve the delivery of the programme over the next four or five years.

During the inquiry, the Committee also considered the resources available to the Department and its agents for the duration of the programme. It found that the Department's Rural Development Division increased its staff by almost 50% in order to deliver the new phase of the programme. Members expect that to translate into an improved service for customers. The amounts to be spent over the programme period are still small. However, according to the service delivery agreement for 2002-03, for example, rural development accounts for less than 7% of the Department's expenditure limit. Therein lies the opportunity for the Minister.

The Committee suggests that that allocation amounts to small potatoes in the overall scheme of things. Such levels of provision may need to change in the context of the CAP review, which is likely to result in a further shift towards rural development and away from the provision of traditional support for agricultural production.

The Committee has, therefore, recommended that the Department should consider internal rationalisation to improve co-ordination in policy areas where objectives may be linked to improve understanding of what rural development means and to raise the profile of rural development in the Department.

The Committee heard concerns regarding the continuation of support for rural regeneration programmes after 2006, when it is expected that European funding may be lost or, at best, severely curtailed. The Committee concluded that the current phase of the rural development programme will in no way address all the needs of rural areas. There will still be much work to be done after 2006.

The Committee has, therefore, recommended that the Department begin contingency planning, sooner rather than later, for a rural support programme to be delivered from national funding. That will require a case to be made to the Assembly. It will not be an easy case to make in the face of other pressures such as education, transport and health. The Department must address future funding concerns long before 2006. I give the Minister and the Department one bit of advice: keep it simple, plain and easily understood. Those three ingredients will go a long way towards getting everything going.

The Committee has carried out a thorough inquiry and has offered a report worthy of the Assembly's endorsement. The Minister made many comments. The Committee is concerned that no help was offered to farmers - a specific target group - to fill in forms. Some schemes need careful consideration. I look forward to the Minister's reply.

We must look forward. There is no use looking over our shoulders at the past. The person who never made a mistake never did anything. I hope that, in the days that lie ahead, the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development will progress with such zeal and understanding that people will regard it as a Committee that has really done something for the community. I thank the Members for their contributions.

Adjourned at 6.19 pm.