The position report reflects clearly the Executive's desire to focus debate on the quality of our public services, and to ensure that those are fairly and effectively administered. We emphasise the need for investment in infrastructure; the desire to improve service delivery; the importance of tackling social exclusion, especially poverty; and of working in partnership with others. We want to deliver reinvestment and reform that will result in high-quality public services. The reinvestment and reform initiative provides an opportunity for us to invest substantially in improving and modernising our infrastructure. In allocating resources, we need to identify closely the reforms that may be required and their potential outcomes. The Executive are already committed to reviewing the structure of public administration, which involves considering the types of structures that best serve the needs of Northern Ireland and how we might improve efficiency to allow resources to be focused where they are most needed.

As we said in our statement on the reinvestment and reform initiative, resources and reform must go together. The position report makes that clear. It sets out the Executive's determination to articulate their vision for public services and to explain how they might reform those services and improve their quality. The position report also underlines their commitment to ensure that everyone can share the benefits that should flow from the investment and reforms that they want to see.

The Executive recognise that, for too long, poverty has blighted the lives of too many people. They remain committed to developing policies and programmes, to allocating resources to support them and to focusing on areas and people in greatest objective social need - in line with targeting social need (TSN). The position report also recognises the need to see how different Departments can best work together in that and with other partners. The Executive rely on others, such as local government, business and the voluntary and community sectors, to help them to deliver the Programme for Government. It is right that those relationships should be developed.

The Executive's work to develop and agree the Programme for Government and the Budget does not take place in a vacuum. Important contextual issues need to be understood, reflected in the Executive's work and taken account of by the Assembly and others in response to the position report. First is the financial context. The position report explains that the spending power available to the Executive for the years 2003-04 to 2005-06 will be largely determined by the outcome of the 2002-03 spending review. It is understood that that will be announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in July 2002. The Executive's key reference point, and the baseline for the entire process, will be the spending plans for 2003-04. Those were first set out in the spending review for 2000 and were updated and converted to resource accounting and budgeting stage 2 classifications to provide the foundation for that spending review, which will set revised plans for 2003-04 and new plans for the two succeeding financial years.

The Chancellor's Budget announcement on 17 April 2002 has already provided significant additions for the period from 2003-04 to 2007-08 - arising from the application of the Barnett formula to the allocations for services in England and Wales. The Chancellor has also given signals of the likely outcome of the spending review. He has confirmed that the Treasury envisages real growth in spending over the spending review period - growth that is over and above the provision that has already been made for the Health Service. That suggests that there will be further limited additions for public expenditure in total and hence, through the Barnett formula, for Northern Ireland. The precise amount will depend on the outcome of discussions with, and within, the Treasury.

Even limited growth in spending could lead to substantial additional spending for Northern Ireland in 2004-05 and 2005-06 if the Chancellor applies the increase to spending areas that are comparable with our programmes. However, if he is obliged to use the spending power that is available for annually-managed expenditure, such as social security benefits or debt interest, or for spending on defence and other non-comparable programmes, additional amounts available to the Executive will be much more limited.

There are, of course, other contexts for our work. With regard to the economic context, it is encouraging that over the past year our economy has performed well. Employment is at a record high, and unemployment is approaching the lowest level for a generation. However, the impact of foot-and-mouth disease and global economic uncertainty have constrained progress in some areas - Northern Irish firms face difficult trading conditions, particularly in industries in which there has been a worldwide decline in trade. That has contributed to problems in manufacturing output. Agriculture and tourism have also experienced declines in earnings as a result of foot-and-mouth disease and the wider economic and fiscal environment. While there has been a modest improvement in the past year, farming is still well short of levels seen during the mid-1990s.

The outlook for the economy over the next few years is reasonably benign. Growth is expected to accelerate in 2002-03. However, the Assembly needs to understand the conditions in which we currently operate. We need to be able to identify the economic challenges we are likely to face, and we need to develop our proposals for tackling those challenges as we take forward the Programme for Government and the Budget.

We also need to be aware of the social and environmental contexts - we know the challenges too well. I have already highlighted our determination to focus on poverty and social exclusion, but our work must also reflect responsibilities to promote good relations within and between communities. We also need to be aware of wider environmental issues and ensure that the principle of sustainable development underpins everything that we do.

The position report, which Members will be considering in Committees in the weeks ahead, recognises the importance of ensuring that the Programme for Government reflects the economic, social and environmental challenges that we face. It provides an appropriate, relevant and evidence-based policy framework for decisions on financial allocations and for departmental work programmes. To that end, the Programme for Government must set out a thorough analysis of the context in which we work.

The report also needs to explore, and seeks views on, the Executive's priorities and sub-priorities. It is important that the priorities we set reflect and keep pace with the changing environment. The current priorities, which have received broad support here and from social partners, continue to provide a useful framework for our work. However, we want to explore ways in which we might refine our overall economic and social strategies.

The Executive are not solely content with setting out a work programme for the years ahead. We are also committed to maintaining a focus on measuring results and assessing impact. Our first two programmes have sought not only to explain the policy priorities that we have identified, but have also clearly set out the actions that we will take to deliver those priorities and the sub-priorities that support them.

We have gone further. The priorities incorporate public service agreements (PSAs) that aim to set out targets reflecting the key outcomes that Departments want to achieve with the resources voted to them by the Assembly. The PSAs are, in turn, supported by service delivery agreements (SDAs) for each Department, which explain the actions that each Department will take in order to deliver its Programme for Government commitments and PSA targets and to raise standards.

Open and accountable government is, and should be, a defining characteristic of the Executive. We want to be responsive, to listen to the views of others and to ensure that the Assembly and the public can see the benefits that a locally accountable Executive can deliver for the people of Northern Ireland. The position report, therefore, seeks views on current arrangements for measuring results and the effectiveness of those arrangements.

To further underline that commitment to open and accountable government, we will shortly be bringing a full report on the progress made during the first year of our programme to the Assembly. It will provide information on the actions contained in the programme and the targets in the 11 departmental PSAs. We will also be making the report more widely available so that the public can assess our progress.

We are also determined that the programme should continue to reflect our responsibility to promote equality of opportunity and good relations. The position report, therefore, seeks views on the equality aspects of the issues that we have raised and how those can best be taken into account as we develop the Programme for Government and the Budget.

Today's statement does not only provide a starting point for the Assembly's consideration of the position report; it also represents the start of a process of wider consultation on those issues. It is crucial that we have the views of the Assembly on the issues raised in the report. But in keeping with the theme of partnership that I mentioned, it is worth noting that we also recognise the value of a wider debate. For that reason, we intend to make the position report more widely available following this statement, sharing it with our social partners and our colleagues in local government and with other interested organisations and individuals.

The position report sets out the timescale for providing views on the issues that it raises. We will need comments from Committees on issues that relate to the Programme for Government before the end of August. As was the case last year, the Committee for Finance and Personnel will co-ordinate the comments on the associated resource issues, and we will be seeking those comments before the end of July. We look forward, of course, to receiving the views of Assembly Committees and of individual MLAs.

I have outlined some of the key issues that we must address as we develop the Executive's Programme for Government. The Deputy First Minister will now elaborate on some of those matters, particularly those that relate to the financial context in which we operate.

I support the First Minister's statement, and I will develop some of the themes that he covered in his opening remarks. In particular, I would like to focus on the financial context in which we find ourselves and on the resource issues that the Executive have highlighted in their position report on the Programme for Government and the Budget for 2003-04 and beyond.

The Budget that was agreed by the Assembly in December 2001 set "indicative minima" figures for Departments for 2003-04. By holding back some £125 million of available spending power at that time, we retained the option of making changes in our expenditure programmes to reflect local needs and priorities and to maintain a significant degree of flexibility.

Aside from the money that remains unallocated from the Chancellor's Budget, we are committed to maximising other immediate sources of funding available for allocation to services. For this Budget cycle and for the longer term, we are taking important action to improve the quality of public services and get better value from the resources available to us. That includes the needs and effectiveness evaluations, which are being carried out in health and social care, education, housing, training and vocational education, financial assistance to industry and culture, arts and leisure. Those six areas account for about 75% of planned public expenditure here.

Important issues must also be addressed in agriculture, regional transportation, water and sewerage services, long-term unemployment and the work of the employability task force, hospital services and the review of post-primary education. The Executive are scheduled to receive evaluations on those major areas of work in the next couple of months.

The evaluations will also be important for informing the Executive as they make funding decisions about the 2002 Budget. Although changing strategic direction or skewing resources to new areas of expenditure takes time and careful planning, the Executive are determined to make a real difference and to reshape public expenditure to support key priorities. Reports from each study will be made available to the Assembly and more widely.

The First Minister referred to the reinvestment and reform initiative or RRI, which will provide a unique opportunity for a substantial infrastructure investment programme. Many of our services, especially health, education and transport, require levels of capital investment far in excess of the available resources if they are to be funded in the traditional manner.

From 2004-05, a new borrowing power will give the Executive and the next Assembly the option of using additional revenue sources. That will make possible a multibillion-pound programme for the coming decade and beyond to address our most acute infrastructure needs.

Those resources will help to meet a pressing need, but money alone will not produce the scale of change that the Executive are seeking. It will be just as important to take a highly innovative approach to managing and financing the infrastructure programme, so that resources will be used wisely and will complement our existing programmes.

The Executive have decided to create a new organisation in the form of a strategic investment body to ensure that strategic infrastructure is planned and delivered in a way that makes the most of all the available means and resources. It is intended that the strategic investment body should have the necessary expertise and resources to serve the Executive's programme of strategic capital investment. By using the new body, the Executive hope to provide the best possible opportunities to promote the effective use of all the various means available.

More work is required to settle the detailed arrangements for that body. As a first step towards securing the best possible approach, we have invited our Executive Colleagues to nominate representatives to a project board. That board, which will work closely with an Executive subcommittee to scope the way ahead, will be asked to work within a tight timetable.

If Northern Ireland is to be a better and more prosperous place in which to live and work, the means of delivering the priority commitments in the Programme for Government must be established on a sound and equitable basis. The rating policy review examines the appropriate distribution of the revenue burden between households and businesses, and in each sector. The review will address the inequities and anomalies of the current system in order to produce a fairer and more equitable one. That will be of fundamental importance, should the future Executive and the next Assembly choose from 2004-05 onwards to raise more finance locally to fund reinvestment in our infrastructure through the borrowing power.

The First Minister, the other Ministers and I have often been asked in the Assembly to address the shortfall in public services by securing bonds or increasing our block baselines. The short-term position can be addressed by negotiating that package. We must now decide the extent to which we want to avail of the borrowing power. That decision must be based on priorities. Aside from our own sources of revenue, we shall explore all possible means of financing and providing affordable public services that deliver value for money and provide effective solutions to meet our needs. The use of public-private partnerships (PPPs) is a possible means of addressing the needs of our public services. Other options are provided by the creation of the strategic investment body and the possible use of borrowing financed by local revenues. In that new context we have examined all options carefully and objectively to develop a clear policy and to learn from national and international experiences. We will consider carefully the responses to the Financing Our Future consultation exercise before settling an Executive policy on PPPs, and so forth.

Against that background, the position report highlights various issues that must be addressed as we begin to develop the Programme for Government and the Budget for 2003-04 and beyond. The Executive are determined to make a difference through the services and policies for which they are responsible. We want to break away from approaches that are no longer effective or relevant to the best interests of this community. Not surprisingly, despite a recent trend of rising spending in real terms, spending pressures have intensified. We must face up to significant backlogs in investment and the great demand on some programmes. For that reason we have emphasised in the position report the need to consider seriously and extensively the scope for reprioritising spending. We must focus more carefully and effectively on the Administration's top priorities, the region's most strategic requirements and the most pressing needs of our community.

The position report concludes with a short summary of the strategic issues faced by each Department. The summary highlights the many substantial demands being made on future spending power, together with a host of useful and desirable purposes for which additional resources could be allocated. However, many of the departmental pressures outlined in the report and in the individual position reports provided by Departments to their corresponding Committees will have to be absorbed through reprioritisation in a departmental budget, or simply not be met. Nevertheless, as we move to develop our Programme for Government and Budget, we must consider some of the strategic issues faced by the Executive.

In agriculture, key challenges include progressing the work of the vision group and ensuring that Northern Ireland's views are represented effectively in negotiations on the reform of the common agricultural policy.

In education, consideration must be given to the future reorganisation of post-primary education following the Burns review, though we do not expect that there will be any significant expenditure implications in the 2002 Budget. Other strategic studies to be either concluded or undertaken in that timescale include a curriculum review and an assessment of the local management of schools (LMS) common funding formula.

There is a need to implement strategies to address long-term unemployment, to improve adult literacy and to meet the changing skills needs of the local economy. We must enable the economy to respond and to increase employment through business expansion and inward investment. Increased participation in education and training, especially by those at the bottom of the economic and social ladder, can have significant economic and social impact. Progress has been made locally on that through the student support review, but more must be done, not least in further education.

The creation of Invest Northern Ireland (INI) provides new opportunities for us to facilitate the development of large and small businesses that can compete and win business in global markets and in the face of changing consumer demands. However, INI will face several strategic and operational pressures as it seeks to implement new strategies and to establish new relationships and methods of operation, particularly in the areas of innovation and entrepreneurship.

Our agenda for modernising the devolved Administration and improving the efficiency and effectiveness of public service delivery is also wide and challenging. Key initiatives will be developed and implemented in the areas of public procurement, Government office accommodation and e-government. We will also implement the review of public administration and determine our policy framework for public-private partnerships following the current consultation exercise.

Health and personal social services continue to demand our attention. The acute hospitals review and the measures needed to address capacity problems in the acute sector, including winter pressures and waiting lists, remain the most significant issues. The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety will shortly issue a consultation paper on the proposed way forward.

We must introduce a large volume of EU environmental Directives to Northern Ireland legislation and implement them through monitoring and enforcement. If the risk of infraction proceedings is to be reduced, it is essential for work on EU Directives to be further advanced. We also want to modernise the planning framework to ensure that that development takes place in line with the principles of sustainable development and that it can contribute to a quality environment and meet economic and social aspirations.

The regional development strategy has outlined the strategic planning framework for the spatial development of Northern Ireland and is designed to shape our social, economic and environmental well-being between now and 2025. The ten-year regional transportation strategy is an important component of the regional development strategy. Consultation on the proposed transportation strategy was recently completed, and we must consider its implications.

Key challenges for the Water Service include the development of a leakage strategy and a water efficiency plan. Considerable investment in water and sewerage infrastructure is needed to secure a proper service for the public. That will also ensure that we comply with EU Directives on water quality and waste water standards.

To fulfil our social agenda, we will continue to drive forward the welfare reform and modernisation programme, keeping pace with similar developments in Great Britain. In line with targets in the Programme for Government, strategies for neighbourhood renewal, the Belfast regeneration initiative and regional town centre reinvigoration are emerging.

We also want to focus on culture, arts and leisure issues, including consideration of the future role of the public library service. Several reviews have been planned during the 2002 Budget period, including an examination of museums and galleries and a community arts review.

The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will implement several strategic measures. They include the arrangements for the appointment of a commissioner for children and young people; a children's strategy; a new community relations strategy; and work to implement the commitments and actions identified in the victims strategy.

I hope that those remarks have helped to contextualise the important work that the Assembly will undertake in the summer when it scrutinises and reviews the Executive position report. We accept that the timetable is tight, but that is a necessity. However, as the First Minister made clear, it is important that there be debate in Committees and between Members on the issues that the position report highlights. It is also important that this debate translate into comments and suggestions that can inform the Executive's work in the coming months so that the Programme for Government and the Budget can be developed.

The First Minister mentioned the Programme for Government's role in building the basis of a new democratic society. The philosopher John Dewey said that "democracy is born in conversation". Conversation and debate are needed in the Assembly and elsewhere. We assure Members that Ministers, their Departments and the Executive will consider carefully their comments and suggestions. Those comments will be used to inform the Programme for Government and the Budget for 2003-04 and beyond.

I have been advised that copies of the statement were not made available to Members before its delivery. The Ministers will be aware that Standing Order 18(1) provides that if a written copy of a statement has not been made available to Members, an explanation will be given to the Assembly. Will the Ministers clarify that now?

We are sorry that the statement was not available in advance. However, the position report was available to all MLAs this morning. The statement was delayed because of the long bank holiday weekend, which meant that the final revisions were done early this morning. I had the final revision in my hand only 10 minutes before making the statement. I am sorry that the printer did not give us enough copies for one to be put in every Member's hand before the statement was delivered.

Will the Ministers go a step further and tell the House whether there is an unallocated nest egg? If so, how do they propose to spend that nest egg?

There are monitoring rounds at various times of the year, depending on departmental expenditures. With regard to a nest egg, the only thing to which I can refer the Member is the table on page 21 of the Executive position report. That table sets out how we arrive at the baseline, and the significant figure that refers to the Chancellor's Budget additions is at the bottom of the table. Those Barnett-related additions have become available as a result of the Budget, but have not yet been allocated formally.

The Budget that the Assembly agreed in December 2001 set indicative minimal figures for Departments. That involved holding back sufficient funds at the start of Budget 2002 to provide a clear starting point for the Budget and an opportunity to address local priorities. We adopted that approach in anticipation of limited increases in public expenditure so that we could retain some flexibility. The Executive have recognised that it may be necessary to restore some of the amounts that have been held back, but resources are not available to restore all those amounts.

No nice gloss can be put on this bad news story for Northern Ireland today. It means taking a scalpel to Departments and cutting back resources. Ten million pounds will be cut from the Housing Executive and £9 million will be cut from public transport. Despite there being a rates increase, £4·4 million will be cut from local government services and £21 million will be cut from the budget for recurrent schools' problems. It is little wonder that there are 100 redundant schoolteachers in my North Antrim constituency.

I wish to consider the policies and resource issues identified under the section for the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. Again, as regards policy, there is no agreed version of rural proofing, which is very disappointing - the Department has had some time to put that in place. There is a proposed overall decrease of £8·8 million and that will affect the two most important areas: rural development, which will be cut by £1 million; and food and farming. Are those cuts not inconsistent with the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development's stated aims? The cuts will have an immediate impact on 40% of the population. More than 40% of the population lives in rural areas, and yet the rural development programme is being reduced.

I am also disappointed to see that the Government are -

Will the Member come to his second question?

Yes. The Government have shown that the vision group needs resources, but no resources have been identified for it. I am also disappointed that there has been a change in the language used. The first statement mentioned an end to the beef export ban -

Order. I realise that the Member has already asked two questions. If he has a third question, I would like him to ask it instead of making a statement.

I am coming to the question. Will the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister explain why there has been a change in language between their first statement, which considered the issue of an end to the beef export ban, and the current report, which calls for a relaxation of the ban? Why has there been a change in the language used? Are they no longer committed to achieving an end to the beef export ban?

Order. The Member has asked the three questions.

I return to the Deputy Speaker's question of why our statement was not available. Preparing and clearing joint statements is more difficult for the First Minister and me than it is for individual Ministers because we must agree who will make certain points so as to minimise repetition and maximise complementarity. It is also important to remember that the Executive position report came before the Assembly only last week. The Assembly receives the report from the Executive hot off the presses, which really is a sign of just how transparent the new arrangements are. What is being published is exactly what came before the Executive.

I do not know how many times we shall have to explain the nature of the exercise to the Member and the people in his party. This is a position report, drawn from Departments' assessments of their priorities and pressures. The Departments have consulted and engaged with Committees already, and there will now be significant consultation with Committees. This report is in advance of Budget planning; we are setting out the issues before the draft Budget in September.

With regard to the Member's nonsense about proposed cuts to various programmes, I refer him to what the First Minister and I said about the indicative minima set out in last year's Budget. The indicative Budget for 2003-04, which we introduced in December 2001, set indicative minima so that we would not commit all the resources in the indicative Budget for 2003-04.

Who told us not to automatically commit all the money to the Departments because that would make them think that they need not do anything? Members told us that. Members told us to take £10 million from every Department to make more money available for priorities. We managed to take £125 million from the indicative Budget for priorities, including, possibly, the priorities that the Member mentioned. Who agreed with that approach to indicative minima? All the Ministers agreed to taking £125 million from next year's Budget so that it could be available for what would then be our priorities, after full consultation by the Executive, the Committees and the Assembly.

That is a good government story, not a bad news story.

I thank the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister for presenting the report; however, the Members did not see their comprehensive statement beforehand. I welcome their comments that we need time to examine and debate the report. We must consider properly the many serious and fundamental questions that it poses, and both Ministers invited the Committees and the Departments to do so. I look forward to taking that opportunity.

The needs and effectiveness evaluations represent, for the Departments concerned, around 75% of planned public expenditure. How soon shall we able to see the conclusions of those evaluations, which will determine Members' budgetary considerations and the financial implications?

How do the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister envisage the operation of the strategic investment body? The agency is a welcome development, but who will hold the decision-making power? Will it lie with the Executive, or could it be held by the strategic investment body, which would not be fully democratic?

I thank the Member for acknowledging that the report was available, although Members may have found it a challenge to absorb its 141 pages in the time that was available before the statement.

We presented the report as quickly as possible to maximise the time in which to debate it. The report was presented to the Executive only last week. Time is constrained by the Budget timetable: we shall not know the outcome of the spending review 2002 until July, and we shall have to start to take decisions on the Budget in September or October.

The timescale for needs and effectiveness studies will be constrained also. The studies are in their final stages and will be discussed by the Administration, among the Departments, and between the Deputy First Minister, the relevant Ministers and myself, culminating in decisions by the Executive. We shall then have to consider the budgetary implications. The timescale will, therefore, be extremely tight, but the Administration will want to have the broadest possible discussion - internally and with others.

We are well aware of the sensitivities that Mr Maskey highlighted as regards the strategic investment body, and he is not alone in raising those points. Another party, which takes a slightly detached position with regard to the Administration, raised the same issues. That is partly why we have invited the parties that participate in the Administration to nominate Members to the project board of the strategic investment body. We are glad that parties have made nominations, and we hope that their involvement will enable the strategic investment board to proceed.

The strategic investment body will be crucial to the delivery of the Administration's programme - the key word is "delivery". It will seek solutions to financial problems. The Executive will make decisions on the programmes and priorities, while the strategic investment body will exist to seek solutions, and to implement and deliver them. The practice of that structure remains to be seen.

To put it on record, I join with other Members in expressing disappointment that the statement was not available before the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister rose to speak. It is not an exception; it is happening more often that Members are obliged to respond to a statement without having it to hand. I hope that my interpretation of the reason suggested for the delay by the Deputy First Minister is wrong; that it was due to a lack of agreement as to what they would say. I hope that that was not the real reason. No doubt he will correct me if I am wrong.

In the statement, the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister correctly states the need to identify more closely the reforms that might be required and the outcomes that might be achieved from such reforms. I welcome that. I want to know when the Executive propose to give Members some idea of what outcomes are proposed from the different reforms. For example, as regards the review of public administration, are the Executive aiming towards the type of resources that could be released from a proper review of public administration? I could repeat that comment with respect to the other ongoing reviews, such as on procurement et cetera. It would be useful to have a quantifiable figure that we knew was possible to achieve through saving and making better use of resources.

My understanding is that needs and effectiveness evaluations act as a tool to advise the Executive on policy and priorities. As they have not yet been completed, I have difficulty in knowing exactly what value to place on a document that develops the Programme for Government. If we are not yet sure about the outcome of the needs and effectiveness evaluation, there may be some flaws in the document. Perhaps the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister could elucidate.

My final question refers to the reinvestment and reform initiative. Will the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister assure the House that negotiations are ongoing with the Treasury to ensure that we are not getting a pig in a poke, and that these gift horses will not have bad breath and cause problems in future years with our departmental expenditure limits across Departments through capital charges, cost depreciation and the cost of making good?

I was always warned not to look gift horses in the mouth; now, I seem to be being advised to smell them in the mouth.

The delay was not a result of disagreement as to what was to be said, we were trying to ensure that we have a reasonably coherent and balanced statement. In answering the questions, the key point is the position report itself. In our statement, we have summarised and highlighted aspects of the position report and not used any different inflections other than those in the position report itself.

The Member asked several questions. We hope to have stage one of the review of public administration completed by next March. In many ways, work in stage one will determine whether we can indicate amounts of money that might be saved or the targets that should be put in place. Given that many in the House said that they wanted the review to have as much independence as possible and not be dictated to or constrained simply by Ministers and the Executive, we did not think it appropriate, or a good basis, to fix an amount of money that we wanted to save, or outline a particular way. The review of public administration is an open review. I am glad that people want to ensure that that review leaves us in a situation where less money is spent on structures and systems and more of our public expenditure goes to services.

We definitely want to achieve that, and it was one of the underlying motives behind the review.

There is never a time when negotiations with the Treasury stop. There are different aspects of the reinvestment and reform initiative that we shall continue to deal with, and there are other aspects that we shall return to the Treasury on. We shall not make any headway with the Treasury if we do not start to play our part in the initiative and to take advantage of our opportunities. That includes setting up the strategic investment body that will provide financing solutions to meet policy needs and project priorities determined by Ministers and the Executive.

The Assembly, the Executive and Ministers will commission projects and spending priorities, and the strategic investment body will deliver the best financing solutions to ensure that we spend money to meet as many of those needs as we can. We are engaged in developing the Programme for Government, and in sharing it with the Assembly and the public. It is an ongoing reform. The position report is a pre-draft Budget consultation document, and there will be further consultation following the draft Budget. The position report is shared with the Assembly, its Committees and a wide range of community interests. As far as key community interests are concerned, it is an exercise in joined-up government, joined-in government and joined-with government.

The Executive's position report states that the Executive are scheduled to receive five of the needs and effectiveness evaluations in June and July, and we are already in June. Will the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister say which evaluations will be reporting this month, so that Members can do some work before the recess? The deadline will be the end of August or September, and we must have the evaluations as soon as possible.

The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are inviting Executive Colleagues to nominate a representative to the project board. What does "representative" mean? Does that mean an MLA, a party member, a Minister or someone else? If democracy is based on having conversations - to paraphrase the John Dewey comments at the end of the Deputy First Minister's statement - why is it limited to representatives of the Executive parties, given the difficulties that the Executive face in getting collaboration from all the parties on it?

Would the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister consider sending the report to the Civic Forum? It would be more than glad to be consulted. [Interruption].

Order.

I have no problem with sending the position report to the Civic Forum. Our concluding comments showed that we want to distribute the position report as widely as possible. The object of the exercise is to develop discussion and debate.

The position report gives Colleagues a snapshot of the position immediately before the Chancellor makes his decisions on the spending review 2002, so that it will be easier for them to work out what the possible impact of the spending review 2002 will be.

The needs and effectiveness studies are being finalised. The Member said that the evaluations are scheduled to report in June or July. I hope that they will all be with us in June, and that the deadline will not become July.

Ms McWilliams will gather from my remarks that we expect to get the reports soon. Significant discussion and debate will then have to take place within the Administration, and we shall have to consider precisely how to act on the reports.

We were not prescriptive about who the parties should nominate to the project board of the strategic investment body. We approached the parties in the Administration because the implementation of the decisions that are made, departmentally and collectively, will relate to the Administration's work. It is entirely open to the parties concerned to make nominations. I think that I am right when I say that we have received three such nominations.

We were not prescriptive because we wanted the board to be open to a party, it if wishes, to nominate someone who has particular expertise in financial matters - financing programmes et cetera. It will be open to parties to nominate an MLA, if they so wish. We do not consider that failure to do so will in any way detract from accountability to the Assembly. Ministers will make decisions, and they are accountable to the Assembly. The strategic investment body will examine the most cost-effective way to deliver those decisions and solutions. That will require a degree of expertise, but it will also require the parties in the Executive to work together, which is why we look to them to form the basis of the project board.

I welcome the First and the Deputy First Ministers' policy statement on the approach to government. I also welcome their intention to have an innovative approach to managing and financing the infrastructure programme, and note that a similar approach has been adopted south of the border. Can we be assured of collaboration?

Mrs Courtney has made an important point by emphasising what must be done to manage infrastructure. We have often heard in the Chamber about the historic deficit that we have inherited with regard to investment in infrastructure and other key public service fabrics. That is one of the reasons why we negotiated a package with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor that will allow us to undertake significant investment programmes. As that involves our capacity to undertake capital expenditure far in excess of what would have been possible under existing funding lines and current patterns, it is right that we look at an innovative way to manage that new level of expenditure and consider a strong means of driving investment on such a scale. For that reason, we opted for the concept of a strategic investment body. By coincidence, people came up with the idea of establishing a similar body in the South to drive a significant infrastructure investment programme - proof that great minds think alike. Taking advantage of facilities such as the common chapter and using the devices available to us through the North/South Ministerial Council, it is right to compare notes where possible, and to co-ordinate investments and co-operate where we can. That is particularly fitting, given that both bodies will want to consider not only how they can use the moneys from managed public expenditure, but to see what other moneys can be levered in from elsewhere. Such money might come from not only the domestic private sector but from further afield. It would make sense for the two bodies to know what each other is doing and to ensure that our strategic investment plans, especially for infrastructure on the entire island, complement each other and are well co-ordinated and well matched to ensure that everyone gets the best possible return on that significant investment opportunity.

It is not surprising, given the cuts suggested in the report, that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister did not release the statement before the debate. I trust that Members will have picked up on the details of the report's figures, in respect of the potential disastrous impact on support to district council resource grants if the figures are reflected in the final Budget. The combination of not carrying forward the 2002-03 grant levels and the impact of the indicative minima would represent a drop in overall grant from £20 million to £13·6 million in 2003-04.

I have the unanimous support of the Committee for the Environment when I say that such a cut would undoubtedly have a major impact on district rates and on the services available in many district council areas. As resource grants only apply to the poorest councils, I ask the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to explain the justice of such cuts, as they blatantly contradict the Executive's policy of targeting social need. Will the Ministers give a commitment to the House to re-examine the issue as soon as possible? A sizeable increase in the £105 million to the Department of the Environment would be marginal in the Northern Ireland block grant of some £7 billion, but would have a significant impact on the protection of the environment. The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister should seriously examine those issues.

We are aware that there are problems on councils, especially on environmental issues that arise from EU Directives. The position report provides for a general resources grant, which consists of a derating element compensating for loss of rate income due to the derating of properties, and a resources element. In the latter part, a total of £50 million has been allocated for distribution in 2002-03, determined by a statutory formula.

However, the Member must bear in mind the indicative minima that the Deputy First Minister explained in his first response. They involved an initial withholding of £125 million across the Departments. If I remember correctly, it is the Member's ministerial Colleague who has talked about the need to pare and, indeed, withhold more money from Departments. One must question the consistency in those matters.

As the Member knows, this is a progress report, which sets out the position as it is at the moment. It is not the draft Budget. There will be plenty of opportunity for further discussion and consultation. It ill befits a Member who belongs to a party that talks about the need to cut left, right and centre, and the amount that can be cut, to come and complain when there are attempts to find flexibility. [Interruption].

Order. Time is up.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>