Mr Molloy, please draw your remarks to a close. This is an opportunity to ask questions, not to make a statement.

I am asking questions.

I remind you, Mr Molloy, that the Minister need answer only one question.

The Minister can choose that if he wishes, but I am quite certain that he will answer more than one question. The draft Budget now goes to Committees for consideration, and I ask the Minister to ensure that they receive all the information they need to enable them to respond.

Once again, I express my deep appreciation to the Chairperson and members of the Committee for Finance and Personnel for the close co-operation and engagement that they have developed with me over the past months. I particularly appreciate the Committee's contribution to the position report.

Mr Molloy asked several questions. I assure him that all Departments are responsible for ensuring that there is a strong TSN element, and it is an obligation, under the Good Friday Agreement, to maintain that. Therefore, investment in programmes must be directed where the need is greatest, be that west or east of the Bann. Ministers are obliged to meet the needs identified in accordance with TSN and equity principles.

Mr Molloy asked about future spending plans, which are dependent on proposals in the reinvestment and reform initiative. Work is ongoing on the next set of allocations, and they will be presented to the Assembly and Committees before the revised Budget. At revised Budget stage, future spending plans for three years will be clearly identified, and Members will have had the opportunity for discussion and consultation.

The needs and effectiveness studies were used to inform our approach. There are many other considerations that we have to bear in mind, and they flow directly from the priorities set by the Executive and agreed by the Assembly to determine the precise nature of allocations. The needs and effectiveness studies are a new departure, and are currently being examined by Committees. I trust that both the needs and effectiveness elements will be considered carefully.

There has been considerable investment in the Water Service over the years, but it has been insufficient to provide the level of infrastructure needed for a water and sewerage service that complies with European standards. There is, therefore, a considerable deficit. We must address how we can meet those needs most effectively.

Before I call for the next question, I remind Members that one hour has been allocated for the Minister's statement. Please bear in mind that, if Members ask long questions, and the Minister delivers long answers, Members from smaller parties will have no opportunity to ask questions.

The Minister said that Sir Reg Empey, the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, suggested a radical approach to planning resources in his Department by setting upper and lower limits. First, does the Minister of Finance and Personnel believe that the reform will reduce levels of underspending in Departments, thus making better planned use of public finance? Secondly, will the Minister clarify the exact amount of the welcome and significant increase in expenditure on health? He mentioned 13·6%, but the table in the draft Budget statement shows a figure of 11·8%, either of which is significantly above inflation.

Finally, the Audit and Accountability Bill will allow the Comptroller and Auditor General to become the independent auditor of the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. Will the Minister confirm that that major reform will allow proper scrutiny of, and public confidence in, health spending?

The proposals for a range of allocations specific to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment developed following discussions between Sir Reg Empey and myself. He is satisfied that the current projected needs can be met. The range applying to Invest Northern Ireland is to allow project proposals that require support that cannot be met from the bottom of the range allocation to be allocated resources to meet their requirements.

New proposals often have a long lead-in time, so their requirements are unlikely to emerge as a sudden pressure on the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. Therefore, that approach to budgeting for new investment seemed prudent, and it has the full agreement of the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. I am satisfied that the Budget framework will allow him to meet the requirements of any forthcoming projects.

The Member asked about the allocation to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. The draft Budget provides an uplift of over 13% in 2003-04 compared with this year's allocation. That includes allocations from the Executive programme funds and the reinvestment and reform initiative.

Accountability legislation is a matter for the Assembly to discuss when considering the Audit and Accountability Bill.

I congratulate the Minister on his draft Budget. I appreciate the value of the needs and effectiveness evaluations in helping to judge priorities. Therefore, my Committee and I welcome the fact that health is a top priority.

Will the Minister detail the percentage increase in healthcare spending and outline what new developments will be possible, over and above existing services? I am thinking in particular of the ongoing battle against diabetes in Northern Ireland.

The first part of the Member's question relates to one from Mr Beggs, which I have just answered. The draft Budget provides for an uplift of 13% in 2003-04 from the 2002-03 allocation to the Department of Health. That increase should enable the Department to maintain a steady state with its current service provision.

I said that pressures are arising from cost increases, which must be met by the Department. Obviously part of the uplift to the Department is because of rises in costs. However, there will be an opportunity - and I think the Minister herself would agree - for a modest increase in service levels to accommodate the pressures from our growing population. The Minister can detail the improvements and developments which she will be able to take forward. It should also enable the Department to invest in key service developments in the areas of cancer, renal and cardiac services, waiting lists, the elderly, intermediate and primary care, best practice, best care, mental health, learning disability and services for children. On Dr Hendron's question on diabetes services, I refer him to the Minister for further information.

I must raise concern at the increase in the Department of the Environment's budget on page 64 - this will hardly enable the Department to meet the inescapable pressures to fund the implementation of EU Directives. I also note that the Department's overall percentage increase in 2004 will dip dramatically to 1·8%. Can the Minister assure the House that the Department's increases will be sufficient to enable it to meet the costs of urgent implementation of the EU Directives?

I now speak as an individual Member. The Minister stated that

How does that sit with a 1·2% increase on the year 2003-04 while the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister receives a 14·5% increase?

I hasten to assure the Member that the allocations to the Department of the Environment will, as my statement said, enable it to meet its ongoing responsibilities. Where new pressures arise, the Minister will quite obviously draw those to my attention and that of the Executive, and they will be given full consideration.

Regarding the pressures on transport, I said in my statement that the provision of facilities to borrow under the reinvestment and reform initiative will enable us most effectively and adequately to address the needs of the Department for Regional Development, which is of course responsible for transport. In my statement, and again in response to an earlier question, I said that spending plans regarding allocations under the reinvestment and reform initiative would be brought before the Assembly and Committees in the course of the coming weeks.

I certainly welcome the title of the Budget statement, 'A Budget for Reform', and I look forward to the necessary reforms on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland. I welcome the three-year planning concept, which is essential in trying to get our public finances correct, and the other reforms and initiatives that are being examined and put into practice. However, it will come as no surprise that if the Minister stubbornly continues to insist on an inflation-busting increase in the regional rate, then I will continue to stubbornly oppose that, particularly on the domestic regional rate.

Will the Minister assure us that the reform plans will not be an added layer of bureaucracy, bearing in mind that we have public service agreements, service delivery agreements, and so on? I am not knocking the reform; I seek only assurance that it will not become another layer of bureaucracy.

Much emphasis has been put on the needs and effectiveness evaluations, which have been completed and reported to the Committees. Would it not have been helpful to debate the evaluations in the House so that we, as an Assembly, could have had input in assessing the priorities and ensuring that they were correct? Will the Minister advise whether the evaluations were used in his discussions with Mr Paul Boateng, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, as regards assessing our priorities and ensuring that the Barnett formula would be changed? Even a cursory glance shows that the evaluations demonstrate the needs of the people of Northern Ireland. The issues should have been debated on the Floor of the House.

I remind the Member that it is not an opportunity to make a speech but to ask questions.

Thank you for the reminder, Mr Deputy Speaker.

When does the Minister propose to have a debate on underspend, which he referred to in his statement? It is necessary that the House has a say on that.

It comes as no surprise that Mr Close highlighted the first issue that he mentioned - and in the way that he did.

There would be an average increase of 26p a week for the domestic ratepayer: it may be more for some and less for others. However, people should consider the extra contribution in the light of the return that the Budget will make available. It will provide support for schools; it will make for a more effective, efficient and developed Health Service; it will provide additional support for students from low income backgrounds; and it will provide support for the rural and farming community. That community needs considerable investment, and it will be helped when the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development begins to implement her vision strategies.

There is a significant level of development. We are not at a standstill; we want to develop services. Members of the House echo and re-echo demands for improved and developed services. The people whom they represent would not deny an additional 26p a week to ensure that some of that development can be taken forward.

The intention with the reform initiatives - and I would like to think that it is obvious - is not to add to layers of bureaucracy, but to ensure that the administrative services which exist in the public sector are operating as effectively and as efficiently as possible, so that we can achieve the highest standard of service delivery.

The needs and effectiveness studies have been released to the Assembly for its consideration. Data is being updated to provide the most accurate figures possible. The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel suggested that officials be made available to meet other Committees to discuss the relevant studies. There is no reason why there should not be a full debate. The studies need to be considered carefully and digested by Members so that debate is well informed.

The Assembly is beginning to consider the draft Budget, so every element, including the underspend proposals, is open for questioning, discussion and deliberation in Committees and in the Assembly.

Youth and community relations need greater attention, given the current climate. Page 38 of the draft Budget shows the Department of Education's budget for youth and community relations. It is useful to compare those figures to the information on page 31 of the Budget for 2002-03. Why is the budget for youth and community relations in the draft Budget so small? Why will it be cut by 2005, when the Budget for 2002-03 stated that the provision would increase to £25·5 million in 2002-03? It has decreased to £24·8 million in 2003-04 and will go down again to £23·6 in 2004-05? Does the Minister not agree that that area is in desperate need of attention?

The Minister of Finance and Personnel does not determine departmental priorities; they are determined by the Ministers responsible for the services in question. It is my responsibility to discuss allocations with each Minister, which I have done. Over the past few months, I have had more than one meeting with nearly every Minister. During those lengthy and detailed meetings each Minister's overall spending requirements were examined. Ministers set priorities in their own Departments. The draft Budget provides for the maintenance of existing service levels and the continuation of provision that was allocated under Executive programme funds. There will be further opportunities to access resources under Executive programme funds if the Minister of Education has submitted bids that apply to the Youth Service.

I do not suggest that provision for young people is adequate, but, given the development of the office of the children's commissioner and other provisions, there is more than that single departmental allocation.

The Minister's statement seems to make clear that the Executive have limited resources, that there is a substantial deficit in capital investment and that the Barnett formula allocations are barely sufficient to cover year-on-year planning.

Paragraph 66 of the Minister's statement reads

If those spending plans were to be supported by public-private partnerships and the reinvestment and reform initiative, financial servicing for the payment of capital and interest would be required. Will the source of those payments be rates? Does the Minister agree that the present system allows for a 6% year-on-year increase? Does he further agree that the purpose of the rating review - although it has been said that it is to devise a fairer system - is to provide additional money to fund interest payments? How much of an increase would be necessary, under a fairer system or otherwise, to support his spending proposals?

Significant deficits exist, and we must meet them. As I said in my statement, the Department for Regional Development would have responsibility for a large proportion of the required additional investment. Some of the investment needs are met out of that departmental expenditure limit. We could have chosen a different route and suggested that all the capital expenditure should come from within the departmental expenditure limit. However, that would have significantly reduced the allocations for recurrent expenditure. Mr McCartney seems frequently to misunderstand what is required and how the money will be provided. We could meet approximately half of our investment needs - approximately £7 billion or £8 billion - from within the departmental expenditure limit over the next 10 years or so. However, the extra expenditure requirements cannot be met from that source, and that has motivated us to seek out additional, available facilities. The additional £6 billion that is needed could be raised through the reinvestment and reform initiative and public-private partnerships, depending on how we decide to proceed.

Let me make it clear: like anyone who borrows money, we cannot shirk our clear responsibility to service that borrowing. The Executive and all Departments, including the Department of Finance and Personnel, have an obligation to ensure that all borrowing is prudent and that the need for it has been carefully assessed.

I have it made it clear to the House on several occasions that until we have a fairer rating system, there will be no increases in current patterns, so borrowing will be sought from the resources available to us. It is up to the Executive and the Departments to agree on proposals to bring before the House. Ultimately, the House will decide how we proceed.

With respect to some of the major investment requirements, I indicated in my statement that I anticipate the advice and proposals from the Minister for Regional Development, particularly concerning the future needs and structuring of the Water Service. That Minister has already provided the regional transport strategy, which details his requirements and objectives over the next 10 to 15 years, and the same is awaited with regard to the Water Service.

In general terms, I welcome the properly-titled 'Reform Budget'. There has been tremendous emphasis on the reinvestment and reform initiative in the draft Budget. With particular reference to water, does that depend on the Minister for Regional Development's ongoing study of the future needs and structure of the Water Service?

The precise answer is yes. I have had discussions with the Minister for Regional Development in the run-up to the draft Budget, and I am aware -

Mr Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, Minister. Mr McCartney, having asked the Minister a question it is a gross discourtesy to move down there to join in a private conversation with Mr Close. I ask you to refrain from it.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am aware that studies are taking place in the Department for Regional Development on the needs and future plans for the Water Service. How imminent is their publication? I do not yet know, but until proposals are brought to my attention, it will not be possible to meet any needs identified by going beyond the allocations made in the draft Budget and in the reinvestment and reform initiative allocations that were announced in June.

There has been much rhetoric, but the Budget will be judged on whether it delivers better public services in practice. Regarding detail, what we have heard has been somewhat disappointing. If the aim is to improve efficiency in public spending, why has no significant change or improvement been envisaged in the amount of underspending in each of the next three years?

In respect of regional development, sewerage and transport have been identified as two of the most pressing priorities. Why has the Department of Regional Development the second-lowest level of expenditure growth? Why is reliance placed only on the reinvestment and reform initiative? That means that the Department will have to work out its spending plans without knowing what its allocation of resources will be and when it will get them.

Will the Minister indicate whether any provision has been made in the Budget for digital hearing aids? That would bring provision here into line with that in many United Kingdom trusts.

I trust that Mr Weir listened to my comments on the provisions in the draft Budget for the Department for Regional Development. I understand that today's proposals do not match the allocations that he believes should be made to the Department from the reinvestment and reform initiative. However, as I stated, Members will have ample time to consider the revised Budget. Therefore, it must be anticipated that the Department for Regional Development will receive the support that Mr Weir feels is necessary for its investment needs. Nevertheless, we must have some sense of what those needs are and of what reforms, especially in the Water Service, the Minister wants to advance. There is no question that, having recognised the considerable need for investment, the Executive will not make every effort to meet the Department's needs. Therefore, I trust that Mr Weir will take the assurance that my words offer as an indication of the seriousness with which we approach the infrastructural deficit, for which the Department for Regional Development has major responsibility.

Mr Weir referred also to underspend. The Executive's plans assume that there will be less underspend this year.

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister's unscripted remarks at the end of his statement. They were appropriate considering the weekend's events, which have left us in such an uncertain political climate. The Executive made health the priority in their Programme for Government. Does the Minister agree, therefore, that the increases of 13% for the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development; 9·9% for the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure; 6·6% for the Department of the Environment; and only 13·6% for the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety; are adequate? Given the upcoming, long-awaited and long-overdue Fire Service pay increases, how much of that allocation will affect health in real terms?

I am concerned that in his reference to the allocation for the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure the Minister made no mention of moneys being allocated for the Irish language.

The Minister also said in his statement:

To which sectors does the Minister refer?

All Ministers in attendance at Executive meetings agreed the draft Budget. That is not to say that all Ministers did not want additional allocations to be made to their Departments. In my statement, I acknowledged that all of the submitted bids could not have been met; they would have exceeded the departmental expenditure limit. Therefore, last Thursday, after intense and detailed negotiations at ministerial and official level over the last few months, we agreed on the draft Budget.

The increases that have been made mean that, since devolution, and until March 2004, the Executive will have made almost an extra £1·1 billion available for health, social services and public safety. The uplift of 13% for 2003-04, which I mentioned in my statement, is not insignificant. I acknowledged that a considerable proportion of that uplift results from cost pressures that arise from salary and wage agreements, and pressures that are associated with drugs and with essential facilities and services.

Over and above that, allocations are being made that will enable the health services to improve and to develop in several key respects. I have already rehearsed those areas in response to earlier questions, and they are recorded in the Budget statement. I would like to think that anyone who looks objectively at the Executive's determination to meet their responsibilities to health services over the past three years can only conclude that we have worked hard to ensure that health services remain a priority. The Executive also want to ensure that health's priority status is reflected in the additional allocations that we have been making.

The draft Budget provides for a funding increase of almost 9% for the North/South Language Body, a body for which the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure is responsible.

I congratulate the Minister for putting his personal stamp on the evidence in the draft Budget.

In outlining allocations for the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, the Minister mentioned funding increases for the agriculture industry. What does the draft Budget deliver for farmers? Will he tell the House what is the total allocation to the vision programme?

The Executive are mindful of the pressures the farming community faces. Our response during the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak last year gave a clear indication of our determination to ensure that those pressures are dealt with effectively and adequately.

The draft Budget statement sets out the total allocation for the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development for the three years until the implementation of its vision programme. We begin with an allocation of at least £6 million this year, which will enable it to be launched. The vision programme will bring considerable hope for a more secure future to the agricultural and rural community. It will enable initiatives to be taken on diversification, and it will underpin a strategy that the entire sector has been anticipating and that will bring positive results. That is a further indication of the Executive's determination to address the needs of the farming and rural community as effectively as possible.

I have listened with interest to what the Minister has said. He proposes to increase the health budget by 28%, the education budget by 14%, the roads budget by 11%, and the OFMDFM budget by 53·3%.

One could be forgiven for thinking that there is a staff shortage there but press reports give a different impression. It is also disappointing that the Minister has made only slight reference to savings by asking Departments to save 1%. Does he accept that money which could be put into services such as hospitals or into roads or education is being squandered? Will he undertake to take a serious look at the problem and carve out the wastage that has been going on here for years? It is very disappointing to discover that Departments are going to be asked about the implications of a 1% reduction.

Will the Minister also explain why he felt compelled to advise of an increase for OFMDFM? He stated that

He continues:

Is the £9 million proposed in the Minister's statement included in the draft Budget?

With respect to the Member's points about OFMDFM, the proposals will provide for an increase of £5 million, or 14·5%, in the amount available during 2003-04 over the previous year, 2002-03. The proposals for 2003-04 will also provide £1 million to take forward the review of public administration - a short-term review, which is a new requirement. They will also provide £2·1 million for the office of the children's commissioner, which a significant majority of Members are anxious to see established, and £0·4 million to take forward the Executive's strategy for Europe. Members frequently ask that we intensify and develop our relationships with the EU. All of the additional provisions are legitimate and will fund the types of development that Members wish to see taking place.

With respect to Mr Morrow's remarks about squandering and wastage, the Executive and I, as Minister of Finance and Personnel, are anxious to have an effective and efficient Administration and to have our public service agreements delivered effectively and efficiently to meet the targets. I reject the suggestion that public money is being squandered or wasted. Perhaps the Member would bring examples of that to my attention.

I congratulate the Minister on his positive and comprehensive report. As my party's spokesperson on health matters, I would like to ask the Minister a question about the increase in the health budget. He, like his predecessor, has allocated extra resources to the health budget, and details of the total increase to the budget since devolution were given in answer to a previous question. What would that increase have been had he simply allocated the money according to the Barnett formula?

Based on a simple read across, the Barnett increase would have provided no more than a 9% increase. As I said in response to several questions, the actual increase will be 13% or more, so we are clearly making determined efforts to put into effect our words about health being a priority.

I particularly welcome the announcement that £34·8 million will be made available over the next three years for the improvement of school standards. What will that mean for the one in four of the population who, in the past, were denied the basic right to literacy and numeracy?

I recognise the concern that the Member frequently raises with regard to those with poor literacy and numeracy skills. If the Member examines the proposed allocations to essential skills programmes, he will see that strenuous efforts are being made to ensure the implementation of the strategy that Minister Hanna is developing in the Department for Employment and Learning. That strategy will be linked to initiatives being taken by the Department of Education to improve school standards.

Notwithstanding falling numbers of schoolchildren, the allocations to the Department of Education in particular will enable us to implement initiatives for the curriculum, and to ensure that efforts to improve standards continue and will be enhanced. When those are combined with Minister Hanna's initiative on essential skills, we will have a set of programmes that should ensure that we effectively address the scourge of low levels of literacy and numeracy, which is a real barrier to the realisation of potential and the achievement of career goals.

How will students' prospects be improved by the Budget? Will the Minister commit himself to continued support for students who wish to make progress in further and higher education?

When I had responsibility for further and higher education and training, I was anxious to ensure that access would be enhanced, and that students from low-income backgrounds in particular would receive the maximum support. The student finance initiative that was undertaken two years ago bore its first fruits last year for students in further education, with the introduction of grants and bursaries for students at that level. That was followed this year with the introduction of similar grants for students in higher education. We did not stop there. We have continued to develop the support provided for such students, and we are now in a position to raise the threshold below which grants will be payable from £15,000 to £20,000 residual income, and to raise the level of grant assistance from £1,500 to a maximum of £2,000.

Across the community, parents, students and aspiring students of our further and higher education institutions will see that as a major step forward, and as a clear indication that the Executive want to make further and higher education opportunities available to all who have the ability and wish to avail themselves of those opportunities.

My Colleague Carmel Hanna, like other Ministers, will make further announcements on the allocations to the Departments over the coming days.

TOP

Point of Order: Ministerial Statements

Mr Speaker:

It has been drawn to my attention that Mr McCartney raised a point of order as to whether ministerial statements may diverge from the published statement that is provided for Members in advance of the statement being made. Standing Order 18(1), of course, indicates that, where possible, a Minister shall make a written copy of the statement available as early as possible. But given that Ministers do, and I have to say in the majority of cases I think Ministers do try to ensure that statements are available as early as possible (they are not personal statements which do have to be cleared by the Speaker), it is not surprising, perhaps, that on occasion - and it does not happen very often - a matter may arise between the point when the statement is made available to Members and the point when it is actually being delivered, where the Minister may have something additional to add, or indeed to change, which may be in the interests of accuracy and of the Assembly. However, that being the case, I suggest to Ministers that it might be useful if, for all statements, there was the advice to "check against delivery". There would then be no misunderstanding on that point. I hope that addresses the Member's concerns.

TOP

Children (Leaving Care) Bill: Further Consideration Stage

Mr Speaker:

No amendments to the Bill have been tabled. The Further Consideration Stage of the Children (Leaving Care) Bill is, therefore, concluded. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

TOP

State Pension Credit Bill: Further Consideration Stage

Mr Speaker:

No amendments to the Bill have been tabled. The Further Consideration Stage of the State Pension Credit Bill is, therefore, concluded. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

TOP

Draft Programme for Government

Madam Deputy Speaker:

It may be useful if I outline how I intend to facilitate the debate on the draft Programme for Government. The Business Committee has agreed that four and a half hours should be set aside for the debate. During the debate, I will see the number of Members who wish to speak, and I will then determine if a time limit is to be placed on the speeches.

I beg to move

We presented the draft Programme for Government formally to the Assembly yesterday. It sets out the Executive's plans and priorities for next year and beyond. It is supported by the draft Budget, which the Minister of Finance and Personnel presented to the Assembly this morning. I am pleased that the Assembly has an early opportunity to debate the content of the Executive's draft programme. It is important to have this debate before the detailed work of scrutinising the document begins in the various Committees. I want to underline the importance that the Executive attach to this period of discussion and scrutiny on both the draft Programme for Government and the draft Budget. I will return to that theme shortly.

The Programme for Government is the most significant document produced each year by the Executive. Developing an agreed programme, and an agreed Budget that supports it, is a commitment that we made under the Good Friday Agreement. However, our commitment went further than simply producing a document. Those of us who signed up to the agreement also agreed that it needed to be subject to the Assembly's approval on a cross-community basis after scrutiny in Committees. It is partly for that reason that the document is as comprehensive as it is. It would not be right to expect the Assembly to approve the Executive's work programme without an appropriate level of detail to enable it to give that approval.

We wanted the Programme for Government to be both ambitious and achievable. For that purpose, we have worked to ensure that it reflects the key challenges that must be tackled and the backdrop against which our work will take place. Members will notice that for the first time the document includes a detailed commentary on the economic, social and environmental context. The proposals in the document have been developed and will be implemented in that context.

We have worked to ensure that the document also reflects the suggestions made in response to the Executive's position report on developing the Programme for Government and the Budget. We were grateful to those Committees and others who took time to respond with their views. Working within limited resources, it is never possible to do everything that we would like to do or that others would like us to do. We have not, therefore, been able to reflect in this draft every single suggestion that was made.

That said, we have tried wherever possible to take on board comments made and points raised. We will also be working over the coming weeks to incorporate further suggestions as we finalise the document and the Budget to support it. For example, we have noted the strong support for the five priorities that the Executive identify in their Programme for Government. We also believe that these priorities remain both relevant and important. We want to build on the progress that we have already made in each area. In this draft, we have, therefore, retained "Growing as a Community", "Working for a Healthier People", "Investing in Education and Skills", "Securing a Competitive Economy" and "Developing Relations - North/South, East/West and Internationally" as priorities. We also recognise that those priorities do not stand in isolation from one another. Our work to tackle social division is a key requirement if we are to create the basis for a competitive economy. Economic prosperity fairly shared is a key requirement if we are to heal many of the social problems that we face, including our poor health status.

Education and training are central to economic progress and to unlocking opportunities for individuals. The draft Budget increases health expenditure by 13·6% to more than £3 billion a year, which reflects the Executive's ongoing commitment to the Health Service. The Department of Education is to be given additional support to enhance schools' capacity to further improve pupil performance and to revise the curriculum.

The Department for Employment and Learning's budget has been increased to enable it to maintain and expand its commitment to higher and further education to ensure that, for the large part, employment programmes will be obtained. The Executive have made additional allocations from the Executive programme funds to provide improved student support arrangements and to widen access to third-level education for students from low-income families, through changes to income thresholds and increased grants. The threshold will be raised from £15,000 to £20,000, which will ensure that more than 3,000 additional students will qualify for support, and student grants will be increased from £1,500 to £2,000. We are building on the Executive's progress of several years ago, as we said we would, without recourse to a graduate tax that many others advocated.

Proposed allocations to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development include resources from the service modernisation Executive programme fund to implement the vision report. Six million pounds have been set aside for that purpose in 2003-04, and funding will increase to £18·3 million in 2005-06.

The Executive are providing for the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure to implement its sports strategy. In addition, we have devised a radical new approach to ensure that Invest Northern Ireland has the resources to encourage and support industrial development.

The retention of our five priorities provides an opportunity for continuity and stability. However, we also want change. The draft programme makes clear the Executive's desire to tackle underinvestment in our infrastructure and to reform public service delivery. Reinvestment and reform are core elements that must drive our work on all five priorities.

Reform is a watchword of our programme. We will be working constantly to improve the efficiency of service delivery to ensure that every penny of resources is targeted at where it is needed most, and where it can do most good. We will be challenging all Departments to make real and substantial improvements in service delivery. The reinvestment and reform initiative, which the First Minister and I negotiated, provides us with a unique opportunity to address the chronic underinvestment in our infrastructure. The £270 million that the Executive allocated initially for projects will make a valuable start to vital upgrades of hospitals, schools, transport and water and sewerage systems.

We want to ensure a stronger focus on tackling poverty and social exclusion, promoting sustainable development and building stronger partnerships. The draft programme sets out our thinking on each of those areas. We restate our commitment to open and accountable government. The draft programme contains more than 170 specific commitments that complement those made in our first two programmes. We will come back to the Assembly every year, as we did in July, to report publicly on progress in delivering those commitments.

We have included in the document draft public service agreements for each Department that contain many more specific targets. Again, we will report on the progress of those. We shall ensure that each Department has a service delivery agreement detailing the work to be done to progress the Programme for Government and to meet the public service agreement targets. Those documents will be available in draft form for scrutiny by Committees later this year.

We recognise the challenge of promoting good relations. Members also recognise that challenge, as they made clear in their responses to yesterday's statement. The document sets out our intention to introduce a new policy and strategy on good relations. It will include a focus on targeted action at local level in areas with acute community difficulties. We recognise the importance of local solutions and stand ready to support communities. It is not enough to tell people to sort out their own problems, especially in the most disadvantaged and divided communities.

We must show leadership, and work in partnership. We must harness our combined resources at community level, in local government, in the Executive and in the Assembly. In particular, we must develop the capacity of communities and support them in dealing with dispute and division, including sectarian graffiti, unauthorised flag flying and the erection of memorials, which can lead to local tension. Our responsibility to promote good relations extends to every priority and the work of every Department. We want to progress in a co-ordinated and cross-cutting way, ensuring that such a key challenge is integrated throughout our activities.

Our work to promote equality of opportunity and human rights can contribute to improving relations in and between communities. We recognise that housing and urban regeneration have a part to play, especially in key interface areas. We have identified as a specific sub-priority the need to promote an education and training system that recognises diversity and promotes tolerance. From next year, we shall phase in a new citizenship programme for post-primary schools, and we will support the expected continuing growth in demand for integrated education. Other policy areas, such as economic development and transport, can also contribute by providing opportunities for people to work and live together.

I know that the Assembly takes seriously its scrutiny of the Executive's policies. I stress that this is a draft document. It sets out the Executive's priorities and commitments for the years ahead, but it recognises that we do not have the monopoly on wisdom. We want to work with Members to improve it before we bring it back for final approval in December. If we are to do that successfully, the document must be discussed, debated and, as necessary, challenged in the Chamber and more widely. Today's debate marks the beginning of that process, and we look forward to hearing the responses.

Committees will have an important role in the coming weeks in scrutinising the proposals relating to their respective Departments, and the accompanying draft public service agreements. That twin-track approach should ensure that all Members will have an opportunity to express their views.

We must ensure that our social partners and other interested parties have an opportunity to play their part in improving the document. The draft Programme for Government makes clear our intention to build stronger partnerships. That work must begin immediately. For that reason, we shall be consulting the Civic Forum, local authorities, our social partners in business, the trade unions and the voluntary and community sectors, and other interested bodies. We want to hear their views on the draft document's proposals and its equality aspects. We shall be consulting widely and jointly over the coming weeks, asking people to consider the draft Programme for Government and the draft Budget together. We believe that that approach makes sense.

The draft Programme for Government and the draft Budget that supports it were agreed by all parties in the Executive. There have been hard choices to make, but throughout the process all Ministers have shown a strong commitment to making the budgetary and planning processes work. It is a testament to the Ministers in the Executive and a demonstration that devolution under the Good Friday Agreement works and should be allowed to continue to work. Members should not allow events, and interpretations made, over the past few days to cloud the reality of the democratic dividend that devolution has delivered and will continue to deliver.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>