| Previous Section | Home Page |
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the Charities Bill [Lords] , the Clean Air Bill [Lords] and the Radioactive Substances Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.
Question agreed to.
Column 283
Orders of the Day
Charities Bill [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
10.18 pm
Mr. John Fraser (Norwood) : I congratulate those who are responsible for consolidating legislation because it makes things so much easier for non-lawyers who must deal with charities. It is unfortunate that we will have a Charities Act 1992 and a Charities Act 1993, whose titles are obviously indistinguishable. Given that the Bill deals largely with incorporated charities, while the remit of 1992 Act is more general, it is pity that no distinction will be made between the titles of the respective Acts.
The Solicitor-General (Sir Derek Spencer) : If the hon. Gentleman looks at the statute book, he will find other examples of statutes with similar titles. I do not believe that that source is likely to mislead those who will have to refer to those Acts.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. [Mr. Greg Knight.]
Bill immediately considered in Committee ; reported, without amendment ; read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.
Column 284
Clean Air Bill [Lords]Read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. [Mr. Greg Knight.]
Bill immediately considered in Committee ; reported, without amendment ; read the Third time, and passed, without amendment. Radioactive Substances Bill [Lords]
Read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. [Mr. Greg Knight.]
Bill immediately considered in Committee ; reported, without amendment ; read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.
Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Considering that we have whipped through all stages of three Bills in about three minutes-- [Interruption.] --and while I have no doubt that hon. Members do not object to that, I suggest that it might be an idea for you or the Committee of Procedure to look at the wording used by the Whip as he introduces the various stages of Bills. I say that because it is a bit of a fallacy to say that the Committee told him to do anything, just as it is a fallacy to say that the Committee went through the Bill. By all means have a fast procedure for dealing with these matters, but letout for many years and that it is quite in order.
Column 285
Financial Provisions (Northern Ireland)
10.24 pm
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Mates) : I beg to move,
That the draft Financial Provisions (Northern Ireland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 11th February, be approved. The present order is the latest in a series of such orders required at invervals of every two to three years. The latest such order was passed in 1991. The main purpose of these orders is to adjust, as necessary, certain statutory financial limits and to deal with other routine financial matters including the simplification and rationalisation of accounting procedures. I will describe briefly the purpose of the various articles in the order.
Articles 3 to 11 together provide enabling powers for the establishment and management of trading funds in Northern Ireland. To a large extent, those articles simply replicate the corresponding Great Britain legislation, which is the Government Trading Funds Act 1973 as amended by the Government Trading Act 1990. They extend the reforms introduced some years ago in civil service financial management, as well as the next steps initiative which created the first executive agencies.
Mr. Roy Beggs (Antrim, East) : Can the Minister tell the House whether the provisions in the order cover the situation which arose as a result of the fraud perpetrated on many investors in Northern Ireland, in Great Britain and, indeed, in the Irish Republic by a company known as International Investments Limited (Gibraltar)? For the last 10 years efforts have been made to have the matter resolved, but as yet no satisfactory conclusion has been reached. Many of my constituents, now pensioners, had been depending on their investment in the company, which is now in liquidation, to provide income for their retirement. Their experience has been replicated throughout the United Kingdom and in the Irish Republic. Will the order in any way help those investors--
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse) : Order. It is a very long intervention.
Mr. Mates : I am fairly sure that the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is no. However, if I get better information, I undertake to speak again on the matter when, with the leave of the House, I hope to reply to the debate.
Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann) rose --
Mr. Mates : I have not said anything yet.
Mr. Trimble : May I take the Minister back to something that he said in his opening sentences? He said that the order is reproducing for Northern Ireland legislation enacted for Great Britain in 1973 and amended in 1990. As 1990 is the date for the Great Britain legislation, why has it taken three years to produce a Northern Ireland equivalent which runs merely to 10 pages of drafting?
Mr. Mates : The hon. Gentleman bangs a familiar drum. There are advantages and disadvantages in the system which we have inherited as a result of direct rule. Sometimes we consider what happens in Great Britain and learn good lessons from it. Sometimes we want to replicate precisely what has happened in the rest of the United
Column 286
Kingdom and sometimes we do not. I make no apology ; the system which my colleageus and I have inherited brings the order before the House.Mr. Trimble rose --
Mr. Mates : I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman
Mr. Trimble : The Minister has not answered my intervention.
Mr. Mates : I have indeed. I have told the hon. Gentleman that the reason is the legislative system with which we live.
Article 3 provides the general power, already available in the rest of the United Kingdom, to establish a trading fund where its revenue would consist principally of receipts in respect of goods and services provided and where it would lead to improved management efficiency and effectiveness. Candidates for trading fund status would be considered on a case-by-case basis if and when they arose. Article 4 deals with how the originating debt of a trading fund is to be determined and the circumstances in which this originating debt may be varied to take account of subsequent changes in the assets and liabilities of the fund.
Article 5 deals with the issue and repayment of public dividend capital and article 6 with borrowing by funds. In particular, article 6 allows funds to borrow from votes as an alternative to borrowing from the Northern Ireland consolidated fund. It is expected that the majority of borrowing by trading funds will be from votes. Article 7 describes how the income and expenditure arising from the routine activities of a fund should be treated and provides for a trading fund to reimburse the consolidated fund in respect of accruing liabilities for employees' pensions, and so on.
Article 8 requires that a trading fund should be entirely self-financing and provides for the handling of temporary surpluses. It also describes the accounting and auditing arrangements to be put in place and contains an important provision relating to the production and publication of annual reports.
Article 9 deals with the winding-up of funds and the distribution of the assets and liabilities. I should make it clear that the article refers only to cases where a fund's activities are to cease altogether. Examples would be where two funds are merged, or where it is decided that the activities of a fund would be better financed by other means within the public sector. There is no intention to deal here with privatisation candidates. Such cases would, in every instance, be pursued by quite separate legislative measures. Article 10 and 11 deal largely with minor consequential matters. Article 12 deals with a separate matter which may conveniently be associated with the previous articles. It extends section 22 of the Exchequer and Audit (Northern Ireland) Act 1921 to give the Department of Finance and Personnel powers to require any agency to produce commercial- style accounts, including balance sheets. The aim is to ensure that agencies that are not trading funds would supplement the appropriation accounts by producing commercial-type accounts on an accruals basis and, by so doing, increase the information available to the
Column 287
House and the general public. The measure will bring the position in Northern Ireland into line with that in the rest of the United Kingdom.Article 13 would enable the Northern Ireland Comptroller and Auditor- General, in his corporate capacity, to purchase property leasehold. The only effect of that provision will be to place the Northern Ireland Comptroller and Auditor-General in the same position as his counterpart in Great Britain, who already has such a power. The intention is for the Northern Ireland Audit Office, in keeping with its independent status, to move from its present location in a Government building to its own office accommodation.
Article 14 amends article 3 of the Financial Provisions (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 by raising the statutory limit on the net amount which the consolidated fund may lend to the Housing Executive to finance its capital programme.
Article 15 provides that fees paid to the Registrar of Companies in respect of his function under the various companies orders should be paid into the consolidated fund. At present, the Department of Finance and Personnel must direct how those fees are to be handled. Recent legal advice suggests that the legislation, as presently drafted, could prevent the Registrar of Companies from recovering the full cost of his services for which he levies fees or charges. The amendment will remove that difficulty and simplify procedures generally.
I commend the order to the House.
10.33 pm
Mr. Roger Stott (Wigan) : I shall endeavour to ensure that we treat the order almost as quickly as we treated the previous measures, but it is important that we give hon. Members from Northern Ireland an opportunity to examine the Minister's remarks.
As the Minister of State has just said, the order is primarily technical and provides for routine financial and administrative matters within all-- and I stress that word--Departments of the Northern Ireland Office. Remembering the late hour of yesterday's debates, I have no doubt that hon. Members will be relieved to learn that I do not intend to speak for long. However, I should like to take the opportunity to draw to the Minister's attention some of my concerns about the various Departments in Northern Ireland and the way in which the Minister and his colleagues are going about their business.
The Minister will be aware that, despite just having embarked upon a new financial year, Northern Ireland still faces some regrettably familiar problems. Unemployment continues to rise and, judging by the most recent provisional figures, Northern Ireland's gross domestic product continues to fall. Those harsh facts, when translated into equally stark figures, mean that the Province suffers a jobless total representing 14.5 per cent. of the work force and a decline in GDP in real terms of 2.5 per cent. during 1991.
Mr. Irvine Patnick (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury) : That is not in order.
Mr. Stott : The Whip tells me that this is not in order, but I shall wait for the Chair to tell me that it is not in order.
Column 288
Mr. Deputy Speaker : The Chair will tell the hon. Gentleman that he is going very wide of the order.
Mr. Stott : I accept that my initial remarks allude to the problems that face the Department of Employment in Northern Ireland. That Department has a problem in the ongoing and continuing rise in unemployment.
However, article 3 provides for a trading fund to be established. The Government's explanatory document, which the Minister kindly sent me, says :
"where a trading fund operation would lead to improved efficiency".
I and my hon. Friends agree with the phraseology, and I am sure that the Minister will agree that we have actively demonstrated our commitment to improved efficiency throughout Labour local government in England and Wales. However, as we know from example, the Government's interpretation of efficiency is at variance with that of the Opposition. The Government should not see any trading fund as a halfway house to privatisation. I was interested to hear the Minister say this evening that that was not the case. However, I confess that I am not convinced. I still believe that this may well be a stalking horse for further privatisation in Northern Ireland.
Improved efficiency means maintaining value for money and high quality service. I hope that the Minister can assure the House that any operations that are transferred to a trading fund will not merely result in corner cutting or a slapdash decline in the quality of the service that the Departments provide.
I am sure that when the Minister replies he will gladly read into the record what is contained in the explanatory document, which says that the order has
"no direct implications for public expenditure"--
that presumably means that there will be no cut in public expenditure--
"and will not cause any change in staff numbers."
I hope that the Minister will confirm that that means exactly what it says.
The order will impinge on a number of Departments in Northern Ireland, one of which is the Department of the Environment. There is great concern in Northern Ireland and among hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland about water privatisation. The Government have already started the water privatisation procedure, and I hope that the order is not a behind-the-door way of facilitating privatisation.
Mr. Beggs : I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that it would be appropriate for the Government to take account of the opposition of all Northern Ireland representatives elected to the House and to the European Parliament to any proposals to privatise Northern Ireland water and sewerage services.
Mr. Stott : Whenever the House debates narrow Northern Ireland orders, it is difficult to stay in order. That is because there is no primary legislation allowing myself or Northern Ireland Members an adequate opportunity to debate the principles behind such orders and to table amendments. Therefore, on occasions such as this, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we hope to enjoy your tolerance. I may be testing your tolerance to the extreme--
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. That may well be the case. Hon. Members must stick strictly to the order, which
Column 289
ns the establishment of trading funds in Northern Ireland. I do not know what that has to do with water privatisation. Mr. Stott : Trading funds have been established on the mainland since 1974. They cover a multitude of activities. The trading funds established by the order cover every Department in Northern Ireland. They include the Department of the Environment, which is in charge of water services, ports and airports ; and the Department of Social Security, which is concerned with social security benefits. Therefore, there could be a small degree of elasticity in alluding to certain problems. I am not seeking to delay the debate, and I am desperately trying to keep within the rules of order. However, it is important to flag up certain issues that I and my hon. Friends feel are important.
Mr. Mates : Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman and the House. It was a little noisy at the start of this debate, as we had been proceeding at a fairly hectic pace. I will repeat more slowly my opening remarks. It is not the intention to deal in the order with any privatisation candidates. Such cases will in every instance be pursued by separate legislative measures. If there are to be any privatisation candidates, there will be an opportunity for full discussion of separate legislation. The order will not be used for that purpose.
Mr. Stott : The Minister has put that firmly on the record and in the public domain, and it will remain so for ever and a day. However, one thinks of other statements, not necessarily in the House, such as that during the general election campaign, by no less a person than the Prime Minister, that there would be no increases in value added tax. As soon as the Prime Minister was elected, there was an increase--
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I insist that the hon. Gentleman confines his remarks to the scope of the order, of which he is fully aware.
Mr. Stott : I acknowledge your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and will endeavour to cease to cause you any further problems.
Mr. Beggs : The Minister did not spell out whether future legislation would come in the form of Bills or unamendable Orders in Council. I think that the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) will agree that that should have been dealt with, and that representatives of the Northern Ireland community should have been told clearly whether we could effectively amend proposed legislation affecting Northern Ireland.
Mr. Stott : I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I cannot recall his constituency--
Mr. Stott : Antrim, East : the hon. Gentleman represents the wonderful port of Larne. I hear what he says, but I am not speaking from the Government Dispatch Box.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock) : Your day will come.
Mr. Stott : Yes ; my reward may well be in heaven. However, I will leave the Minister to deal with the problem identified by the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr.
Column 290
Beggs), as he has offered us the opportunity of listening to his cast-iron guarantee that nothing in the order is a stalking horse for future privatisation measures.Provided that the Minister's response convinces me that there is no hidden agenda behind the establishment of trading funds, the Opposition will not oppose the motion.
10.46 pm
Mr. William Ross (Londonderry, East) : I apologise for arriving a little late ; because the business moved rather more quickly than I had expected, I missed the Minister's opening remarks. However, I have heard enough to realise that the Minister was entirely in order--although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) pointed out, we are very gratified that he touched the boundaries when he said that there would be proper discussion and proper legislative procedures in the future. We are also happy to have the support of Her Majesty's Opposition for Bills rather than Orders in Council.
The order raises a number of questions. I have listened to a number of debates on such orders over the years ; some have been purely technical, while others have ranged rather more widely. One thing that puzzles me is the fact that the last debate on an order of this kind, which took place on 14 March 1991, was in the Sixth Standing Committee ; the one before that, which took place on 22 May 1989, was held on the Floor of the House, as others have been. I should be grateful if the Minister would tell me what criterion dictates whether orders are taken here, late at night, or early in the morning. After all, they are all in the same class.
Is this a matter of convenience, or does it reflect the importance that the Government attach to such orders? The Minister points at the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) : perhaps he is responsible for the motion's being given the time of the House. We do not object to that, but consistency is always welcome.
Mr. Stott : Hon. Members will recall that, when we last debated the consolidation order, I pointed out that it was important for us to do so on the Floor of the House. The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) asked whether we would consider doing that more frequently ; I acquiesced.
Mr. Ross : I am very grateful to Her Majesty's Opposition : this is a happy move. I believe that more Northern Ireland business should be taken on the Floor of the House ; if that moves us on to proper legislation, so much the better. Every tottering millimetre in that direction is welcome to us.
The hon. Member for Wigan and the Minister will no doubt recall that the last order paved the way for water privatisation and showed that the Government hoped to have a Government-owned company to take over water and sewerage as from 1 October 1992. I shall return to that point at the end of my speech, but it is significant to note that that was a paving operation for water privatisation. Time has moved on, and we find that this order enables the establishment of trading funds in Northern Ireland.
I understand that the Minister drew the attention of the House to the remarkable fact that the order brings the law of Northern Ireland into line with the law of Great Britain. It is of some interest that in this respect the law of Great Britain, in its present form, had its beginnings in 1973, 20 years ago, after the passage of the Government Trading
Column 291
Funds Act. That Act was amended by the Government Trading Act 1990. It is evident, therefore, that there was some rethinking of the Government's policies, as embodied in the 1973 Act. I suspect that the developments in practice which flowed from the 1973 Act led to that rethinking.The order is a fairly surprising outcome for a Government who always told us that they were against quangos. Now we find that, as a result of those Acts, a number of new quangos and agencies have been created. In the 1970s and early 1980s we were told that the Government were against quangos and that they were all for folk taking on personal responsibility. There are few signs of Government Ministers accepting personal responsibility for what happened in the intervening years. A large number of agencies--108-- have been created. I believe that in what is now the United Kingdom legislation there is the possibility of four different agencies being created--those created with gross running costs control, those created with net running costs control, trading funds and Government-owned companies. I believe that the latter has not yet been used ; the Minister will no doubt correct me if I am wrong. However, as the hon. Member for Wigan and the Minister will probably recall, it was this fourth type of agency that was predicted for the first step of water privatisation in Northern Ireland.
I wonder whether it was possible to create a Government-owned company in Northern ireland without this legislation. If it was not, why is it now being brought into operation ? Like the hon. Member for Wigan, I always take ministerial statements with a fistful of salt. The hon. Gentleman mentioned VAT increases. The Government did not increase VAT. They simply extended its scope and base. They kept within the letter of the promises made. That, I suppose, is what Ministers pay high-quality civil servants for--to find ways round the promises that they make.
Of the 108 agencies that so far have been created, not so much in Great Britain as in the United Kingdom, there are seven which are Northern Ireland civil service agencies. They can be easily named. There may be a few that are not on my list, but they include the Compensation Agency, which is a Northern Ireland agency, the Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency, where there must be a Northern Ireland input, the Northern Ireland Child Support Agency, the Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland--which, I note, is a separate body from the Ordnance Survey for the rest of the United Kingdom --the Rate Collection Agency, which, the Opposition will notice, we still need, unlike the position in Great Britain, the Training and Employment Agency and the Valuation and Lands Agency. Those are all civil service organisations, not trading organisations in the real sense foreshadowed in the order.
There are also 12 trading funds, some of which must operate in Northern Ireland. For instance, there is the Medicines Control Agency, which I suppose must have a Northern Ireland input. There is the Land Registry, too. I am not sure whether that is the land registry for Northern Ireland or for the United Kingdom, and I should be grateful to be told. We also have Her Majesty's Stationery Office and various others--the Central Office of
Column 292
Information and so forth. I should be grateful if when the Minister winds up he would tell me which of those operate on a United Kingdom rather than a Great Britain basis.I have two basic objections to all those organisations. The first is that, whether or not the Government are willing to acknowledge the fact, by creating them they have admitted their own lack of ability to control the Government machine and to keep it efficient and clean. The second is that they put the Minister at arm's length in terms of accountability. I believe that "hiving off" is the term used in Government documents and statements.
When someone hives something off, it means that he is trying to get some distance away from it, so that he can say, "It is not really me at all ; it is the agency." I know that the Minister would respond to that idea by saying that at the end of the day Members of the House can demand an answer from a Minister. But there is not the direct accountability that we used to have. I regret that, because I believe that there should be direct accountability. If the Government cannot run a lean and efficient machine they certainly have no business telling other people that they should do so. Not only do the agencies mean arm's-length accountability, they are a demonstration that the Government do not really believe in their own capacity to do the job.
In the light of all that, can the Minister assure me that the order leaves Northern Ireland law exactly the same as Great Britain law? Or are there some differences left, and if so, what are they? We deserve an answer to those questions.
The Minister touched upon some of the matters that I wish to mention. I notice that under article 7 receipts and payments are not to be treated as part of public income and expenditure in Northern Ireland for the purposes of the Exchequer and Financial Provisions Act (Northern Ireland) 1950. Can we be told what the practical consequences of that change are? I am thinking of changes that may come about in the estimates and in the manner in which they are compiled and presented to the House. What difference will it all make to the appropriation orders and the debates on them? If it will make a difference, we need to know the details, so that we shall be prepared for the changes.
Article 14 increases the limit on outstanding issues from the Consolidated Fund to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. That is to be done because we are approaching the limit. Can we be told what the outstanding issue from the Consolidated Fund is now and when it is expected to be breached? The Minister will know that the Housing Executive is screaming its head off because it reckons that it will not get enough money over the next year or two, so perhaps in two, three or four years--perhaps in only one year ; no one really knows--we shall be confronted with another order to raise the limits. We need to know how long the Housing Executive is expected to exist --it might say "subsist"--on the sums against which it can now draw. Can the Minister give an undertaking that if its assertions that it is being treated harshly and is running out of cash are subsequently proved correct, more money will be made available by an immediate increase in the limits?
The rest of the order is fairly clear. I have no objection to the necessary changes. However, if we consider those changes over time we shall see a considerable shift in how the Northern Ireland government machine has worked
| Next Section
| Home Page |