| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
11.22 pm
Mr. Peter Robinson (Belfast, East): We have hadan interesting debate. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) was chasing heavenly bodies around the firmament. The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) wanted to improve the road to Dublin. I am glad that I have a new friend and colleague, sitting on the Government Benches, who supports the introduction of more training schemes, particularly for shipyard workers. I have long campaigned for that cause and have been in touch with Ministers from this Government and previous Governments many times. A lot of work could be done, particularly on welding, because much of the work with oil rigs at Harland and Wolff requires a higher spec of welding. A training scheme in Northern Ireland would allow many local people to use welding skills in Harland and Wolff rather than bringing in workers from outside. The use of subcontractors has been a source of discontent in the shipyard for a long time.
I declare my registered interest as a shareholder of Harland and Wolff, although I assure the House that it is a modest shareholding. I should like to make some comments about the Belfast port. As a major land user in the port, Harland and Wolff has an interest. However, I shall speak against my recorded interest, because my position would not be to the benefit of any shareholding in Harland and Wolff. The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and I jointly proposed a motion in the new Northern Ireland Assembly to set up an ad hoc Committee to look at the future of the Belfast port. We had an undertaking on record from the Government that they would leave it to the Assembly to decide the future of the Belfast port. I always thought that it was slightly mischievous of the Government to say that they would leave the future of the port to the Assembly and then put into their estimates for the year £70 million contingent on the sale of it. However, perhaps that allowed the Assembly to decide which way it would cut the port's throat.
The Assembly Committee that is dealing with the matter has been working diligently and has spoken to all the interests. I do not believe that I am telling tales out of
school in saying that there is a clear impression among those who know of its work that it is not as Thatcherite as the Government about the future of Belfast port. Indeed, it would probably take the view that Labour took in opposition about the privatisation of Belfast port. I remember standing shoulder to shoulder with the then Opposition on this issue, in line with the trade unions, which recognised that certain functions made Belfast port a very bad candidate for privatisation.
A few days ago, the Committee met Lord Dubs, who expanded on what the Minister said tonight and said that in the absence of the £70 million from the sale of the port, they were looking where to cut back in other areas. I am sure it is only a coincidence that the cuts suggested just happened to affect each member of the Committee. No doubt they will not take anything that he said into consideration in dealing with the principles involved.
As was said earlier, the sale of Belfast port would probably raise considerably more than the £70 million mentioned in the estimates for this year. I rather suspect that the Government intend to pocket anything beyond the £70 million and put it back into the Exchequer.
Rev. Martin Smyth:
Does the hon. Gentleman suspect that the person who miscalculated the amount required for the Assembly might have been the mathematician who divided the development land from the harbour land and took some land that was not really development land?
Mr. Robinson:
Perhaps it was the same person who worked out the amount required for the Assembly in the rest of the financial year. We will come to that in a moment.
I believe that it is possible to gain something in the region of £70 million by privatising the port functions of Belfast port without taking away any of the land involved. The Committee will no doubt consider that. It would be far better, not least because if we can get £70 million and hold on to the land with the Exchequer getting nothing back, it is a much better deal than handing it back to the Government. We could put that gain in our treasure chest.
I am concerned that the Minister is getting bullish on Belfast port. One might almost say that there is intimidation because pressure is being applied to Assembly Members in respect of the consequences of their not taking such action. I hope that he will be able to assure us in his reply that the clear public commitment given to the Assembly that this task would be left to it is still the Government's policy and that they will not seek to sell the port off behind its back without reference to the Committee's views as expressed in its report.
Before I turn to the Assembly's budget, I see that the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland--who is responsible for education in Northern Ireland--is on the Front Bench and clearly intends to reply to the debate. I take this opportunity to remind him of the great needs of Cregagh primary school. The Minister was good enough to see for himself the state of its buildings. Local people were impressed by his knowledge of, and interest in, the matter--he expressed his understanding and recognised the needs at that school. Feasibility and other studies have been conducted, but the matter appears to be dragging on. While we do not doubt what the end result
will be, we fear that the issue will drift on for another year. The school has been blighted, and we must have a clear statement from the Minister at the earliest possible moment that the school will be rebuilt, and will therefore survive. I hope that he will make that statement before the Assembly assumes responsibility, as he has taken an interest in the matter thus far.
I want to make some substantive comments about an issue that has dominated not only many speeches this evening, but the debate in the other place a few days ago. Any argument for reform of the House of Lords was reinforced by the contributions to that debate, which were full of much ill-informed comment. Probably the best-informed speaker was Lord Molyneaux, who had clearly been briefed and who put the figures on the record. The result of that debate was, in many ways, most unfortunate. The debate was massively reported in the Belfast Telegraph, the main newspaper in Northern Ireland, and created much concern in the community and among the general public. It is important to set the record straight.
My view of the present process is different from that of most hon. Members. I opposed it before, during and after the referendum. Everyone knows where I am coming from on that issue. Therefore, they might take it better if I make it clear that I believe that the Assembly has been very badly treated on this issue. When asked to perform a task, the Assembly Commission must do so in the context of the existing structure. It did not invent the structure: it was not responsible for determining that there would be 108 Members, for instance.
I did not hear some of those who have complained about the cost agreeing with us when we said that the Assembly had far too many Members and was far too costly. When it was decided that there should be 10 Departments instead of the existing six, I did not hear any of them complain. They opted for the more costly option. Therefore, the Assembly Commission has costed a year of the fully functioning Assembly on the basis of the architectural drawings prepared and passed by the House and the other place. It therefore ill became Lord Fitt to speak in the manner that he did a few days ago. He said that the Assembly Commission's figure of £36 million had been produced with gay abandon; it had been pulled out of the air. The reality is that the most reckless statements were those that he made. He made remarks with no acknowledgement of the facts or of the details, but, having served in this House with the noble Lord when he was the Member of Parliament for Belfast West, that comes as no surprise.
The facts are that the Department of Finance and Personnel produced a figure of about £14 million; and the Assembly's shadow Commission produced an estimate of £36.9 million, but they were pricing for completely different items. The Department of Finance and Personnel was pricing for a version of the old forum, whereas the Assembly's Commission was pricing a fully functional, full-steam-ahead, legislative and administrative Assembly. There is a world of difference between the two. That is clear and it was immediately clear to the Assembly Commission.
Far from pulling figures out of the air, recklessly or with gay abandon, the members of the Commission took the task so seriously that they met officials of this House, who were most helpful in relation to the staffing that would be required in the Assembly. We spoke to the Stationery Office about the likely costs for printing. We
spoke to the Scottish consultative body about its estimate of costs. The costs prepared for the Northern Ireland Assembly are less per capita than for Scotland, for this House and, indeed, for Dail Eireann.
I should explain that I mean "per capita" in terms of the number of Members of the Assembly--not of the population. An Assembly to look after 2 million people will cost the same as one that looks after 10 million, if it has the same number of Members and functions in the same way. The Northern Ireland Assembly was set up with 108 Members by the Labour Government, although half that number would suffice. Indeed, the Members sit in a Chamber that originally held 52 Members. The old Northern Ireland Parliament functioned perfectly well with 52 Members. The pudding is being over-egged in order to bring certain interests into the Assembly--namely paramilitary interests.
The Assembly is cost-effective when compared to this House, to Scotland and to Dail Eireann--although I should not automatically choose to make the latter comparison. The amount of £14.3 million proposed by the Government does not take several factors into account. First, some costs have been underestimated, one of which is the stationery bill. The cost allocated for publications and printing was a few hundred thousand pounds. The Government obviously did not realise that a fully functioning Assembly will have to print Bills and a report of its proceedings. There will be Committees, which will have reports. There will be notice papers, business papers and so on. The eventual bill will be about £3 million, rather than £200,000 or £300,000. Several costs were underestimated.
Some matters were completely omitted from the costs. In several areas, set-up costs--where the transitional programme or training kicks in--which would of course be non-recurring, must be taken into account. There are a number of areas in which there are transferred costs, too. The Department of the Environment, for instance, is currently responsible for funding the repairs and maintenance of the Parliament buildings. After devolution, that responsibility will be transferred to the Assembly Commission.
The present figure that the shadow Assembly Commission is running to is in the region of £26 million. The only difference between the £26 million that it is now considering and the previous £36.9 million is the length of time of full devolution during the financial year. The base figure is still the same, but the amount that will be required, should devolution occur on 1 July, is in the region of £26 million. I am glad that the Minister has to some extent recognised that tonight.
I think that the Government have been involved in a little sharp practice on this issue. As one who is involved in preparing estimates for several different bodies, I know that one looks to the year ahead and decides what provision is required. On occasions, one must recognise that the money might not be spent. A head of expenditure is included if one thinks that it is probable that it will be spent. If it is not spent, the money can either be released for other purposes or put into the reserves. One has such an opportunity later in the year.
Either the Government do not believe that devolution will occur--they have no faith in their own policy of devolving powers to Northern Ireland--and thereforeare allocating only £14 million ticking-over money,
or Ministers are saying to themselves, "Why should we get our hands dirty in taking money away from education, the environment, some of the very important job-creation schemes, agriculture or housing projects? We'll leave that to the people who come behind us. We will put the low figure in for the Assembly costs, knowing full well that it is not sufficient, and let those fellows after us come in and take money away from various heads of expenditure." That is the job that has been left to a Northern Ireland Minister of Finance should devolution occur.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |