Mr.
Hanson: In terms of the devolved Administration, the
Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister has a great deal
of responsibility in that area. We are responsible, through my
Department, for the promotion of a shared future strategy, for the
racial equality strategy, and for a range of measures promoting
positive role models and positive engagement with communities that are
subject to racist attacks. In respect of the non-devolved side of my
responsibilities, as Minister with responsibility for criminal justice
in Northern Ireland, I take the lead role in promoting positive action
to help end race crime and hate crime in Northern
Ireland. As
I have mentioned, only yesterday I launched a new anti-race-hate pilot
in south Belfast and a new poster campaign that tackles hate based on
not just race, but disability and homophobic attitudes, as well as
discrimination against individuals from other communities in Northern
Ireland. The Government are tackling racial hatred on both sides in a
very strong way. I will not tolerate racist or homophobic crimes,
crimes against people who are disabled, or crimes based on aspects of
people’s lives that they cannot
change. Titanic
Quarter5.
Stephen
Pound (Ealing, North) (Lab): What steps he
is taking to support the development of the Titanic quarter in
Belfast.
[78459] The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David
Cairns): We are committed to the success of the Titanic
quarter development, although it is primarily a private sector venture.
To ensure that the Government’s role is properly co-ordinated, a
ministerial group has been established under my chairmanship, supported
by officials with responsibility for planning policy, heritage and
tourism matters. That is designed to ensure that the various policy
interests can be focused on the successful development of the Titanic
quarter
site.
Stephen
Pound: In thanking my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for
that, may I briefly record that although the House authorities normally
exceed perfection in their task, they have erred—even Jove
nods—and despite what it may say on the Order Paper, I am not,
and never have been, the Member of Parliament for Ealing Broadway,
which is an area well served by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing,
Southall (Mr. Khabra). I should like it recorded that I have absolutely
no territorial ambitions in the direction of my hon. Friend’s
constituency.
I thank the
Under-Secretary and his colleagues for the support that they gave
Belfast city council in the purchase of the SS Nomadic—the
tender of the Titanic—which was very well received. However, may
I ask him to bend his considerable talents to considering whether the
prospect of a light railway or tram system approximately 5 km in length
could be supported by the Government? That would not only serve the
Titanic quarter admirably, but would, for a cost of about £60
million, open up 1,600 acres, which could provide living space for
about 15,000 people and working space for 20,000. I do not ask him to
sign the cheque immediately; I merely ask him and his colleagues to
consider that exciting and innovative
proposal.
David
Cairns: In view of the debate that is to come, I think
that if I was about to sign a cheque, I might experience a left hook
from my hon. Friend the Minister of State. I will take the suggestion
under advisement. The next meeting of the ministerial group is on 17
July, and I shall make a site visit before then. I shall ask officials
to ensure that the project that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing,
North (Stephen Pound) mentions is put on the agenda for that
meeting. Lembit
Öpik (Montgomeryshire) (LD): Further to the inquiry
kicked off by the unsinkable hon. Member for Ealing,
North—
Stephen
Pound:
Unspeakable?
Lembit
Öpik: Unsinkable, not unspeakable. I stress to the
Under-Secretary the absolute importance of maintaining the character of
the Titanic quarter. It would be an act of utter folly to maintain the
name but lose the heritage, given that the history of the Titanic and
its construction in Belfast is one of the great potential tourist
attractions of that area. Can he give an assurance that his committee
will have full regard to the tourist opportunity and historical
importance of those elements of the neighbourhood that relate directly
to the construction and launch of the Titanic, including the
slipway?
David
Cairns: I think that I can give the hon. Gentleman the
assurance that he seeks. Obviously, the heritage aspect is vital, which
is why the name has been branded as widely as it has been, and
maintaining that heritage for its tourist potential is clearly the sine
qua
non of the entire project. However, we must not lose sight of the fact
that the site is derelict at the moment, so there will have to be some
development. We do not wish to preserve it in aspic; that would not do
at all. Tourism officials and heritage officials are involved in the
group, and the hon. Gentleman’s points, which he makes well,
will be borne in mind as we move
forward. Mr.
Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich, West) (Lab/Co-op): As one
who represents an area that also has considerable associations with the
Titanic, I feel that I should add my weight to the argument. Before
doing so, I remind hon. Members that the chain and anchor for the
Titanic was made at Netherton, less than two miles from my
constituency, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for
Stourbridge (Lynda Waltho). The glassware was made at Royal Stuart at
Brierley Hill, in the constituency of the Minister for Climate Change
and the Environment, and the bunk beds were made at Huntleigh Nesbit
Evans, which is in my constituency.
The Minister will be glad to
hear that I will not ask for funding for my constituency from his
Department. I merely want to emphasise the fact that the enduring
fascination with the history of the Titanic and the links it has
throughout the United Kingdom are such that everything should be done
to promote the Titanic quarter project. I hope that the Minister will
take my remarks on board and do his best to support the request that
has been made in this
Committee.
David
Cairns: It is sometimes said that success has many
parents, but failure is an orphan. The Titanic seems to one failure
that everyone is lining up to take the credit for. I am told, and this
may be a very old joke, that people are seen in Belfast wearing in
T-shirts saying, “Titanic: she was fine when she left
here”. That may explain the sense of
pride.
Coming from a shipbuilding
community myself, I know how the men, who were not particularly well
paid, took enormous pride in the fabulous ships that they created. They
were right to take pride in their workmanship. That will obviously have
to be part of the development. We do not want to lose sight of the
reason why the quarter is there in the first place and the heritage
aspects, but at the same time it has to be developed. It is pretty
derelict at the moment and it can be used to regenerate an important
area of east Belfast. However, I take on board—if the Committee
will pardon the pun—my hon. Friend’s
points.
Draft
Budget (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order
2006
4.17
pm
The
Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office(Mr. David
Hanson): I beg to
move, That the
Committee has considered the matter of the draft Budget (No. 2)
(Northern Ireland) Order
2006. I welcome you
formally to the Chair, Mr. Bayley. May I express my regret that members
of the Democratic Unionist party have chosen to absent themselves from
the Committee today? That is their decision and it is their democratic
right. They believe that this Committee should meet in Belfast as well
as in London. I respect that view. As I have mentioned, my right hon.
Friend the Leader of the House is attempting to facilitate that; if we
achieve consensus from all the parties in this House, it will happen in
due
course. I
fail to see how Members absenting themselves from the Committee can
ensure that on a major item such as the Budget the views of the
majority Unionist party in Northern Ireland are represented. I find
that disappointing. I will say no more, except that I hope that they
will reflect on their decision and see that they have a contribution to
make to the debate. They have points to put in this debate on behalf of
their community. I am sorry that they have chosen not to exercise that
right here
today. Lembit
Öpik (Montgomeryshire) (LD): I think that, within
the terms of the debate, it would be in order for me to highlight the
ongoing frustration of those of us who have been here many times that
there really is no consultation in any meaningful way, certainly with
the parties represented on the mainland of the UK. One of the
DUP’s problems is that it does not feel sufficiently consulted
as a Northern Ireland party too. Will we carry on doing this
indefinitely without consultation if the Assembly does not restart, or
will the Minister carry out the Government’s promise and start
creating a consultative process where we can amend those parts of the
Budget that we do not like, instead of having to accept the whole thing
or reject the whole
thing?
Mr.
Hanson: The hon. Gentleman and I have had this discussion
on a number of occasions. If DUP Members want to have consultation on
this Budget, the first thing they can do is get back into government on
the local Assembly. If they did I strongly believe that the First
Minister of the Assembly would be a member of the DUP. The Finance
Minister, whose role I am now fulfilling, could well be a member of the
DUP too. They would have every opportunity as elected politicians to
determine these matters, rather than having me, representing a seat in
north Wales, running the budgetary affairs of Northern Ireland on
behalf of this Government. DUP Members can have this debate in Stormont
the next time it takes place. The way to ensure that this debate
happens in Belfast is by getting the Assembly back into operation and
getting locally elected people back into those
positions. I find this
totally unsatisfactory. The debate on this Budget should take place in
Stormont with local people making their contributions on behalf of the
108 people elected to that Assembly. The Under-Secretary
of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (David
Cairns), and I agree on that. That is why we, in a separate role, are
trying to get the Assembly back up and running. I have every confidence
that we will do that. This debate takes place in the Grand Committee
only because the Assembly is suspended—it is not meeting. There
is no Executive. We are the Executive in its absence. Our prime
objective is to get that Executive back up and running. I would prefer
to have the Assembly and the Executive studying and debating the Budget
proposals before us today. All these estimates relate to devolved
matters, so it is a matter of regret that the Assembly will not take
part. I hope that it will be back up and running by 24 November. I hope
that the next debate on the Budget will take place in Parliament
Buildings at Stormont.
In the
meantime we have a job to do in this Committee. We have a job to do as
Ministers in this Government. That job is to ensure that we allocate
public expenditure to help to secure the Government’s objectives
of investment in public services and the reforms that we believe are
needed to help improve those services. The Budget before us is a
reflection of that. I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Government
to promote a positive Budget for Northern Ireland. It is consistent
with our strategic priorities for investment in public services as set
out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when he announced
the Government’s public expenditure plans and investment
strategy for Northern Ireland last
December.
Lady
Hermon (North Down) (UUP): Is the Budget consistent with
what the Secretary of State and others Ministers have been saying about
the Northern Ireland Assembly and its budget? According to the draft
order it currently stands at £22 million. Is that consistent
with the line taken by the Secretary of State that the lights will go
out on 24 November if a deal is not reached between the parties? Does
the Budget cover the entire period of the Assembly or is it budgeted
just down to 24
November?
Mr.
Hanson: The £22 million covers the cost of the
Assembly for the 12-month period. If the Assembly ends on 24 November
because it cannot be reconstituted, there would be a saving in terms of
salaries and expenses for December, January, February and March.
Indeed, although there are redundancy costs, they can be accommodated
within the entire Budget that is before the Committee
today.
Lady
Hermon: Would the Minister confirm that if that happened
and there was a substantial saving, it would be invested in priority
areas such as education and
health?
Mr.
Hanson: I hope that it does not happen, but if the
Assembly ceased on 24 November, there would be savings in salaries and
expenses. However, there would be a commensurate cost as a result of
redundancies among members of staff and others. I expect that the two
would more or less balance each other out. If there are resources left
over, obviously we will look to put them towards our priority areas of
education and health. If the Assembly collapses, which I fervently hope
it does not, I expect that it would be relatively
cost-neutral.
From my perspective, this Budget
puts in extra resources for health, education and the environment. At
the heart of our plans lies a strong commitment to improving the
quality of front-line public services for the people of Northern
Ireland, both now and in future, to make sure that they are equipped
with the education and skills that they need to meet the challenges
from the growing markets of India, China and the far east. We have to
make sure that we have a highly skilled, flexible work force for the
future. We have to
make sure that there is proper investment in public health services and
our environment. To do that, we are targeting resources on a number of
key public services—on investment in education, training and
infrastructure. That will be accompanied by a radical and wide-ranging
programme of public sector reform. These resources have a purpose; they
are to ensure that we invest in the future of people in Northern
Ireland while we have that responsibility, as the Executive is not
sitting. The health
service is the Government’s top priority. The Under-Secretary of
State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe
and Sale, East (Paul Goggins), who has responsibility for the health
service for the Assembly at the moment, has secured a considerable
increase in resources for the future, and will now work with that. The
Budget’s proposed allocation for health spending is an increase
of over 7.5 per cent. on last year’s allocation. Those
additional resources—subject to support for far-reaching reforms
on modernisation of the health service—will ensure further
improvements in waiting times for patients, for
example. I
do not wish to be confrontational, but that is occasionally demanded:
that 7.5 per cent. increase for the future is there because those extra
resources were voted for, in this year’s Budget, by my hon.
Friends the Members for Wansdyke (Dan Norris), for Ealing, North
(Stephen Pound), for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey), for Jarrow (Mr.
Hepburn), for Livingston (Mr. Devine), for West Lancashire (Rosie
Cooper) and for Stourbridge (Lynda Waltho), as well as the
Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the
Memberfor Inverclyde. The hon. Member for
Tewkesbury(Mr. Robertson) and his party voted against that
Budget.
Mr.
Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con): I just hope that
the people of Northern Ireland do not, as a result of the
Government’s policies, suffer the same health cuts that we are
suffering in Gloucestershire and the rest of England. I hope that the
Government make things a little better there than they are in my
constituency.
| 
