The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Chairman:
Mr.
Martyn
Jones
Atkins,
Charlotte
(Staffordshire, Moorlands)
(Lab)
Bailey,
Mr. Adrian
(West Bromwich, West)
(Lab/Co-op)
Cooper,
Rosie
(West Lancashire)
(Lab)
Curtis-Thomas,
Mrs. Claire
(Crosby)
(Lab)
Dorrell,
Mr. Stephen
(Charnwood)
(Con)
Dorries,
Mrs. Nadine
(Mid-Bedfordshire)
(Con)
Eagle,
Maria
(Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern
Ireland)
Foster,
Mr. Michael
(Worcester)
(Lab)
Godsiff,
Mr. Roger
(Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath)
(Lab)
Hands,
Mr. Greg
(Hammersmith and Fulham)
(Con)
Jackson,
Mr. Stewart
(Peterborough)
(Con)
Lancaster,
Mr. Mark
(North-East Milton Keynes)
(Con)
McGrady,
Mr. Eddie
(South Down)
(SDLP)
Reid,
Mr. Alan
(Argyll and Bute)
(LD)
Robertson,
Mr. Laurence
(Tewkesbury)
(Con)
Simpson,
Alan
(Nottingham, South)
(Lab)
Singh,
Mr. Marsha
(Bradford, West)
(Lab)
Walley,
Joan
(Stoke-on-Trent, North)
(Lab)
Waltho,
Lynda
(Stourbridge)
(Lab)
Wareing,
Mr. Robert N.
(Liverpool, West Derby)
(Lab)
Wilson,
Sammy
(East Antrim)
(DUP)
Glenn
McKee, Committee
Clerk
attended the
Committee
The
following also attended, pursuant to Standing Order No.
118(2):
Wilson,
Mr. Rob
(Reading, East)
(Con)
Second
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Wednesday 6
June
2007
[Mr.
Martyn Jones
in the
Chair]
Draft North/South Co-operation (Implementation Bodies) (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 2007
2.30
pm
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Maria
Eagle):
I beg to
move,
That the
Committee has considered the draft North/South Co-operation
(Implementation Bodies) (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order
2007.
As far as I can
recall, I have not served under your chairmanship before,
Mr. Jones, but it is certainly a pleasure to do so. I hope
that you will not have to be too hard on any of us: this is quite a
technical order.
The purpose
of the order, which was laid before the House on 10 May and is made
under section 55 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, is to amend the
North/South Co-operation (Implementation Bodies) (Northern Ireland)
Order 1999. The draft order will give effect to an agreement between
the British and Irish Governments on the continuing role of the Special
EU Programmes Body, which is one of the six north-south implementation
bodies set up following the Belfast agreement in 1998, to promote
cross-border community co-operation, understanding and action between
peoples and organisations in Ireland and in Northern Ireland. It
manages the implementation of EU social, economic, reconciliation and
cultural programmes worth £608 million, or ƒ,ª889 million
if anyone prefers the euro figureI know that some members of
the Committee might
not.
The need for the
order can be traced back to a change in the regulations governing the
funding for EU programmes that occurred during the suspension of the
institutions. Funding for EU programmes and the regulations that govern
them are agreed in seven-year cycles, as many members of the Committee
will be aware. The new EU regulations for the cycle that began this
year contain some differences from regulations governing the previous
funding period. Those are differences in terminology, not in the aim of
the programmes.
Let me
make the situation absolutely clear. In previous funding rounds, the
references used in the old regulations were to Community initiatives
and Interreg schemes. That terminology will be familiar to hon. Members
who have taken an interest in such work. Under the new arrangements,
the terminology used instead is territorial co-operation
objective. We are here to ensure that it is clear that, when
the EU refers to a territorial co-operation objective, it is talking
about the funds that used to relate to Community initiatives and
Interreg schemes. If we pass the order, we will be ensuring that it is
clear that, when the Special EU Programmes Body is administering the
moneys
that it has for the next round in relation to territorial co-operation
objectives, they are in fact the old Interreg and peace funds. It is as
simple as
that.
During
the suspension of the institutions, the British and Irish Governments
acted to ensure that there would be no concern about the difference in
terminology, by reaching agreement on the continued role of the Special
EU Programmes Body in an exchange of letters. That agreement was
incorporated in domestic law by designating the exchange as a
Relevant agreement under paragraph 10(3) of the
schedule to the Northern Ireland Act 2000the Act that provided
for suspension. As hon. Members will be well aware, that Act has been
repealed and therefore the way in which this slight issue has been
dealt with previously by Governments has disappeared; hence the need
for the order.
The
order will not change any existing function of the Special EU
Programmes Body, nor will it add to or remove existing functions. Its
purpose is to ensure that the Special EU Programmes Body can simply
continue to perform the role that it is there to perform. The body does
important work in managing a number of cross-border community
initiatives, particularly the Interreg and peace programmes. It will
continue to do so under the new round of funding. The order will ensure
that the body can carry on that work without any question about its
capacity or vires to do so.
The Special EU Programmes Body
has fulfilled its role well throughout its existence. All key EU
regulatory and expenditure targets have been met, and evaluations show
that programme managers are meeting their objectives. Co-operation on
EU issues offers clear mutual benefits north and south, and we want the
role of the Special EU Programmes Body to be completely clear to
all.
The order has the
sole purpose of restoring the agreement between the two Governments and
ensuring that it will be in domestic law after being lost when the
Northern Ireland Act 2000 was repealed.
2.35
pm
Mr.
Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con): I welcome you to
the Committee, Mr. Jones; it is a pleasure to serve under
your chairmanship once again.
I am grateful to the
Minister for her explanation of the order and to her officials for
going through it with me this morning. As the Minister has said, the
order is extremely technical, and I am glad about that because it
brings in a couple of bodies that we are not always comfortable with:
the cross-border bodies of the European Union. As I understand it, the
order will ensure that we get at least some of our money back, and on
that basis, I have no problem with it. The order seems fairly
straightforward, and I can see nothing in it to which we should object,
so I will not detain the Committee any
longer.
2.36
pm
Mr.
Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD): It is a pleasure to
serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Jones.
As the
Minister has said, this is a technical order that will allow certain
interpretations of certain terms inthe agreement between the
two Governments on the establishment of north-south bodies to be
incorporated
into domestic law. It will also ensure that any successor to, equivalent
of, or substitute for initiatives that build on the substantive
objectives policy areas and activities covered by the community
initiatives established within the framework of the EUs
structural funds are considered in the same way.
I am certainly supportive of
the order, but I have one question for the Minister. She said that the
agreement was lost when the Northern Ireland Act 2000 was repealed and,
obviously, it will not be reinstated until the order is passed. Will
any problem arise because of the gap in the agreement being in
effect?
2.37
pm
Mr.
Eddie McGrady (South Down) (SDLP): It is pleasure,
Mr. Jones, to serve under your courteous and benign
discipline, which I hope will not be visited upon me
unnecessarily.
As the
Minister has said, this is a technical order that is not very exciting
or emotional. None the less, it covers an area that has some exciting
potential for development, as has already happened in the island of
Ireland as a whole, with co-operation between the north and south in
tourism, the infrastructure of roads, medicine, and energy. North-south
bodies are bringing a range of benefits to the whole island of
Ireland.
I am sure
that the Minister was as delighted as I wasas were the people
in the north of Irelandwhen last January, the Government of the
Republic of Ireland announced a national plan that included substantive
funding for cross-community projects. The Government of the Republic of
Ireland will make a substantive contribution to the plan, together with
the Northern Ireland devolved Administration and, presumably, with the
help of the Exchequer through that institution. It is yet to be seen
what the Exchequer will do in that respect. That is another stepping
stone for development.
As I said earlier, the new
regime has the potential to benefit the people of Northern Ireland
enormously. However, as well as the development offer that resulted
from negotiations with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the national
plan, we suggest that two further funds be set up: first, a strategic
capital fund to support infrastructure and capital spending across the
jurisdiction of dedicated contributions from north-south funding, to
take account of regional imbalances within the island of Ireland,
particularly Northern Ireland. The benefits flowing from that would be
excellent.
The second
fund that should be looked upon with favour is what I call a services,
community and enterprise fund for programmes and services, rather than
capital investment, which would help to counter the inevitable decline,
as European funding diminishes over the years. The joint funding of
north-south projects will be essential.
Thank you for allowing me to
address my brief comments to the Minister, Mr. Jones. I hope
that the aspirations that engendered the creation of the north-south
bodies and ministerial councils will bring to fruition welfare and
peace for the people of Northern Ireland, and the island as a whole,
and will create greater harmony and a better way of
life.
2.40
pm
Sammy
Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP): For the record, the Democratic
Unionist party opposedthe cross-border implementation bodies
set up under the Belfast agreement. We believed that, although it was
important to have co-operation between the two countries of the island,
such co-operation is not always best pursued through formal bodies,
which, first, were costlyI think that those costs are now
becoming quite apparentand secondly, engendered a degree of
suspicion because, of course, there were many less costly and less
formal, but equally effective ways in which to have co-operation
between the two countries on the island.
Now that the
Assembly at Stormont is functioning, our desire is that many of the
responsibilities of those bodies be returned to the control of Stormont
Ministers, who could then co-operate with their counterparts in the
Irish Republic, as happened under the Assembly, and which probably led
to more effective co-operation than that under the implementation
bodies. For many people, especially those in the Unionist community,
there is suspicion about the real reason for those bodies. Are they in
the interests of the people of Northern Ireland? Are they more
efficient? Do they drive programmes better than can two separate
Ministers, who might have a commitment to those programmes, or do they
have a political
agenda?
I
have one question about the order, which the Minister indicated is very
technical, but I am not sure whether it comes under the scope of the
order. It indicates that the terms of the 1999 agreement for setting up
the cross-border implementation bodies are being confirmed. However, an
anomaly has arisen concerning some of those bodies and the pay of their
employees, who all do the same work and are engaged in the same
activity. However, owing to differentials that have developed over a
number of years, civil servants from the Republic employed by
implementation bodies are paid different wages, mileage rates and
allowances from those employed in the Northern Ireland civil service.
In confirming the original terms of the agreement, does she accept
those pay differentials, even for those doing the same job and working
in the same organisation? That may well not come under the terms of the
order, but perhaps the Minister can confirm that.
My second point is that, if the
order is merely a tidying-up exercise and there is no intention to
increase the scope of the Special EU Programmes Body, I suppose that it
would not be unreasonable. However, I am a bit concerned. Can the
Minister confirm whether this is not really an attempt to increase the
scope? As has been pointed out by other hon. Members, it will encompass
substitutes for the current initiatives. It will also build on the
substantive objectives, priorities, policy areas and activities
covered. That seems to be more than what the Minister said. She said
that it will allow what is going on at present to continue, but it
seems to be more a building up and an advancement of what is there
currently.
The hon.
Member for South Down has eulogised the work of the implementation
bodieswith his political background, I would not expect him to
do otherwisebut there have been concerns about whether some of
the initiatives have been worth while and provided value for money. For
example, the social enterprise
initiatives have had problems. There seems to be no way under the terms
of the order to consider whether the initiatives that have been run
need to be continued or whether focus should be directed in some other
way. Must we continue with an initiative, just because it has been
running, without some objective assessment of whether it has provided
value for
money?
Although we
have concerns about some of the past initiatives, if the order simply
represents the regularising of something that already exists, it is
less threatening than something that is designed to expand some of the
initiatives and introduce new ones. I suspect that it may well be an
exercise in finding work for people in the bodies that have been set
up, regardless of whether there is still work for them to do. I hope
that it is the intentionit was included in the St. Andrews
agreementthat a hard look will taken at many of the
implementation bodies to see whether we get value for money and
whether, as a result of an economy exercise, the funds could be
directed in another way. That is work for a different place. I just ask
the Minister for some clarification on those points.
2.48
pm
Maria
Eagle:
We have had a short sharp debate. I shall do my
best to answer the points that have been raised by members of the
Committee.
I shall
start with the hon. Member for Tewkesbury, who did not really have any
points, for which I am grateful. It is probably the first and last time
that that will ever be the case.
The hon. Member for Argyll and
Bute, as usual, had read the order and asked a rather sharp question
about whether there was any problem now, given that we have had a gap
between when the 2000 Act was repealed and when the order will come
into force. I, too, asked that question of my officials. The answer is
that there is no problem, partly because this is very much a tidying up
and closing of what was potentially a very narrow loophole, but also
because the new EU programmes money is not yet being spent. So
the real problem that we could have faced, which we seek to close by
the use of the order, has not yet started to happen and would not do so
until the autumn of this year or perhaps when the programmes
money starts to be spent, either late this year, which is optimistic,
or early in 2008. So we are moving within the time scale to ensure that
there is no problem. I hope that that deals with the point made by the
hon. Gentleman.
I heard what
my hon. Friend the Member for South Down had to say about the work of
some of the bodies. I gently remind him that I am not negotiating with
the Chancellor about anything, or at least anything to do with my
ministerial jobwell, not really. Certainly, members of the new
Executive and Assembly are
negotiating with the Chancellor, and I am sure that they will hear what
my hon. Friend says about the importance of economic
development.
The hon.
Member for East Antrim, in addition to expressing his general
scepticism about some of the bodies that we are discussing, raised a
number of issues that also reflected a degree of suspicionhe
admitted to having that degree of suspicionabout the purpose of
some of the bodies. I remind him that the body is there solely to hand
out money. As the hon. Member for Tewkesbury put it, it will be giving
us back some of our money; that is one way of viewing it. Certainly,
the body is there to hand out money, which will be spent in
jurisdictions north and south, to achieve the objectives that are set
out by the programmersin this respect, the territorial
co-operation objective, to put it in that EU-speak that we all know and
love. It is there to administer a programme of handing out money to
meet some of those objectives. So, as these bodies go, I hope that it
is one that the hon. Member for East Antrim will be less suspicious of
than some of the others that he referred to.
The hon. Gentleman asked me a
number of questions, and I will try to deal with them. He asked whether
the order was an attempt to build up the bodys functions. No,
it is not. The order is simply a clarification, to ensure that the body
has the powers to hand out the next tranche of money in dealing with
such projects. The order will do no more than that. It is a simple
clarification of the bodys existing functions, to ensure that
there is no legal problem with the body exercising those
functions.
The hon.
Gentleman made reference to the pay of north-south bodies. Of course,
the north-south bodies, whether we like them or not, are now dealt with
by the North/South Ministerial Council, so the Assembly and the Irish
Government are handling their administration and the way that they
operate, and establishing their objectives. Many of the questions that
he raised are, in fact, matters for Ministers engaged in that council
to consider, so I will refrain from trying to give my view about what
the north-south bodies should or should not do, because it is none of
my concern anymorealthough, of course, it has been in the
past.
All I can do to
try to reassure the hon. Gentleman is to say that the order is simply
about ensuring that the Special EU Programmes Body is able to spend the
money that the Commission gives it to spend, in respect of improving
territorial co-operation between the north and south for its social
objectives. With that, I hope that I have answered the questions that
hon. Members have raised and that they will see fit to support the
order.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Resolved,
That
the Committee has considered the draft North/South Co-operation
(Implementation Bodies) (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order
2007.
Committee
rose at nine minutes to Three
oclock.