The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Chairman:
†
Dr.
William
McCrea
Anderson,
Mr. David
(Blaydon)
(Lab)
†
Bailey,
Mr. Adrian
(West Bromwich, West)
(Lab/Co-op)
Battle,
John
(Leeds, West)
(Lab)
†
Campbell,
Mr. Gregory
(East Londonderry)
(DUP)
†
Cooper,
Rosie
(West Lancashire)
(Lab)
Creagh,
Mary
(Wakefield)
(Lab)
Davies,
Mr. Quentin
(Grantham and Stamford)
(Con)
Devine,
Mr. Jim
(Livingston)
(Lab)
Dodds,
Mr. Nigel
(Belfast, North)
(DUP)
Donaldson,
Mr. Jeffrey M.
(Lagan Valley)
(DUP)
Durkan,
Mark
(Foyle)
(SDLP)
†
Foster,
Mr. Michael
(Worcester)
(Lab)
Harris,
Mr. Tom
(Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for
Transport)
Hepburn,
Mr. Stephen
(Jarrow)
(Lab)
†
Hermon,
Lady
(North Down)
(UUP)
Joyce,
Mr. Eric
(Falkirk)
(Lab)
†
Lancaster,
Mr. Mark
(North-East Milton Keynes)
(Con)
Lidington,
Mr. David
(Aylesbury)
(Con)
Mackay,
Mr. Andrew
(Bracknell)
(Con)
†
McDonnell,
Dr. Alasdair
(Belfast, South)
(SDLP)
McGrady,
Mr. Eddie
(South Down)
(SDLP)
†
Mulholland,
Greg
(Leeds, North-West)
(LD)
†
Norris,
Dan
(Wansdyke)
(Lab)
†
Öpik,
Lembit
(Montgomeryshire)
(LD)
Paisley,
Rev. Ian
(North Antrim)
(DUP)
†
Pound,
Stephen
(Ealing, North)
(Lab)
†
Reid,
Mr. Alan
(Argyll and Bute)
(LD)
†
Robertson,
Mr. Laurence
(Tewkesbury)
(Con)
†
Robinson,
Mrs. Iris
(Strangford)
(DUP)
Robinson,
Mr. Peter
(Belfast, East)
(DUP)
Rosindell,
Andrew
(Romford)
(Con)
†
Ruane,
Chris
(Vale of Clwyd)
(Lab)
Simpson,
David
(Upper Bann)
(DUP)
Wallace,
Mr. Ben
(Lancaster and Wyre)
(Con)
Walter,
Mr. Robert
(North Dorset)
(Con)
†
Waltho,
Lynda
(Stourbridge)
(Lab)
†
Wilson,
Sammy
(East Antrim)
(DUP)
Alan
Sandall, David Weir, Committee
Clerks
†
attended the
Committee
The
following also attended, pursuant to Standing Order No.
109(4):
Cairns,
David
(Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for
Scotland)
Eagle,
Maria
(Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern
Ireland)
Hanson,
Mr. David (
Minister of State, Northern Ireland
Office)
Northern
Ireland Grand
Committee
Tuesday 27
February
2007
[Dr.
William McCrea
in the
Chair]
Oral
Answers to
Questions
The
Secretary of State was
asked—
Intensive
Care
(Children)
4
pm
1.
Mrs.
Iris Robinson (Strangford) (DUP):
What
recent improvements have been made to intensive care provision for
babies in the Province.
[122573]
The
Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. David
Hanson):
A new intensive care cot was introduced in 2006
and funding has been identified for another cot and paediatric
intensive care bed in 2007. A neonatal and paediatric critical care
transport service and managed clinical network are being put in place,
as well as other system
improvements.
Mrs.
Robinson:
I thank the Minister for his answer, and welcome
the additional intensive care cot for babies suffering serious
illnesses at birth, or premature birth. What consideration has been
given to providing extra neonatal cots in hospitals in the
Province?
Mr.
Hanson:
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. She will
be aware that an additional £800,000 has been allocated for
neonatal and paediatric intensive care services in 2007-08—next
year. It is important to try to improve the level of service and
provision.
One
difficulty for the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my
hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins) in
managing those services is that demand often fluctuates. Average
capacity is currently less than available bed facility. We have
increased the number of beds and we want that to continue. We will
monitor the situation, because I do not want additional capacity with
insufficient beds. The challenge is to monitor capacity and reflect
that in the public purse to manage that
capacity.
Lady
Hermon (North Down) (UUP): Will the Minister kindly give
the Committee an update on the wellbeing of and progress being made by
a very young constituent of mine for whom intensive care treatment was
not available in Northern Ireland, and who was consequently separated
from his parents?
Mr.
Hanson:
I take it that the hon. Lady is referring to Ben
Marshall, who was admitted to Liverpool Alder Hey hospital on 16
February because no intensive care cot was available in Northern
Ireland at the time. I hope that the hon. Lady understands and accepts
that that occurred at a weekend when there was insufficient capacity,
but when there would normally have been
capacity.
I
understand that Ben is progressing well in Alder Hey hospital. The care
that he is receiving there is of a very high quality, and the staff are
working hard with him and his family to ensure that he returns to
Northern Ireland. I express the hope, as I did in my response to the
hon. Member for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson), that it is a
rare occurrence when demand outstrips capacity. It does not happen
often in Northern Ireland because we usually have sufficient capacity.
We are extending that capacity next
year.
I wish Ben and
his family well, and look forward to their early return to Northern
Ireland.
Victims
Commissioner
2.
Lady
Hermon (North Down) (UUP):
If he will make a
statement on progress towards the appointment of a victims commissioner
for Northern Ireland.
[122574]
The
Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. David
Hanson):
The post of Commissioner for Victims and
Survivors for Northern Ireland was advertised in the press on 25
January 2007, and 46 applications were received by the closing
date of 16 February 2007. The applications are being assessed
in line with normal public appointment procedures. It is anticipated,
and I hope, that the appointment will be made by the First Minister and
Deputy First Minister if devolution is restored. If devolution is not
restored, the appointment will be made by my right hon. Friend the
Secretary of State. At this stage, it is anticipated that an
appointment will be made, in any event, by the end of March or early
April.
Lady
Hermon:
I am grateful for the Minister’s
comprehensive response. I am sure that he is aware that
tomorrow—28 February—regrettably marks the second
anniversary of the disappearance and murder of my constituent, Lisa
Dorrian, for which those with loyalist paramilitary connections were
responsible. Her body has never been recovered. In those harrowing
circumstances, what precisely can the newly appointed victims’
commissioner do for the Dorrian
family?
Mr.
Hanson:
The first thing that should happen is that the
team inquiring into the events of Lisa Dorrian’s disappearance
should continue, as should the police investigation. The bringing to
book of whoever killed Lisa Dorrian is the prime
aim.
The victims
commissioner’s role is to review the support services available
to victims and their families. I hope that the commissioner, when
appointed, will examine what can be done to help support Lisa’s
family, but also look across Northern Ireland as a whole at the
services that can be provided to
victims.
Mrs.
Iris Robinson (Strangford) (DUP): Lisa was murdered in my
constituency. I would like to take this opportunity, on the second
anniversary of the murder, to appeal to those in my constituency who
may have a little or much information that could lead to someone being
brought to justice for that horrendous murder. The family have
indicated that they know who carried out the murder. Can the Minister
tell me whether that is being pursued with all rigour? The family feel
at times that that is not the case.
Mr.
Hanson:
I hope that I can give the hon. Lady the assurance
that the Police Service of Northern Ireland takes seriously the
disappearance and murder of Lisa Dorrian. My understanding of the
situation is that it will pursue with vigour all information that will
help to bring the perpetrators of the crime to
book.
Classroom
Assistants
3.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP): What resources have been set
aside to finance the re-evaluation of classroom assistant jobs in
Northern Ireland.
[122575]
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Maria
Eagle): Substantial funding of £30 million has been made
available in respect of increased pay costs arising from the evaluation
exercise, including arrears. I urge employers and unions to press ahead
to secure a workable and affordable agreement that would allow the
money to be released into the pay packets of classroom assistants,
where it
belongs.
Sammy
Wilson:
Will the Minister give us an assurance that the
money that has been set aside will be sufficient fully to finance the
evaluation of the jobs that is being undertaken, or will the evaluation
be suited to fit the amount of money that the Department has set aside?
Given the fact that the evaluation goes back more than 12 years and
covers some 12,000 classroom assistants, it seems a small sum of
money.
Maria
Eagle:
I regret that it has taken so long to deal with the
job evaluation. Technically, the discussions have been ongoing for four
years, although I accept that arrears will need to be paid back to 1
January 1995. I understand that there has been substantive progress
recently. I hope that that will continue and that it will be possible
to reach a speedy
conclusion.
The hon.
Gentleman will be aware that, technically, the Government are not a
party to the negotiations. I have every confidence that the money that
we have set aside will be sufficient to deal with the conclusion of the
negotiations, and I hope that it will be distributed to the pay packets
of the 7,000 classroom assistants as soon as agreement is
reached.
Inward
Investment
4.
Mr.
Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP):
What progress is being made by Invest Northern Ireland in
ensuring that more potential inward investors visit sites beyond the
greater Belfast travel-to-work area in 2007.
[122576]
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Maria
Eagle):
Invest Northern Ireland provides potential inward
investors with a list of possible locations. Visit programmes are then
drawn up to ensure that the locations to be visited meet the
investor’s business requirements, but also providethe
best opportunity for Invest Northern Ireland to sell the Northern
Ireland proposition and secure the project, wherever that might best
be.
Mr.
Campbell:
The Minister will be aware that there have been
several significant public sector job loss announcements in my
constituency recently at Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and
at Driver and Vehicle Licensing Northern Ireland. I tabled a series of
questions that seem to indicate that Invest Northern Ireland’s
targeting of the greater Belfast area is commendable, but, beyond that,
there seems to be a lack of effort—certainly a lack of
output—in bringing inward investors west of the Bann,
particularly to my constituency of East Londonderry. Can the Minister
respond by saying that Invest Northern Ireland will up its game in
trying to attract inward investors to my constituency and others like
it?
Maria
Eagle:
I can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that
Invest Northern Ireland works extremely hard to bring inward investment
to the most appropriate place for the investor in Northern Ireland, and
that will sometimes be in the north-west. Over the past four years, 33
per cent. of new investment secured for Northern Ireland has been
outside the Greater Belfast travel-to-work area. There has been some
success in the north-west region. Over the years 2005-06 and 2006-07,
more than 1,000 new jobs have been promoted there through inward
investment by Invest Northern Ireland, and 2,000 jobs safeguarded. I
hope that there will be more good news in the not-too-distant future.
Of course, I am conscious of the fact that when there are job
losses—there have been some in the hon. Gentleman’s
constituency lately—it is particularly important to ensure that
those jobs can be replaced, and Invest Northern Ireland will do its
best to ensure that East Londonderry and the north-western part of
Northern Ireland as a whole benefit as much as possible from the work
that it
does.
Stephen
Pound (Ealing, North) (Lab): I was in Mumbai the weekend
before last at an awards evening when both south Wales and central
Scotland made extremely strong pitches to Indian IT companies. The one
missing component in relation to Northern Ireland appears to be that
there is no local government that is making a pitch on behalf of
Northern Ireland. Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that the
deficit could be resolved when there is an operative Assembly, which
could make a pitch on behalf of Northern Ireland with the same energy
and enthusiasm as the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr.
Campbell) has clearly done
today?
Maria
Eagle:
I agree that local Ministers dealing with such
issues would give an impetus to the effort that simply cannot be
matched by others, despite the hard work that goes on. I am sure that
that would be a positive development. However, Invest Northern Ireland
and Ministers who are currently in place certainly do their utmost to
pursue opportunities for inward investment. In fact, the north-west has
recently benefited from 577 jobs with an Indian company, so efforts
have been made and have been successful. I am sure that local Ministers
will be able to build on those efforts very
positively.
Dr.
Alasdair McDonnell (Belfast, South) (SDLP): I congratulate
you on your chairmanship of the Committee, Dr. McCrea, and wish you
well for the rest
of the sitting. Given that Invest Northern Ireland has been well
established for some years now, can the Minister outline any plans for
a review of the structural function, output and effectiveness of Invest
Northern
Ireland?
Maria
Eagle:
I am happy to confirm that the Department and the
Government do our best to ensure that we get maximum effectiveness from
our agencies, such as Invest Northern Ireland. I think that the record
shows that it has never had a more successful year in terms of overall
output than it has had over the previous year. I say that not to be
complacent. More can always be done, and it will be tremendously
important, as Northern Ireland goes forward, to ensure that we up our
game and attract more inward investment. The time is now right for that
to happen, and I am confident that Invest Northern Ireland will play
its part. To the extent that it is sensible and helpful to review
current arrangements and learn lessons, the Government and Departments
do that on an ongoing
basis.
Water
Charges
5.
Dr.
Alasdair McDonnell (Belfast, South) (SDLP):
Whether a restored Assembly will have the power to amend
Government plans to introduce water charges in Northern Ireland.
[122577]
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (David
Cairns):
Yes.
Dr.
McDonnell:
I thank the Minister very much for his succinct
answer, but can he explain to us what yes means? Does it mean that if
the Assembly is restored on 26 March, it will have that power? What
happens if it is not restored until 1 April or 10 April? At what point
will the yes become a
no?
David
Cairns:
Yes means yes. These decisions were being
forwarded by the Assembly when it was meeting last time round. Indeed,
the Executive specifically put in their consultation document the
option of funding water through a household charge very similar to the
one that we are implementing, so the Executive were actively pursuing
that course last time round and they will have full competence to
pursue that on 26 March and thereafter. If they decided not to proceed
with domestic water charges, the Executive would have to plug a hole in
the budget of about £85 million to £90 million.
When local parties speak to the electorate during the election, they
must be entirely honest and say that income from domestic water charges
has been included in the budget and if those charges did not go ahead
there would be a big gap in the budget for next year, which the local
Assembly would have to find.
Lembit
Öpik (Montgomeryshire) (LD): I welcome you to the
Chair, Dr. McCrea, and I am sure that we will have a great meeting. I
am concerned about the Minister’s response. How exactly is the
Northern Ireland Assembly meant to undo the decisions made
here, given the financial consequences and complications that go with
doing so? The Minister knows very well that the parties in Northern
Ireland are united against this proposal yet he claims that his party
takes account of local interest and wants to devolve decision-making.
Is it not the Government’s responsibility to withdraw from this
dangerous and unpopular proposal rather than leave it to the Assembly
to undo the
mess?
David
Cairns:
Exactly how is it dangerous to charge domestic
customers in Northern Ireland for water in the same way that my
constituents pay it and people in north Wales, in Liverpool, and in the
hon. Gentleman’s constituency pay it? That is an absolutely
ludicrous overstatement. Domestic households in Scotland pay council
tax and water bills of £1,253, in England and Wales they pay
council tax and water bills of £1,337 and in Northern Ireland
they pay £668 in rates—half of what my constituents pay.
That results in the water quality in Northern Ireland being the poorest
in the UK. I have an ambition that the water quality in Northern
Ireland should be the best in the UK, but that would require not only
the investment that we are already putting in—£1 million
a day and £1 billion over this financial period—but
sustained investment over the next decade. There will not be sustained
investment unless domestic customers in Northern Ireland pay their fair
share on exactly the same basis as domestic customers in England,
Scotland and Wales. That is not a dangerous proposal; it is a proposal
that will ensure sustained investment in water and sewerage in Northern
Ireland.
Sammy
Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP): Does the Minister accept that
he is being disingenuous with the figures that he has given? First, the
comparison between his and our constituents is not correct because the
same services are not covered in those bills. Secondly, the people of
Northern Ireland have already been paying for their water through
regional rates so with the water charge they would be charged not
simply once but twice for the same service. The charge has been
designed, of course, to ensure that the infrastructure that was not
maintained during direct rule will be paid for
again.
David
Cairns:
Let us unpick some of those issues. The hon.
Gentleman asserts that water charges are paid through rates; they are
not, as that link was broken in 1999. It could be restored, but that
would mean a big increase in rates. He correctly asserts that many of
the services that are provided in Northern Ireland are provided by
central Government, yet in Scotland those services are paid for through
council tax. Where do central Government get their money? They get it
from the general taxpayer. The general taxpayer is subsidising public
expenditure in Northern Ireland to a far greater extent than is
happening in Scotland, Wales or, indeed, large parts of the north and
north-west of England.
The hon. Gentleman is proposing
that our constituents should pay higher taxes so that individuals in
Northern Ireland do not have to pay higher domestic rates, or pay their
domestic water charges. I understand that those are unpopular charges,
and I do not expect
to have statues of me erected, or bunting put up; but the decision that
is being taken on domestic charging will ensure that Northern Ireland
has sustained investment in its water and sewerage service, which will
bring domestic water up to the standard elsewhere in the United Kingdom
and will deal with the higher than average instances of pollution in
rivers and on beaches. In the long term, it is the right decision for
Northern Ireland. I understand its short-term unpopularity, but
sometimes the job of Government is to take unpopular decisions for the
good of us all, in the long
term.
Lady
Hermon (North Down) (UUP): We all know how unpopular the
introduction of a water charge based on the capital valuation of
property has been. There is no incentive to conserve water, and the
charge will not be based on a person’s water usage. Will the
Minister explain what progress has been made on metering and on
equipping new houses, and those of pensioners in particular, with
meters?
David
Cairns:
The hon. Lady makes an extremely important point.
Of course, as part of the overall investment in and reform of water and
sewerage services—it is not just about domestic bills, but is a
much broader agenda—we are bringing in a regulator so that there
will be full scrutiny, and removing Crown immunity from the water
service, which means that it will have to comply with the full panoply
of environmental regulations. We are also metering much more widely
than is possible in Great Britain. The hon. Lady is right to say that
new build houses will be required to have meters, and that pensioners
will be entitled to a meter should they request one. The evidence from
the early days of the helpline that people
can telephone when we send out indicative bills is that a large number
of people have requested a meter. The hon. Lady points at herself, but
I refuse to believe that she falls into the category of a
pensioner.
Under
direct rule we shall review the issues within two years. It is of
course possible that as part of taking over responsibility for the
matter, as it surely will on 26 March, the Assembly could
revisit water charges and decide to introduce universal metering or
make it more available to other people. There is a cost implication to
that, but that is part of what “yes” means: there are
lots of elements in the package that the Assembly could amend, if it
chose to do
so.
Chris
Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab): What assessment has the
Minister made of the effect of water metering on large families in
deprived
areas?
David
Cairns:
I think that my hon. Friend’s point is that
it could be detrimental to them, which is why we are not moving to
compulsory metering. In the first instance, we are considering offering
meters to those who would probably benefit most—such as
pensioner households. We shall have to consider the next phase of
extension of metering very carefully. We have said that under direct
rule we shall revisit the issue with a full review in two years. We
would have to look carefully at the impact of metering on the large
families in question. However, there is a conservation message too, and
if people could clearly see how much water they were using, there might
be more of an impetus to conserve it. Nevertheless, we have not made
any decisions about where to go next with metering, beyond saying that
we shall review it in two years.
Draft Budget (Northern Ireland)Order
2007
4.23
pm
The
Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. David
Hanson):
I beg to
move,
That the
Committee has considered the Draft Budget (Northern Ireland) Order
2007.
The
Chairman:
I remind the Committee that debate may continue
for two and a half hours. I have no power to impose time limits, but
briefer speeches will enable more hon. Members to
contribute.
Mr.
Hanson:
I formally apologise, Dr. McCrea, for not using
your correct title in some of my earlier remarks, and I hope that you
will forgive me.
As
hon. Members from all parties will know, this is yet another
opportunity for us to consider the 2006-07 budget that has previously
been expended, and to consider authorising expenditure, in part, for
2007-08. I hope—I know that that hope is shared by many members
of the Committee—that this will be the last time such a budget
order comes before this House of Commons. We are considering the order
today because the continued suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly
means that we must once again seek Parliament’s approval for the
resource and associated cash requirements of Northern Ireland
Departments. I know that many members of the Committee want locally
elected representatives to take these decisions on public expenditure
shortly, and there is currently an election campaign in Northern
Ireland. I pay tribute to you, Dr. McCrea, for absenting yourself from
the campaign. Many hon. Members present are both fighting an election
and serving their constituents in the House of Commons. I look forward
to the election on 7 March, and very much hope for the restoration of
devolution on 26 March. In the absence of a current devolved Assembly
sitting, it is my job to bring forward the necessary expenditure to be
approved by this House so that we can continue to deliver services to
people in Northern Ireland.
Lady
Hermon (North Down) (UUP): The Minister will be aware that
there is some media and, indeed, political speculation that civil
servants are beavering away on some emergency legislation to shift the
deadline from 26 March. Will the Minister confirm that that deadline
will not be
shifted?
Mr.
Hanson:
I gladly confirm that 26 March is the deadline for
devolution, when there will be dissolution or devolution. Neither I nor
my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister
will be in a position to come back to the House of Commons a further
time and say that we wish to move the deadline again. That simply is
not tenable politics in the real world.
The current election gives
Members an opportunity to state their cases to their constituents and
to be elected or not as the case may be, and then to go back and do the
deal and restore devolution. I hope that whoever happens to form the
majority parties—
whether it be the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley)
and the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. McGuinness) or the
hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and Sir Reg Empey from the Ulster
Unionist party—will sit down and do the deal after the election
on 7 March and before 26 March.
The draft order has two
purposes, the first of which is to authorise revised amounts of
resources and cash for 2006-07. The total revised amount for the year
is £16.83 billion, and the total revised amount of cash to be
issued from the consolidated fund for Northern Ireland is £11.19
billion.
The second
purpose of the order is to ensure that we authorise a vote on account
to allow funds to continue to flow to public services in the early
months of the next financial year, until the main estimates for 2007-08
can be prepared and considered by a new Executive and Assembly in
Northern Ireland. To do that, the order seeks Parliament’s
authorisation for the use of resources amounting to £6.217
billion, and for the issue of cash from the consolidated fund for
Northern Ireland amounting to £5.05 billion to commence the
process of expenditure during the first part of the year pending final
consideration of the budget later in the
year.
Lembit
Öpik (Montgomeryshire) (LD): Before the Minister
gets into the detail of the document, will he accept that this is a
rather preposterous way in which to analyse this level of information?
While we can make general points, the idea that we can give this order
proper scrutiny in a two-and-a-half-hour debate when there are,
necessarily, thousands of figures in the document really is not
satisfactory. Will he assure us that in the unfortunate event that
Northern Ireland devolution is not resumed, we will have a proper
discussion about these figures, so that they can be amended and we can
have a proper dialogue about them, rather than simply saying yes or no
to all of
this?
Mr.
Hanson:
As you will be aware, Dr. McCrea, we have regular
discussions on these matters. I am not happy with the Order in Council
procedure or with the lack of scrutiny in relation to the Northern
Ireland Assembly. I know that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire
(Lembit Öpik) is not happy either. We have already
said—the Secretary of State indicated this—that in the
event of devolution not being progressed, we will consider how to
manage the debates on Northern Ireland devolved matters. I assure the
hon. Gentleman that in the unhappy event that devolution is not
restored on 26 March, we will certainly be considering what changes we
can make to improve the scrutiny of the actions of direct-rule
Ministers in these matters. I hope that he will accept that in the good
faith that I have put it to him—in the fervent hope that it does
not become necessary to see those points
through.
As
I said, the purpose of the order is to authorise expenditure. I
certainly contend that Northern Ireland has benefited from the massive
increases in investment in public services under the Labour Government.
Dare I say it—I do not wish to rile the hon. Member for
Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) so early in the debate—the
expenditure is unparalleled in the history of Northern Ireland. It has
contributed greatly to the progression of
several public services during both direct rule and the time when the
Northern Ireland Assembly was able to expend resources in Northern
Ireland. The increases have been bigger than at any time in Northern
Ireland’s history. By the 2007-08 financial year, we will be
spending in excess of £16 billion on regional public services in
Northern Ireland. Dare I tell Committee members that that is 50 per
cent. higher than when our Government came to office in 1997? I do not
wish to upset the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr.
Robertson), with whom I have a good
relationship
—[Interruption.] I can never
resist.
The
official Opposition have voted against that 50 per cent.
increase at every opportunity. They have had the opportunity to put
that case in every budget. Although I like and respect the hon.
Gentleman, I wanted to put that on the
record.
Mr.
Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con): I am sure that the
Minister will forgive me for reminding him of the old saying, “A
fool and his money are soon parted”.
Mr.
Hanson:
I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has
responded. He says that a fool and his money are soon parted; that
means, for example, that he is voting against the 60 per cent. increase
in education funding since 1997 despite the 6 per cent. decrease in
pupil numbers. That means that he is not supporting the
£100 million for the children and young people funding package,
nor the £210 million invested to bring interactive learning to
all classrooms. Those are just three examples of positive expenditure
by the Government as part of the 50 per cent. increase since
1997.
Mr.
Robertson:
What about the new
deal?
Mr.
Hanson:
Let me say to the hon. Gentleman that the
unemployment rate in Northern Ireland is 4.2 per
cent.—considerably lower than the UK average of 5.5 per
cent. Northern Ireland employment levels have risen to 767,000 people;
that represents an increase of 17,000 jobs in 2006 alone. I shall tell
the hon. Gentleman about the new deal and the Government’s
strong economic performance: we are creating jobs for the long-term
unemployed to get people off welfare into work and try to secure the
employment prospects of Northern
Ireland.
I tell the
hon. Gentleman that that extra 50 per cent. expenditure since 1997,
which his party has opposed, has benefited the people of Northern
Ireland in a range of
ways.
Mr.
Robertson:
The Minister rather skipped over the facts and
figures of the new deal. What was the youth unemployment rate when his
Government came into office, what is it now and how does it compare to
that of the rest of the
UK?
Mr.
Hanson:
I do not have those figures to hand, but I am sure
that I shall come to them later. The fact is that now 767,000 people
are employed in Northern Ireland, an increase of 17,000 on 2006. We all
recognise that the employment situation in Northern Ireland needs to be
managed effectively and that we need to meet the challenges of the 21st
century, not only those of the past. That is why the Secretary of State
for
Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath
(Mr. Hain) is considering a number issues to do with how we
can improve the Northern Ireland economy. Indeed, we have just put out
for consultation a new economic development plan, on which I hope the
hon. Member for Tewkesbury will comment. As I said, I respect the hon.
Gentleman, but want to put on record the fact that evident in this
budget, as in others, is the 50 per cent. increase in expenditure on
those issues over that
time.
There
are real and tangible expressions of investment occurring in a number
of areas in Northern Ireland as a result of that expenditure. For
example, the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon.
Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) is in charge of
a strategy for children and young people, which we published on 20 June
2006. It sets out what will be financed by that budget in the next 10
years to bring about improvements in the lives of Northern
Ireland’s children and young people. The first children and
young person’s action plan is now being finalised; it will set
out how we will deliver on those strategic aims to ensure proper action
plans for the
future.
I am in charge
of an anti-poverty and social inclusion strategy, which has replaced
“Targeting social need” and considers how we can tackle
poverty and social exclusion in Northern Ireland. It has the objective
of eliminating poverty from children and young people by 2020—of
ending child poverty by 2020—and ensuring that we work to tackle
social exclusion in Northern
Ireland.
The
Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the
Member for Inverclyde (David Cairns) and others are dealing with the
sustainable development strategy, looking at how we can ensure and
support developments in the environment at large. All those resources
will be paid for out of the Budget we are talking about
today.
We are
examining how we can improve education expenditure to make it the No. 1
priority for the Government. The estimates include £1.85 billion
for the Education Department in 2006-07, including funding under the
children’s and young person’s package, which is aimed at
reducing underachievement and improving children and young
people’s life chances. This amount will increase from
£1.85 billion to £2.1 billion under the proposals in the
2007-08 Budget, committing the Government to continue to build on
existing achievements, ensuring that we have a single education
authority, implementation of the Bain review and proper spending in
Northern Ireland at the highest level ever.
Lady
Hermon:
The Minister just briefed the Committee
extensively on investment in young people and in education. Will he,
therefore, explain to me why the budget for Clifton special care
school, which has very needy children who are mostly in wheelchairs and
have physical and mental handicaps, has not increased one
jot?
Mr.
Hanson:
The hon. Lady will know that budgets are
distributed by the education and library boards. We are ensuring that
they have a massive increase, after which they can examine their
distribution. I am not
aware of the individual school in question, but I am
sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon.
Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston will look into that matter on
the hon. Lady’s behalf and report to her.
In the round, extra resources
are going into education on a massive scale and next year’s
budget increases from £1.85 million to £2.1 billion. That
money will not just improve the level of education but pay for new
innovative services, wrap-around child care and a range of measures
that will improve the quality of life for Northern
Ireland.
Lady
Hermon:
Will the Minister confirm that he will extend an
invitation on my behalf to the Under-Secretary of State for Northern
Ireland, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston, who is responsible for
education, to visit Clifton special care school after the election but
before the 26 March
deadline?
Mr.
Hanson:
My hon. Friend, the Under-Secretary has indicated
that between 7 March and 26 March, weekends excluded, she will make an
attempt to visit that school. It is important, and my hon. Friend has
undertaken a series of such visits. I am sure that she will be very
happy to do so in this case. There is a great time constraint involved,
and I hope that my hon. Friend’s successor as Minister after 26
March can also visit the
school.
Mrs.
Iris Robinson (Strangford) (DUP): On the subject of
special needs teaching, in November 2005, I raised a matter in the
House relating to Torbank special school, and to date the problems that
it faces have not been addressed. Staff and pupils still have to
negotiate their way between portakabins. The children involved are the
most severely disabled one could meet. Some are in wheelchairs, some
are pipe-fed, and some are epileptics. We were told that a new school
would begin in 2002. To date, that school has not been built and I ask
the Minister for a categoric assurance that it will be built during the
next financial year so that the children will have the new buildings
that they deserve and the staff who look after them will have the
decent conditions that they
deserve.
Mr.
Hanson:
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for those comments,
which the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend
the Member for Liverpool, Garston has heard. I know that she will agree
to an early meeting. As the finance Minister, if time permits, I would
be happy to support my hon. Friend in visiting Torbank special
school.
The hon. Lady
will be aware that during the past seven years, 230 major education
schemes have been undertaken thanks to a capital investment of more
than £1.33 billion. During the past two years, £602
million has been invested in major schemes. I recognise her concerns
and I recognise the fact that Torbank special school has been subject
to a number of delays. The condition of the existing school buildings
is a matter of severe concern, and I accept the hon. Lady’s
point. I will examine with my hon. Friend what steps are being taken
and I will report back to the hon. Lady via my hon. Friend in due
course.
It is not only investment in
education through which the Government are assisting the public of
Northern Ireland. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public
Safety has reduced hospital waiting times as a key priority, and an
additional £35 million will be made available for that purpose
in 2007-08. Substantial progress is being made and has been made on
waiting times. For example, no patient has to wait more than nine
months for surgery; the number of patients waiting for more than six
months for surgery has fallen by 60 per cent. since April 2006; and the
number of people waiting more than six months for a first outpatient
appointment has halved since the beginning of April 2006.
Those are real changes, brought
about by real investment, but also by the drive of the Under-Secretary
of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for
Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins), and his officials to ensure
that we maximise the benefits of that investment for the public of
Northern Ireland.
In
2007-08, £3 million will be made available for the resettlement
of long-stay patients into community care. That will be of particular
interest to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), because we
want to move as quickly as possible on the question of learning
disability hospitals, including Muckamore Abbey hospital.
From April this year, we will
be bringing forward comprehensive controls on smoking in enclosed
public places and workplaces.
The capital budget for the
health service has increased to more than £180 million in
2007-08. That will fund a new hospital modernisation programme that
includes, for example, the new maternity unit for £13.2 million
at the Ulster hospital, which is scheduled to open in August 2007.
There is also an unprecedented level of investment in infrastructure to
support the delivery of public services in Northern Ireland.
As the
Minister with responsibility for the Office of the First Minister and
Deputy First Minister, I am responsible for the strategic investment
board which last year invested £1 billion in public
infrastructure for the first time. That is 43 per cent. or £300
million a year more than was being spent on capital infrastructure four
years ago. That planned level of investment will continue to grow.
Indeed, it has been given a priority by the Chancellor, in discussion
with the parties, as part of his financial package for the restoration
of the Assembly. Yes, that money has to be paid for. Yes, controversy
is certainly surfacing during the election—it will continue
beyond it—about some of the methods of payment that we are
bringing forward.
On
1 April, the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon.
Friend the Member for Inverclyde, will be implementing the water reform
programme; as he said at question time, it is important to secure
investment in water services in order to improve water and sewerage
services, which will make a difference for the community at large. We
are making considerable investment in the water and sewerage
infrastructure, including in the region of £3 billion at 2001
prices over the next few years. That water reform programme will
benefit public services, and I commend it to the Committee as part of
our expenditure programme for the next financial year.
The Chancellor, my right hon.
Member for Dunfermline and Kirkcaldy (Mr.
Brown)—[Interruption.]. His constituency is near
Kirkcaldy and includes part of Dunfermline and Cowdenbeath. He will be
greatly impressed by the fact that I do not know its proper name; he
will find out when he reads, as I know he will, the report of the
Northern Ireland Grand Committee.
In his pre-Budget report of
December 2006, my right hon. Friend mentioned a number of measures that
will be welcome in Northern Ireland, including additional funding of
£6 million. That will provide additional help to meet the needs
of some of our most vulnerable children and young people, supporting a
new package of support for parents, and providing additional investment
in speech and language therapy. The pre-Budget report also detailed
changes designed to tackle climate change and protect the environment.
That will reinforce the steps we have been taking through the
environment and renewable energy funding package.
There is much to do for the
local economy, and many challenges lie ahead. We have put the economic
strategy out to consultation, and I will happily engage with
stakeholders in the community on that should I still hold this post on
26 March. The seasonally adjusted unemployment rate in Northern Ireland
is 4.2 per cent., which is lower than the UK
average.
I may
disappoint the hon. Member for Tewkesbury, as the new deal has had a
significant effect on unemployment in our community. That is evidenced
by the 75 per cent. fall in the number of unemployed claimants in the
new deal 18-24 target age group between April 1998 and November 2006. I
will repeat that again for hon. Members so that it is clear: a 75 per
cent fall in the numbers of unemployed claimants in the new deal target
group between April 1998 and November 2006. That gives us, with all the
other measures that the Government are bringing forward, the second
lowest unemployment rate among UK regions and one which compares
favourably to the EU rate of 7.8 per cent unemployment.
I am not complacent; we need to
do more. We are consulting on the regional economic strategy. I have
met with the CBI, with businesses, with chambers of commerce. I will
meet with anybody to help improve the economy of Northern Ireland. My
right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has led delegations to try to
attract inward investment to Northern Ireland. We need to be
competitive, we need to re-skill, we need to face the challenges of the
future, but there is certainly a considerable amount of work ongoing,
of which this budget is part, to improve and equip the Northern Ireland
economy in a positive way.
A couple of technical
matters—
Lady
Hermon:
It has been something of a surprise to find that
the words ‘review of public administration’ have not
crossed the Minister’s lips today. He seems to be sliding out of
this one very neatly, but he is not allowed to slide out. Could the
Minister tell us just how much has already been expended on preparing
for the review of public administration and how much is it going to
cost? How much is he going to report to the right hon. Member for
Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath
(Mr. Brown)—if the Minister can get the right hon.
Gentleman’s constituency right and he is still Chancellor by
then—has actually been expended on the
RPA?
Mr.
Hanson:
The Government are committed to the RPA. There are
a number of elements to it. We are trying to do three or four key
things. First of all, to reform the health service and to reform
education services by reducing the bureaucracy in them. That certainly
does have an up-front cost, but over time there will be savings to the
public purse. Secondly, we are progressing the idea of local government
review of public administration. The local government review will
reduce the number of local authorities from 26 to seven. Those matters
are still for decision by the potential in-coming Assembly and, again,
the changes will have an up-front cost. I will come to that in a
moment. There will, however, ultimately be a saving. A cost and
efficiency exercise in November 2005 estimated the cost of
implementation to be in the region of about £400 million, but
estimated savings of £200 million per annum over the five to 10
years after the completion of the RPA.
I am very keen to monitor the
costs of the RPA, but ultimately, if we reduce the number of councils,
health authorities and education and library boards and if, as we are
doing, we start to drive down backroom costs and make savings in the
way in which we manage public services, we will save resources over
time.
I say to the
hon. Lady that yes, there will be an up-front cost, but over time there
will be a saving and it is something that should be looked at. It is
not just a question of saving resources; I happen to think that seven
local councils with greater responsibilities and community involvement
will have a better opportunity to have an impact on their communities
than 26 local councils. The changes in the health authorities and
education and library boards will make for much more focused and
productive services in our
community.
Sammy
Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP): The Minister has outlined the
savings which the RPA and the cuts in the bureaucracy should achieve.
Would he accept that the record in Northern Ireland and the record of
his Government and indeed the last executive in Northern Ireland on
this is not good? We were told that all of the political infrastructure
which was put in place as a result of the Belfast agreement would be
cost neutral over the four years. Instead of being cost neutral it
added hundreds of millions of pounds to the cost of administration in
Northern
Ireland.
Mr.
Hanson:
I go back to the original establishment of the RPA
by the then devolved executive. It was never intended to be a
cost-cutting exercise, it was designed to be an exercise that improved
the quality of government in Northern Ireland. There is a cost up front
of £400 million, there will be savings of £200
million a year over that time and the five to ten-year period and
beyond but I put into the context that I think the local councils, the
health service, the education service and indeed the single library
authority for Northern Ireland will manage public services better than
they are currently managed because there will be more capacity, more
ability to influence decisions and a greater opportunity to make real
and positive changes.
My final points are technical,
but it is important to put them on the record. The draft order and the
accompanying estimates volume contain the detail of the changes that
are sought to approved provision. I do not propose to go through the
changes line by line, but I am happy to respond to any questions or
comments in the debate, and I shall try to respond to them at the end
of the debate.
For
next year, the vote on account is a mechanism to allow funds to
continue flow to public services until the new Executive and Assembly
can debate the spending plans in detail. The vote on account is not
intended to seek final approval of the allocations for 2007-08; it
simply allows us sufficient resources and cash to continue our work
until 2008.
I hope
that I have provided a flavour of where the Government
are—
Lembit
Öpik:
Tradition requires me to ask a question about
the Armagh observatory.
Chris
Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab): I thought that the hon.
Gentleman did not understand the figures.
Lembit
Öpik:
I never said that I did not understand the
figures. There may be some on the Government Benches who have more
trouble than myself.
I suppose I should declare an
interest, because my granddad used to work at the Armagh observatory.
It has a net variation of £268,000. Will the Minister outline
whether the observatory is happy with that outcome? What discussions
took place to ensure that the planetarium and observatory continues to
go from strength to strength as one of the leading tourist attractions
and scientific centres of excellence in Northern
Ireland?
Mr.
Hanson:
I take great pleasure in the fact that the hon.
Gentleman has a family bloodline with the Armagh observatory. He takes
a great interest in planetary activity.
Mr.
Hanson:
My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd
shouted a word that I am not sure is parliamentary. Just in case it is
not, I hope that it is on the record. The moon may have an influence on
the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, among the many planets that he
watches daily.
The
Armagh observatory was discussed on several occasions, and I recall
last year the concern being expressed that no money had been expended
in terms of income. It was in fact closed during that period. This year
we spent £3 million on refurbishment to ensure that the huge
re-opening was a great success, and it is now a must-see visitor
attraction. I am confident that the observatory will continue to
contribute to the scientific and tourist potential of Northern Ireland
and of Armagh in particular.
Stephen
Pound (Ealing, North) (Lab): I am very grateful to
my—I believe it is correct to say—right hon. Friend for
allowing me to intervene. Although I do not have the same family
connection or affiliation withthe asteroid belt which the hon.
Member for Montgomeryshire has, like many members of this Grand
Committee, I have visited that magnificent building. Although I
appreciate that my right hon. Friend is no stranger to Armagh, I urge
him at every opportunity to invite people to visit, and particularly to
visit the planetarium, which is a truly magnificent edifice and a
building that is educational and entertaining. I do not think that any
public servant would ever say that they have a sufficiency, let alone a
surplus, of capital, but when I was there a few months ago, they seemed
not dissatisfied.
Mr.
Hanson:
I confirm to my hon. Friend that the observatory
will play a significant role in the tourist and scientific potential
for Armagh and the surrounding area of Northern Ireland. I confirm to
him that he is right; I am in an interregnum. I have been confirmed as
a right hon. Gentleman, but I have not yet been sworn into the Privy
Council. It will happen next week. I hope that that clarifies the
matter for the interest of Members.
I hope that the Budget is on
behalf of the Government a positive investment in public services in
Northern Ireland. We have some key targets for next year: to improve
education, to reduce waiting lists in the health service, and to ensure
that we tackle poverty and disadvantage and invest in the services that
we need to make Northern Ireland a modern economy for the 21st
century.
This Budget,
both last year’s expenditure and the potential for the
allocation of cash for next year’s Budget, will be significant.
The Government have fought hard to spend that money on Northern
Ireland. I look forward to the Assembly finalising the Budget, setting
its priorities for 2007-08 and determining what it wants to do. I look
forward, too, to the Assembly being locally accountable to the people
of Northern Ireland, which is something that we as direct rule
Ministers can never be. I commend the draft Budget to the
Committee.
4.55
pm
Mr.
Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con): I welcome you to
the Committee, Dr. McCrea. I think that it is the first time that I
have served under your chairmanship, and it has been a pleasure
already. I congratulate the Minister on his imminent elevation to the
Privy Council. I hope that he enjoys his enhanced status; I am sure
that he will. I echo his words: I want to be absolutely sure that this
is the last time that we consider the Budget in this forum. As the hon.
Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) has pointed out, it is
absolutely impossible to consider a document of such a size in two and
half hours or probably even in two and a half days. There is far too
much in it. The proper place for it to be considered is in Northern
Ireland, and I hope that that will be the case, not only for the Budget
but for the many statutory instruments that continue to come forward
although we are, we hope, only days away from restoring the
Assembly.
We need to deal with matters for
Northern Ireland in a different way. In the worst case scenario, if the
Assembly does not reconvene on 26 March or before for whatever reason,
I shall certainly do all that I can to press the Government to find
another way in which to deal with legislation for Northern Ireland,
because the process is totally unsatisfactory. We do not give the
legislation due consideration, we cannot amend it, and it is decided by
people such as myself, who do not live in the Province. That cannot be
right.
If the
Assembly gets up and running, that will be a major political
achievement. I would pay tribute to all those involved, including the
Government and the people in Northern Ireland. It is fair to say, too,
that that will be the end of the beginning, and the challenge will then
be for the Assembly to ensure that prosperity grows in Northern
Ireland. There are many good statistics—not necessarily those
quoted by the Minister—in Northern Ireland, but there are still
many worrying signs. Before the debate, I looked at the speech that I
made on this subject last year. One could almost read the same speech
again. I am not about to, and I promise the Committee that I have
written a new speech for today, but the issues remain the same. Many
areas show encouraging changes—I want to stress that at the
outset—but I want to consider the matters of concern.
The continued size of the
public sector is of great concern. The latest figures that I have show
that 30 per cent. of the work force in Northern Ireland is employed in
the public sector, compared with 24 per cent. in Scotland, 23 per cent.
in Wales and, in England, 18 per cent. in the south-east and the east
midlands. Even the highest figure in England, 21 per cent. in the
north-west, is a long way short of the figure in Northern Ireland. The
public sector continues to contribute some 66 per cent. of the GDP of
the Province. That is not to say that people in the public sector do
not do good jobs. I am sure that they do, but that is not the way to
prosperity. I was disappointed that the Minister, in an unprovoked
attack on me—
Mr.
Robertson:
A mugging, indeed. He tended to suggest that
the measure of a successful Government is how much they spend. I do not
think that that is the way forward. Although certain things, such as
schools and hospitals, need funding and need funding properly, the
measure of a Government’s success is not how much it spends.
Many countries, such as China and India, are becoming competitive. If
we are not careful, then they will take the jobs not only of people in
Northern Ireland but of people in Europe. All we are doing in the
European Union is putting regulation upon regulation. That is not the
way to increase competitiveness, and that is why this country, for
example, has slipped down the league of international
competitiveness.
Government spending does not
create prosperity. I was rather disappointed that the Minister tended
to focus on how much more is being spent. I accept that discussions of
a budget will deal with that, but I would have been more encouraged if
some of the problems had been addressed. The challenge is to increase
private sector activity, boost trade and productivity, and
eventually make some moves towards reducing the fiscal deficit, which
does exist and to which the Minister’s colleague
referred.
The size of
the public sector is a great concern, as are the statistics for working
age economic inactivity in Northern Ireland. According to the figures
that I have, the rate is 27.4 per cent., which is significantly higher
than the 21 per cent. for the UK. Again, I raised the issue last year.
It is the highest of all the UK regions, and the challenge is to reduce
it. Are we going about that in the right
way?
Concerns remain
about youth unemployment—this is where the Minister and I had a
disagreement. At 7.2 per cent., it is considerably higher than
the rates for the rest of the population in Northern Ireland. Of the
age groups that we consider, youth unemployment is the highest. That
cannot be good, and I suggest that it is caused by the failure of the
new deal. I do not know how much money has been put into the programme,
but the fact that so many young people are unemployed means that it has
failed.
Chris
Ruane:
To judge whether it has failed, we need a
comparison. Does the hon. Gentleman know what the rate was in
1997?
Mr.
Robertson:
No, I do not have the figure, but the
Minister did not have it, either, and I do not have the civil service
to support me. I could, no doubt, find it. My understanding is that the
new deal has had comparatively little or no impact on youth
unemployment.
Mr.
Hanson:
The hon. Gentleman does not need figures to answer
this question: if he were in my chair, would he scrap the new
deal?
Mr.
Robertson:
To be honest, I do not know what the
Conservative party’s policy is on the new deal. Given that it
has failed, I would certainly try a different
approach.
Mr.
Hanson:
I think that that is a
yes.
Mr.
Robertson:
If the Minister would like to swap places with
me, I will have a go. I will not allow the fact that that is a shameful
figure to pass, no matter what joking takes place in the Committee. I
welcome all the jokes, jibes and interventions, but youth unemployment
is very high.
Let me
deal with long-term unemployment, which is also unacceptably high. Of
those who are unemployed, 35.6 per cent. have been unemployed for more
than a year. That is a tragic waste of people’s lives—it
is not a figure to be proud of. If we consider the UK as a whole and
try to match education and skills, it appears that we are sending more
and more people to university, but we are not actually providing them
with the skills that businesses and industry require. The same is
happening in Northern Ireland, and that needs addressing. It may be an
impressive statistic that x percentage of people have gone to
university, but if they end up unemployed afterwards or have degrees
and education that are not required by business, we have not matched
things as correctly as we should.
Lady
Hermon:
I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows that a
Conservative colleague of his will be running in the election in my
constituency of North Down. I can tell him that a number of my
constituents benefit from the new deal. Therefore, will he give a
straight answer to this question? Will that candidate tell those
constituents, some of whom may be first-time voters, that it is a Tory
policy to scrap the new
deal?
Maria
Eagle:
He said that he does not
know.
Mr.
Robertson:
As the Minister said, I do not know whether
that is the policy, so I cannot answer the question. I made it clear
that I was expressing a personal view. Given that youth unemployment is
much higher than unemployment for other age groups, I suggest that a
different approach is required. If anyone is saying,
“Let’s carry on with the same approach,” which is
obviously failing, that is a sad position to
take.
The
Chairman:
Order. I ask you to return to the spring
supplementary estimates, Mr. Robertson. You were led outside
that.
Mr.
Robertson:
I was indeed, Dr. McCrea. I shall return to the
speech that I was making, which I hope is in order. A further problem
for business in the Province is the impact of industrial derating. I do
not know what impact that will have, but I suggest that it will not
help manufacturing industry; that has to be accepted. Manufacturing has
in Northern Ireland, as it has throughout the UK, shown a slight
increase in fortunes—an upturn—recently. I would like
that to continue. I would not like anything to be introduced that would
impede that
progress.
The next
issue has been raised many times. Again, I shall not disclose a new
Conservative policy here. I wish I could, but I cannot. The difference
in corporation tax rates between Northern Ireland and the Republic is a
difficulty that the Province and businesses in the Province have to
face. We all want greater investment to come into Northern Ireland, but
that aim will not be helped by the very different corporation tax rates
that exist. I stress that given that difficulty, it is very important
that we do not pile further regulations on the businesses of Northern
Ireland, which would make it even less desirable for businesses to
invest in the
Province.
There are,
as I have mentioned, a number of very good signs; some statistics have
edged the right way. Projects such as the one in the Titanic quarter,
which I visited recently, are extremely impressive. Tourism has
increased in Northern Ireland. The number of tourists is up from 1.4
million people in 1998 to 2 million, according to the most recent
estimate. I hope, though, that that is not all negative tourism, by
which I mean people visiting sites to look at murals and fences that
divide communities. I know that that is happening to an extent, but I
hope that we can give the message that Northern Ireland is a very
beautiful place, with many positive tourist attractions. I hope that
that can be built on for the
future.
That
said, a number of challenges lie ahead. One is, of course, the changes
to the rating system. The relevant
statutory instrument was taken through, with no ability for the
Committee to amend it. I have a genuine question for the Minister,
which I hope he can answer. We have heard many times from the Ministers
that the changes in the rating system will be revenue-neutral, but when
I have asked parliamentary questions on the issue, that has not
appeared to be the case. Figures provided to me show an increase of 24
per cent. in the money that will come into the Northern Ireland budget.
For example, I am told that in 2005-06 the rates collected came
to £361 million and the forecast for next year,
2007-08, is £448 million. It does not sound to me as though the
system is
revenue-neutral.
I
know that there are various complications. There are the local rates
and the regional rates. There are also now the water rates. I do not
know which of those figures contain what, but just from the questions
that I have had answered, it looks as though the take from rates will
increase by 24 per cent., from £361 million to £448
million. I would like the Minister to confirm that there is an increase
in revenue from rates coming into the budget, because it has been said
many times that the change is revenue-neutral. Also according to the
figures provided to me, the household average for 2005-06 is
£490 and it is estimated to be £709 for 2007-08. Again,
that is a massive leap—an increase of 45 per cent. Will the
Minister explain why that is the case? Perhaps I am misreading the
figures, but they look fairly simple. Perhaps the Minister could come
back to me on that.
I
did not oppose the introduction of water charges, for the reasons that
I think the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Inverclyde
(David Cairns), gave a while ago. There has been a discussion about
whether people in Northern Ireland do or do not pay water rates, but,
given the fiscal deficit, I felt that it was unfair to ask my
constituents to pay water rates when arguably people in Northern
Ireland do not. However, put together with the increase in general
rates, that means that a lot of money will be taken out of
people’s pockets and their disposable income must
fall—there can be no other way of looking at it. That will not
benefit the private sector. We need to boost the private sector and
taking money from people’s disposable income will not do
that.
Energy prices
are a big issue in Northern Ireland. People in the Province have lower
disposable incomes yet have higher bills for gas and electricity.
Proposals for regulating for the whole of Ireland and introducing an
all-Ireland market would help to bring prices down, but only when the
long-term contract has ended and a more fluid system is introduced as
in Great Britain. An all-Ireland-UK market would be better still
because it would be a bigger market that is more likely to provide an
opportunity to reduce energy prices. I congratulate the Government on
introducing the new electricity trading arrangements in England and
Wales some time ago and on replacing that with a system that also
covered Scotland. That has been successful in keeping prices relatively
low in Great Britain. It is not a perfect system and can be a little
volatile, but overall it has kept prices for electricity down whereas
in Northern Ireland prices have been an
issue.
Another concern
is that of high house prices and the way prices are increasing in
Northern Ireland. The Minister may wish to correct me on this, but,
according
to the most recent survey that I have seen, the average house price in
Northern Ireland in February was £191,505, which is an increase
of 40 per cent.. That was in a survey that I looked at just this
morning. Such increases and high prices make it extremely difficult for
first-time buyers to enter the housing market, which is a problem not
unknown in England. A similar situation exists in London and probably
in parts of Gloucestershire and it needs to be addressed.
Dr. McCrea, you asked for short
speeches and I hope that mine has been relatively short. There are a
number of good news stories coming out of Northern Ireland, but I
regret that, in highlighting some of the problems, I made a similar
speech to the one I made last year. I am concerned about the impact of
changes to the rating system, the industrial de-rating, and a number of
other issues that have emerged since we last discussed this budget. I
hope that the Minister will turn his attention to those issues. Rather
than boasting about how much the Government are spending, he should
look at how to address the problems and start to increase prosperity
for people in Northern
Ireland.
5.13
pm
Sammy
Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP): I congratulate you, Dr.
McCrea, on your elevation to the Chair. I sympathise with the Minister
for having to endure this debate. He seems to get all the difficult
jobs; if there is a controversial Bill or an unpopular measure, the
Minister is put up for it. As has been pointed out, there are some
convoluted accounts that we must discuss in only two and a half hours
and the Minister has been put up for it. Having read through the
accounts and looked at the language used, we must contend with
resources authorised for use, sums granted and totals accruing. There
is a whole range of language that has probably been deliberately
designed to confuse poor public
representatives.
If
the officials from the Department of Finance and Personnel ever decided
to turn their minds to organised crime, I assure the Committee that the
Assets Recovery Agency would never trace a penny. By the time it went
through the labyrinth of accounts, the flow would have been
lost.
Lembit
Öpik: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if we work
out the amount of money that we are discussing and divide it by the
length of time that we have, we will find that we are costing ourselves
£1,243,742 per
second?
Sammy
Wilson:
The hon. Gentleman has illustrated why he is so
attached to the Armagh planetarium and the
stars.
Chris
Ruane:
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those figures
are
astronomical?
Let me come
back to the issue that we are dealing with. This budget is critical. It
may well be the one that is handed down to the Northern Ireland
Assembly on 26 March, shortly afterwards or some time afterwards. As
far as my party is concerned, the sooner that happens the better.
However, as we have made
clear—we make no apology for it—we want to enter an
Assembly that, first, is sustainable, and secondly, can do its work. We
are real devolutionists. Our stance is not simply to get us through an
election or for the optics; although we believe that devolution is best
for Northern Ireland, it must not stumble and start as the previous
Assembly did, and it must have the tools to do the job if it is going
to
work.
Lady
Hermon:
I am rarely genuinely grateful to the hon.
Gentleman, but I am on this occasion. Some ambiguity is building up.
Will he confirm for the record that the DUP’s policy is to take
this Government through the deadline, set in statute, of 26
March?
Sammy
Wilson:
I think that the hon. Lady has listened to
election broadcasts in Northern Ireland and read election literature. I
am sure that she has avidly read the DUP manifesto. If she has not,
perhaps she should; that would save her asking such questions. As I
have repeated many times in this place, the DUP wants to see devolution
as soon as possible. We are ready for government now, but if the
conditions are not right, there is no point in having a devolution that
will stumble, start, fall and disappoint. The devolution must be able
to last and have conditions in which the parties support those who
uphold the laws that parties go into an Assembly to make. Furthermore,
the Assembly must have the tools to do the job.
That is why this budget is so
critical, and one of the reasons why I have some concerns about it. I
shall consider some of the Government’s promises in a moment,
but the budget falls far short of being able to deliver the
Government’s own programme, which the Assembly will inherit, in
the coming
year.
Earlier, we had
an exchange about water rates. The belief of people in
Northern Ireland, confirmed by the Minister today, is that they paid
for much of the infrastructure and infrastructural development
required, especially in respect of sewerage and water—whether
they have paid for it before 1999 but not since is a moot point. It was
paid for but never carried out for 35 years. Now, of course, that
infrastructure bill will hit whatever Administration there is in
Northern Ireland in the next 20 years. Past payments and money that has
not been spent on infrastructure are not reflected in the budget, so
that represents a further burden on any devolved
Assembly.
It is
critical to ensure that any Assembly on 26 March or later has
the tools to do its job, and the ability to deliver a reasonable
programme for government in Northern Ireland. I want to put it on the
record that it is not just a box-ticking exercise. A critical element
that will help to decide whether devolution is up and running on 26
March is the economic package accompanying the devolution settlement.
There is no point in having an Assembly that does not have the tools
for the job and the priorities that the Government have laid down. I
hope that there will be serious negotiations after 7 March and a
serious attempt to resolve the problem of the economic
package.
I shall be
brief, because other hon. Members want to speak, but let me look for a
moment at that proposition. The budget does not even reflect the
programme that the Government have set down for Northern Ireland. The
priorities and budget document that the Secretary of State published in
December 2005 for the period 2006-08 referred to two areas. First, he
said of the health service that it
“remains our top spending priority
and this was reflected in my allocation of extra resources to Health in
my proposals in
October.”
He then said
that seeing that through as a
priority
“will increase
Health spending by £235 million next
year”—
that was
2006-07—
“and by a
further £228 million the year after, meaning that by 2007-08
total spending will be...14 per cent. higher than it is this
year.”
That was the
Secretary of State’s commitment, and presumably the programme
for health was based on such
figures.
I
mentioned the confusion and multiplicity of figures. I went through
them and looked at the most generous interpretation of the increase in
today’s budget report compared with last year’s report.
On health, the resources that have been made available have
risen from £1,341 million to £1,447 million this
year—an increase of £106 million. That is far short of
what the Secretary of State promised, and what he said was needed to
deliver the health programme in his priorities and budget statement of
December 2005, in which he said that the increase this year would be
£228 million. I did not check the figures for the previous year,
but I suspect that they contain the same shortfall.
Any Assembly that inherits that
budget and the programme for health spending laid down by the
Government will face a shortfall in this one year alone of £112
million. That is already beginning to show in my constituency. Only
this week, I had to contact the Minister’s office about a
constituent who had broken his collar bone in November. He is still
waiting for an operation. His situation has become so bad that when the
operation to fix the bone eventually takes place, a piece of bone will
have to be taken from his leg to join the two pieces of bone in his
shoulder. Yet there is still no prospect of that operation taking
place. Why? It is because of a bed shortage in the Royal Victoria
hospital, the only place where it take place.
In my
constituency, we have seen a big move towards community care for those
who leave of hospital. As a result, Inver house in Larne is due to
close. Yet when it comes to community care packages, I receive
complaints almost weekly from people who left hospital on the
understanding that the community care package would be delivered once
they were at home, but who were subsequently abandoned. The promised
community care workers and nurses are being withdrawn because of staff
shortages or because there is no money.
Only on Monday morning, I met
representatives of the ambulance service in East Antrim. As a result of
the closure or the running down of the hospital at Whiteabbey, the
service now has to take people to Antrim hospital or one of the Belfast
hospitals, even though the ambulance cover has been
reduced.
Mr.
Hanson:
I could have answered that point in my winding-up
speech, but I do not want the hon.
Gentleman’s point about the Secretary of State to be lost. I have
looked at the figures again. In 2005-06, there is expenditure of
£3.34 billion for the Department of Health; in 2006-07, it is
£3.58 billion; and proposed expenditure for 2009-08 is
£3.823 billion. That last figure shows a considerable increase
over the figure for 2005-06. I am happy to supply those figures to him
after the
sitting.
Sammy
Wilson:
I thank the Minister for that answer, but the
Secretary of State said that delivering the Government’s health
programme would entail an increase this year of £228 million.
Not even the Minister’s figures show such an increase. The
figures that he gave for the previous year do not show a £235
million increase either. I pointed out that there had been an increase
in the figure, but it is not what the Secretary of State said was
required to deliver the health
programme.
Mr.
Hanson:
With due respect, I cannot remember the exact
figure that the hon. Gentleman gave. However, my quick maths—it
is only O-level maths—tells me that the £3.823 billion
proposed for next year and the £3.587 billion for this year
shows an increase of £236 million.
Sammy
Wilson:
I stand corrected. I probably misheard the
figures. I was doing the calculations on a figure that I had heard, but
I am more than happy to take the figures from
him.
Mr.
Hanson:
If it helps, I shall give the figures again. In
2005-06, the figure is £3.34 billion; in 2006-07, it is
£3.587 billion; and in 2007-08, it is £3.823 billion.
That is a £236 million increase between the current and the
forthcoming year, and it is some £500 million more than two
years ago.
Sammy
Wilson:
I come back to the point that there are five
different sets of figures before us. We have the resources for use, the
cash figure, the accruing resources, the non-operating accruing
resources and so on. We should bear in mind that some of those figures
are notional. If the Minister is counting in the notional figures, he
will get the increase indicated by the Secretary of
State.
Mr.
Hanson:
That does not include capital expenditure, which
in the next financial year will be £208.7 million,
compared to £176.3 million in 2005-06—an increase of
£32
million.
Sammy
Wilson:
I will take the figures that the Minister has
given. However, I am not so sure that two and a half hours of debate
across the room is the best way to scrutinise the figures. There is a
better way of doing it. I am sure that if we had an opportunity for a
more intensive consideration of the figures, we could draw more out
from them. On the ground, the facts are as I have described: they
include longer waiting lists, the closure of facilities and ambulance
cuts—and that is in only one constituency. The Minister must
accept that the programme that the Assembly will inherit is a programme
designed for further cuts.
Mrs.
Iris Robinson (Strangford) (DUP): I heard some Labour
Members making comments about this being a good budget, but I remind
hon. and right hon. Members that Northern Ireland is a different place
from the mainland. Hundreds of millions of pounds each year go out of
our health budget automatically to deal with victims of the 35 years of
the troubles. How much do hon. Members think that kneecappings cost to
treat? There is an ongoing care element to health service provision.
People who were bombed, blown up and scarred when they were young have
to get plastic surgery as they grow older. When we take all that on
board, we are a special case, particularly when it comes to our health
service provision. Hon. Members should take account of that when they
consider what appears to be an enormously large amount of
money.
Sammy
Wilson:
The Minister has given us figures that include
many notional figures. I take it that people comparing one year to
another would prefer to consider the cash sums that are granted. If he
considers his figures for the cash sums that have been granted, he will
see that the increase is nowhere near those that he mentioned in his
earlier
intervention.
Chris
Ruane:
The Minister has described a £500
million increase in the health budget over a two-year period. If that
is not enough, how much would the hon. Gentleman say is
enough?
Sammy
Wilson:
The £500 million is not cash, and the
Minister would confirm that. It includes many notional sums. When the
Secretary of State talked about the programme for health in Northern
Ireland, the figures that he gave were for cash sums. He said that
additional cash sums of £235 million and £228 million
were to be made available. If the Minister is telling me that the
figures that he has given are totally made up of cash increases, I will
stand corrected. My reading of the accounts and of the description of
the terms used is that the figures that he has given are not cash
increases, however, whereas the Secretary of State said in his 2005
priorities and budget statement that extra cash would be injected into
the services. My answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is that
the amount falls short of the amount of cash that the Secretary of
State said would be required to deliver the health programme. We are
seeing the effects on the ground, which is one of the reasons why I
believe that it is critical to get a proper economic
package.
The second
area is education. The promise was that there would be cash
increases for education of £100 million in 2007-08. The cash
resources that have been made available stand at £43 million. On
top of that, there are crazy decisions. Against a backdrop of falling
rolls and 54,000 empty school places in Northern Ireland, the Minister
with responsibility for education, in order to meet the requirements of
the Belfast agreement, is opening duplicate and triplicate schools for
those who want Irish language schools or integrated schools, even
though around them there are half-empty schools. For political
purposes, an added revenue burden is being placed on any future
Administration.
Some
of the recent decisions on opening new schools have caused uproar
because, at the same time, the
Minister is rightly lecturing people about the need for rationalisation
of school estates. I for one do not believe that money should be spent
on empty desks or keeping empty buildings open and lighting and heating
them. I want money to be spent on special educational needs and
services to improve the quality of education for youngsters, not simply
to keep infrastructure open. Yet additional burdens are being created,
with the result that many people will find that the additional
resources needed to identify in their early years those youngsters who
have special education needs or who are disadvantaged will not be
available.
Lembit
Öpik:
Although I do not invite the hon. Gentleman
to engage in a debate about the rights and wrongs of integrated
education, may I ask whether he accepts that we need a more strategic
approach to it? I recognise that his view may be different from mine,
but the Government need to look strategically at investment in schools,
because wherever one standson integrated education, there is a
problem of overcapacity, as he rightly points out, and the organisation
of schools is at present sending a lot of money down the
drain.
Sammy
Wilson:
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, the
rationalisation of schools will actually give a greater opportunity for
shared use of school facilities. Schools may not be officially
integrated in the way that the integrated education lobby would like,
but better use will be made of the buildings. Rationalisation
will ensure at least that local schools are available to people of all
religions, denominations and ethnic
backgrounds.
The
Secretary of State indicated in the priorities document that good
infrastructure is important, and there is a huge infrastructural
deficit. I want to mention two areas in my constituency. The first is
the A8, which is the main route to the port that is the entrance to
Northern Ireland for the vast majority of tourists and roll-on/roll-off
vessels. In many places, it is just a single road with no dual lanes
and so on. It is used by farmers driving tractors, yet it is identified
as one of Europe’s strategic routes. Despite the additional
money that the Government have allocated to infrastructure—there
has been a cash increase of £46 million for the next
year—there are no plans to improve that road for the next 15
years. That will impact greatly on the port of
Larne.
I would like
the Minister to give an answer on one further point. I was happy that
he made an announcement about the other main route into East Antrim,
the A2, but many houses have been blighted, because people will lose a
substantial part of their property. Some houses have been on the market
for six to nine months with no buyers, but people have to move for
family reasons. I would like an assurance from the Minister that there
will be no delay in purchasing those properties if there are requests
to purchase them under a blight order. People want to move from their
properties and get their youngsters into school for the next school
year and so
on.
The
other big area of infrastructure is, of course, the railways, which are
important if we are to have sustainable development in Northern
Ireland. Under the last Assembly, my hon. Friend the Member for
Belfast, East undertook significant infrastructural development in the
railways,
but it still has to be completed. I understand that there is a bid in
for the work. Perhaps the Minister will let us know whether these
budget proposals reflect the bid for new rolling stock and for the
upgrading of the railway lines that need
upgrading.
5.40
pm
Mr.
Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD): I congratulate you on
your elevation to the Chair, Dr.
McCrea.
I hope that
this is the last time that we discuss the Northern Ireland budget in
this format. As other hon. Members have said, two and a half hours is
clearly not sufficient time to give the budget proper scrutiny. If the
Assembly were up and running, it would have the time to go through the
budget properly and to question Ministers in detail. I welcomed the
commitments given by the Minister that if the Assembly fails to be
established on 26 March, the Government will consider improving the way
in which Northern Ireland legislation is scrutinised here. I suggest to
the Minister that if that does happen, we should have the power to move
amendments to the budget and we should consider income and expenditure
together.
Today, we
appear to be going through the several billion pounds of expenditure
and making suggestions as to where less or more could be spent, but to
do budgeting properly, we should be discussing income as well as
expenditure. That would include, in this case, the setting of
charges—regional rates and water charges—as well as
expenditure. Given how things are done here, it is tempting for hon.
Members to go through the budget and suggest places where more should
be spent. Indeed, I shall surrender to that temptation myself, but to
do budgeting properly, we should be discussing both income and
expenditure, and if hon. Members wanted to move amendments entailing
more spending somewhere, there would be an onus on them to say where
the money would come from, either from cuts elsewhere or increased
charges.
I want to
make a few comments about the supplementary estimates. On page 127, the
document says that an extra £66 million—that is if both
cash and resources are added together—is allocated to the
Department of Finance and Personnel. That seems an awful lot of extra
money for what is an administrative Department. Will the Minister
explain why the money has been allocated to that Department and not to
front-line
services?
Page 230
relates to the Department for Regional Development. Line A-2, which
relates to ferry services and air and sea ports, shows a reduction in
net provision of £1.6 million. I remind the Minister that last
year when the Scottish Executive produced the proposal to restart the
Campbeltown to Ballycastle ferry service, they were prepared to pay
£700,000 a year, and according to previous agreements with the
Northern Ireland Executive, when they were in existence, the Northern
Ireland Office’s share was to be £300,000. I was very
disappointed when the Northern Ireland Office refused to pay its
£300,000 share. I note that according to that budget line there
has been a cut in expenditure of £1.64 million. Clearly, there
would have been plenty of money from which to pay that
£300,000.
I therefore
ask the Government to examine the proposal again, because restarting
the ferry service from Campbeltown to Ballycastle would be a tremendous
boost to tourism in both Kintyre and Northern Ireland. At present,
there are no direct links across the North channel, but I am sure that
if tourists were allowed to make that connection, there would be scope
for attracting tourists to the area. There is a shared heritage between
Kintyre and Northern Ireland. I am sure that plenty of tourists who
come to look at the heritage of Scotland and Ireland would be delighted
to be able to use a ferry link there, and that that would bring about
an increase in tourism in both Scotland and Northern Ireland and
increased employment opportunities on both sides of the North channel.
Given that there has been a cut in relation to that budget heading of
£1.64 million, I ask the Government to take another look at
spending that
£300,000.
Further
down page 230 is line B-4, which relates to non-cash items, where there
is the very large increase in net provision of £3.5 billion. It
appears to relate to a transfer of resources from the Water Service to
Northern Ireland Water Ltd, but that is a large sum to be explained
away by a few words. Will the Minister explain in detail what that
£3.5 billion represents?
Under the section on the Office
of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister on page 277, I note
that the allocation for the civic forum has been cut from
£500,000 to £50,000. It would appear that the civic forum
has been shut down with only a little bit of ticking-over money. I
understood that the civic forum was an essential part of the Belfast
agreement. Will the Minister tell us what the Government’s
intentions are regarding
that?
My final point
relates to superannuation. There are increases at various points in the
document: on page 73, there is an increase of £2
million for teachers; on page 143, an increase of £23 million
for finance and personnel; and on page 185, an increase of £0.5
million for health and social services. Will the Minister explain why
it is necessary to increase expenditure on the pension fund? Has it
perhaps not been performing as well as expected? I would like an
explanation from him, and I hope that he will be able to respond to
those points in his winding-up
speech.
5.47
pm
Stephen
Pound:
I apologise to you, Dr. McCrea, for any unintended
solecism earlier on when I referred to the Minister of State by his
honorific. I did so in certain anticipation, and I am sure that I speak
for the whole Committee when I say how proud we are of his elevation to
the Privy Council.
Had
I a political career to blight, my saying that the hon. Member for
Montgomeryshire made some pertinent points would surely—to use
the expression in common parlance in this Committee—kneecap it
thoroughly, or even six-pack it. The hon. Gentleman actually made a
serious and sensible point. It was uncharacteristic, but all the more
welcome for that. He argued that we have an à la carte reaction:
a series of statistics, reports and actuarial analyses that we can
either accept or reject. We cannot move positive or negative virement,
or transfer funds from one area to another. We cannot strike out
individual spending commitments, tempting though that may be.
We can, and must, seek to
understand what we are trying to agree. This is where I look to the
Minister for enlightenment, as I have done frequently in the past. I
have to say that never have I been disappointed or frustrated in that
quest. Having glossed over the Armagh observatory and planetarium with
a brief prayer of thanks for the support given by Her Majesty’s
Government to that remarkable institution, my eyes fell on budget head
A20 on page 35, dealing with the Sports Council for Northern Ireland. I
see that £258,000 is being internally transferred for safe
sports grounds. An excellent idea, one might say. I frequently visit
sports grounds in Northern Ireland, although I am sure that members of
my family would not be too happy to hear that I go to Glentoran. I
usually go with earplugs because the nature of the songs sung on the
terraces of the Glentoran Oval is occasionally slightly jarring to
those of my background.
However, when one sees
£258,000 being transferred for safe sports grounds, one asks the
question, “From whence comes the money?” We then see that
£211,000 is being transferred from sub-head A5/3 . We glance
backwards and find that sub-head A5 refers to museums. We appear to be
taking money from museums and spending it on sports grounds. I am sure
that that is entirely sensible. However, we see that a decrease in
provision for sub-head A5/3 of £311,000 to reflect a
£211,000 transfer to A7/3, which brings us back to
A20—the sports grounds. On A31-1, we see some more money from
different headings also transferred across for that purpose.
What is the common factor in
all those transfers? It is not that they are surplus funds or
previously expended sums that are now considered redundant, even
otiose, or that the museums of Northern Ireland are so flooded with
cash that, needs must, they must turn away the funding and say,
“We have so much that we do not need it”. No, in every
case, it is because of something called capital investment
re-profiling. That may well be a form of fiscal plastic surgery, but in
my experience, capital investment re-profiling is usually the
accountant’s version of a three-card trick. It usually means
that the repayment period of a particular sum of money is extended over
five, 10 or 15 years on the assumption that one day a Conservative
Government will come in and be responsible for it. It means that one
re-profiles it on the books by placing it in a different category head,
by calling it something else and putting it under a different budget
head.
I
am no supporter of the modern namby-pamby habit of sitting to watch
football; that is not how those of us who for many years have supported
that noble game—the working man’s ballet—prefer to
watch, although at Glentoran Oval, ballet is seldom on the menu,
although the sights are certainly exciting. However, I hasten to add
that I have no argument with safer sports grounds. However, budget
re-profiling is the fountainhead from which flows the cash
cornucopia—three streams of money that make up the
£258,000 internal transfer, consisting of £211,000 from
sub-head A53, £23,000 from A19/3 and £24,000 from
A13/3.
I
am not an accountant and have little practical experience. My principle
was always to give my pay packets to Mrs. P on a Thursday
night; she returned a small amount of money and paid my bar bill.
However, is it possible somehow to track this chimera down the
rabbit hole in which it appears to have dived? We could see glittering
in the future the possibility of comprehension that is denied me at
present. I was in this very Committee when the Minister silenced all
criticism of funding for the Armagh observatory by pointing
out—sotto voce, more in sorrow than anything else—that it
had been closed for a year. I am sure that there is a good reason why
capital re-profiling has swept across all those other budget heads.
Why, civil servants the length and breadth of the Six Counties are
saying, “We’ll re-profile that capital now and get some
money into sports ground safety”.
But what exactly does that
mean? Have we discovered the holy grail of financial manipulation and
management? Have all our problems come to an end? Is capital
re-profiling the answer to all our difficulties? Can we forget about
water rates and additional places in schools? Can we look to the
salvation of capital re-profiling to answer all our concerns, problems
and worries?
On a
serious note, how can we realistically and seriously state that we are
scrutinising this legislation? In fact, we are observing a series of
movements printed on the page—not as potential transfers, but as
faits accomplis. What, realistically, can we do when faced by such
payments, and by what democratic process was the decision made to take
those three sums from those three different budget heads and place them
in the safer sports ground budget? How is that accountable? How do we,
as a Grand Committee, have any say in that? If we are simply to put a
tick or a cross against this order, two and a half hours is two hours
29 minutes too long.
I
look, as ever, to the Minister for a response, which I am sure will
embarrass me as I will have failed to spot something very serious and
obvious. There is a profound point beneath our discussion, which I
thank the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire for
raising.
5.54
pm
Mrs.
Robinson:
I apologise to hon. Members. I must catch a
flight home tonight for an important engagement and will not be able to
stay for the winding-up speeches. I also apologise to the Minister for
that, but I look forward to reading
Hansard later to see the
answers to the questions I will raise.
I wish to mention again the
issue of intensive care cots for newborn babies in Northern Ireland.
The number of babies requiring specialist neonatal cots has clearly
increased over recent years because medical advances mean that more
premature and unwell babies manage to survive. The Minister responsible
has admitted that the demand for neonatal care has increased. The extra
£800,000 allocated to neonatal care for the coming year is a
welcome step. The cost of creating and maintaining one such specialist
cot is significant and the extra funding will allow for one additional
intensive care cot, another paediatric intensive care bed, and the
development of a managed clinical network.
Senior consultants spend
valuable hours on the telephone arguing for beds for sick babies under
their care. Greater co-ordination of the different units across
Northern Ireland is essential and figures from the Minister suggest
that the number of newborns who require transfer because cots are not
available is not
large. I agree with that. However, I am more interested in the number of
pregnant mothers who are being transferred across the water or to the
Irish Republic for the same reason prior to giving
birth.
A lady from the
Shankill road area in Belfast was in the local press. She recently had
to travel to Drogheda in the Irish Republic because there were no
neonatal cots available in Northern Ireland for when she was due to
give birth. Aside from the obvious disruption that causes to women and
their families, there are always costs to the health service associated
with transferring patients. I am sure that the Minister agrees that we
must ensure that Northern Ireland has the capacity to meet the needs of
our
population.
Mr.
Hanson:
I hope that I can reassure the hon. Lady that I
wish to see changes made. She raises an important point and, as she
will be leaving the Committee before the end, it is important that I
try to reassure her now. Over the past five years, only four newborn
babies have been transferred out of Northern Ireland because there were
no specialist cot facilities available. Another 15 babies have been
transferred for specialist treatments not available in Northern Ireland
and fewer than 20 mothers have been transferred with their babies in
utero. The hon. Lady makes an important point, which is crucial to the
families affected, but compared with the overall number of live births
in Northern Ireland, it is still a relatively small
concern.
Mrs.
Robinson:
I accept what the Minister says and thank him
for his intervention. However, four mothers having to travel outside
Northern Ireland is too many. We were promised that facilities for ill
babies—premature or otherwise—would be able to be dealt
with at the Royal group of hospitals once the Jubilee was closed. I am
sure that hon. Members will agree that any parent having to travel
outside the United Kingdom would be traumatised by moving away from
family and friends. There are costs associated with moving mothers and
babies to other parts of the mainland or to the Irish
Republic.
I know we
are all rooting for baby Ben to come through and I was sad to read in a
newsletter this morning that he had not made progress. However, I read
the Belfast Telegraph tonight and it said that he has made
progress. We thank God that that wee soul is improving and we continue
to pray that he will come through and be a healthy young man. We must
put on record our praise for the care taken and efforts made by the
Ulster hospital staff to organise a bed for the six-week-old baby. It
was something they could not cope with at the time. That highlights the
need and the importance of having a devolved Administration in Northern
Ireland and local politicians taking responsibility for and control of
our
affairs.
Major
changes must be made to the health service locally to give people the
confidence in the NHS that they deserve if and when they need attention
and the delivery of services. The number of seriously ill babies who
could be treated in Northern Ireland would undoubtedly prove
increasingly expensive. I know that. However, the need appears to
exist, and the difficulty
with finding sufficient cots or beds is not that infrequent. With more
and more medical advances, babies who survived previously are doing so.
Substantial costs are incurred for babies travelling outside Northern
Ireland, and only on the rarest occasion should a young patient be
forced to travel elsewhere.
I shall deal quickly with the
provision of educational psychology in Northern Ireland. The figures
that the Minister recently provided reveal that it takes approximately
20 months for some individuals to be seen by an educational
psychologist. In the South Eastern education and library board area,
there is a particularly serious problem, because the area contains a
high number of special needs children. That region of the Province
includes my constituency, where poor management of budgets led to
significant cuts in vital services in recent years, and costly
commissioners had to be introduced to oversee the board’s
financial management.
Educational psychologists are
tasked with tackling problems that young people in education encounter,
which may involve learning difficulties and social or emotional
problems. It is therefore important that we meet the needs of those
children to enhance their learning prospects and to help teachers to
become more aware of social factors that affect teaching and
learning.
Educational
psychologists deal with extremely difficult cases, such as young people
on the autistic spectrum, with developmental disorders, dyslexia,
attention deficit disorder and ME. More and more young people in
Northern Ireland, tragically, are being diagnosed with those
conditions, and it is important that problems are detected early so
that supportive intervention can be instigated.
I now turn to
a rural school in my constituency, Derryboye school. It is located at
the side of a busy main road, where one can speed up to 60 mph. For
some time the principal and staff have been lobbying for the provision
of a car park to decrease the obvious potential for road traffic
accidents. The farmer who owns the land adjacent to the school is happy
to sell it for a nominal fee, but the South Eastern education
and library board has insufficient funds to build the car
park.
In dealing with
the current security situation in Northern Ireland, the demands being
made of the police are thankfully not what they once were. That is not
to justify the horrendous way in which the Royal Ulster Constabulary
was treated, or the abominable Patten report. Likewise, the cuts that
have already been made to police resources have left many communities
feeling isolated and exposed to the actions of criminals. It has served
to nurture a growing climate of fear among the most vulnerable in
society, many of whom rarely venture beyond their front doors after
dark.
It was
noticeable during our canvassing that once 6 o’clock
came round, old people in particular would not open their doors to
receive election material. One might say that that was because it was
the Democratic Unionist party, but I can assure all Members that that
is not true; I have talked to a few members of the opposition, and they
said that they received the same response.
I am concerned, however, that
in the Ards district command unit, for example, we have lost almost one
quarter of our officers since 2001. As a result, rapid response has been
withdrawn from Cumber and Donaghadee stations. Officers dedicated to
traffic duties have been withdrawn from the DCU altogether. Portaferry,
Cumber and Donaghadee stations are operational for just one hour a day
except Sunday, while Greyabbey station is no longer operational.
Newtonards station is operational 24 hours a day, but the number of
police vehicles available to it is limited.
Between 2002 and 2005, officers
were called out on almost 60,000 occasions. We now read of plans to cut
£300 million from the policing budget, which will result in
2,500 fewer hours on duty for officers, 300 civilian jobs axed, more
station closures, and delays to station maintenance and improvement.
That can only have a negative
outcome.
I cannot sit
down without mentioning the iniquitous cod recovery scheme, based as it
was on anything other than scientific fact. It has run for seven years
with no indication that it has succeeded. Tie-up aid has been crucial
to ensure that the white fish fleet remained viable. Our concerns were
dismissed and the refusal to grant that aid in 2006 and 2007 has now
resulted in the extinction of the white fish fleet. It is alleged that
the decision to refuse aid was because it was not value for money, but
if that was the case, why did the scheme operate in 2004 and 2005? If
it was value for money in those years, what changed in 2006 and
2007?
I want to raise
a specific case concerning water charging, which my hon. Friend the
Member for East Antrim dealt with in detail. Mrs Loretta Atchison and
her husband live at 5 The Spires crescent in Killinchy. She suffers
from multiple sclerosis, and her husband has Parkinson's disease. They
receive a reduced rates bill as a result, but they have been told that
they do not qualify for a reduced water rates bill. The Minister should
agree that such discrimination cannot be tolerated, and I trust that
the matter will be
addressed.
I would
like to raise many other issues, but time does not permit that, and I
agree with the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire that two and a half
hours is insufficient to deal with all the issues that we, as elected
representatives, would like to raise on behalf of our constituents.
However, I would like the Minister to consider matters such as back-up
for carers, particularly those who look after Alzheimer’s
sufferers and those who suffer from mental illness. The Government have
been guilty of relying on the good will of families and friends to look
after people with severe mental illness. I plead with him to consider
allowing appropriate medications to be given to Alzheimer’s
sufferers, particularly if the medication helps their quality of
life.
I want to take
the opportunity to talk about the rise in suicides in Northern Ireland.
That is becoming a major concern to many of us, and perhaps the
Minister will consider a wider provision to deal with the matter. It
applies not just in west and north Belfast, but across the board. I
would like to see projects rolled out to deal with that important
matter.
Another matter
that I want to raise is the need for more mental health services for
children and adolescents. There may be plans in the pipeline for a new
facility, and I hope that it will have provision to deal also with
eating disorders and bulimia.
I thank the Minister for his
help in the past, and I trust that this is the last time we see him
dealing with matters pertaining to Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the
Member for East Antrim and I belong to a strongly devolutionist party,
which believes that the way forward in Northern Ireland is to have our
own devolved Administration with local people making decisions that
affect the lives of our local
population.
6.9
pm
Lady
Hermon:
I know that the word “historic” is
often bandied about in this place and elsewhere, but this is an
historic occasion from my perspective because it is, I believe, the
first time that the Committee has been chaired by a Northern Ireland MP
since I was elected to the House in 2001. Many congratulations to you,
Dr. McCrea. I am delighted to sit under your chairmanship.
This is also an opportunity to
congratulate the Minister on his appointment to the Privy Council,
which is richly deserved. We look forward to celebrating that with
something other than the devil’s buttermilk, which might offend
some people. I look forward to being invited to the party afterwards by
the Minister.
It would
be churlish of me not to welcome the additional investment in Northern
Ireland by the Labour Government. Northern Ireland is an integral part
of the UK, and I certainly welcome the additional expenditure that the
Minister has confirmed in this order. Yes, it is a short debate at
two-and-a-half hours, but it is about increased expenditure. If the
Minister checks the Hansard reports, he will, I hope, find my
name amongst those who voted with the Government, in the correct
Division Lobby, for increased expenditure, including the new deal, on a
previous occasion when we did vote through a budget.
That said, it is with a sinking
heart that I look back at our last debate on a draft budget for
Northern Ireland, on 20 June 2006. In that debate, I addressed four
specific issues, of which I shall concentrate on one today. The first
issue that I asked the Government to consider was a very important one:
the travel costs of those who have been diagnosed with cancer and who
wish to come to the best hospital for treatment, which happens to be in
Belfast.
The Belfast
City hospital has a wonderful cancer treatment centre, which is the
regional centre for cancer treatment. The additional travel costs of
those who have to travel there daily for radiation, chemotherapy or
other treatments are an enormous financial burden on those families. I
asked the Government to look into that, particularly the Macmillan
Cancer Relief campaign, but if I were to ask the Minister today what
changes there have been, I think he would say that there have been
none. Indeed, he is indicating that there has been no
change.
Mr.
Hanson:
I do not
know.
Lady
Hermon:
The second issue that I raised was increased
funding for the key steps programme—an educational programme
through the North Down and Ards Institute. The programme has been very
beneficial, particularly for young people from housing
estates such as the Kilcooley estate. I asked for increased expenditure
in that programme, yet here we are at the end of February and, again,
if I asked him, the Minister would probably tell me that there have
been no changes
there.
The third point
that I raised—here, we get the drift—was also to do with
Kilcooley. It was about the hugely successful community restorative
justice scheme. The Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs has
just published its report, in which it is highly complimentary about
the success of the impact scheme in Bangor, in particular, where we no
longer have blood on the grass, literally, from paramilitary beatings.
In 2001, when I was newly elected, I regularly phoned the Housing
Executive to ask for people to be transferred out of Kilcooley. There
is now a waiting list. The Housing Executive has tried to deal with
hundreds of people who are trying to get back into Kilcooley. That is
how successful the impact scheme has been in that area. However, the
Government have not increased the expenditure on it one iota.
I shall focus the remainder of
my remarks on the fourth issue that I raised in our last debate. That
issue, which the hon. Member for Strangford touched on, is very close
to my heart: treatment for Alzheimer’s sufferers. Anyone who has
listened to the news today will probably have heard something about
this. Radio Ulster led with the issue, as did BBC Radio 4 and the World
Service. The radio is always on in every room in my home. As an
Alzheimer’s sufferer, my husband rarely has a full
night’s sleep, so the radio is constantly on. Radio 4 led with
the news this morning that in the United Kingdom 700,000 people are
currently diagnosed with dementia, and it is estimated that it incurs a
yearly expenditure of £17 billion.
I was particularly struck by
the amounts of money that the Minister mentioned in his introductory
remarks. The total advised for Northern Ireland for 2006-07 is
£16.83 billion—almost £17 billion. That is the
total sum in the budget allocation that we are discussing this
afternoon. That budget would be entirely eaten up with the current cost
of those suffering dementia UK-wide. My husband is not alone in
Northern Ireland. It is estimated that there are 17,000 dementia
sufferers in Northern Ireland. I am sure that the hon. Member for
Belfast, South could confirm it, but I believe that that is an
underestimate.
GPs
are always encouraged, and morally rightly so, to make as early a
diagnosis as possible of all conditions, including all cancers and
dementia, because we know that if a condition is diagnosed early the
treatment has a better chance of success. Alzheimer’s is a
ghastly illness. It not only steals a person’s memory, but it
steals their personality and their personal dignity—and it is
absolutely incurable.
During the Committee’s
debate in June 2006, I urged the Minister responding to the debate to
answer this point. The National Institute for Health and Clinical
Excellence guidance for the Department of Health in England and Wales
said that the medication, which we know is very successful in the
treatment of Alzheimer’s once it has been diagnosed, should be
received on the NHS only by those who are moderately or severely
confused. That left GPs throughout the country with
an enormously difficult moral dilemma. Yes, doctors can make an early
diagnosis, but to the carer and the sufferer they have to say,
“I’m terribly sorry, but you are not confused enough for
me to be able to prescribe the appropriate medication.” That was
the NICE recommendation to the Department of Health in England and
Wales in the autumn.
I must tell the Committee that
we are not talking about an expensive treatment. Effective treatments
such as Reminy cost an average of £2.50 a week. I repeat that:
£2.50 a week. I am sure that the Minister sometimes does the
shopping; that is the same as two large bags of potato crisps on
special offer. That is the cost per week of effective treatment for
Alzheimer’s.
I
commend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon.
Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins), who is
responsible for health matters in Northern Ireland. He is not
with us today, but I am sure that his colleagues will respond for him.
He kindly wrote to me after that Budget debate. He wrote on 20 July
2006 in response to the points that I had raised in the debate, and
said that as of 26 June 2006
“all new NICE guidance would be
reviewed locally for its applicability for Northern Ireland. The local
review of the institute’s appraisal and determination on the
Alzheimer’s drugs is now under way, and my Department will
advise on the applicability of the final NICE guidance to Northern
Ireland shortly after it is published in England and
Wales.”
He said it would
be shortly after publication in England and Wales.
It must be patently obvious
from the research published today that the burden of the cost to the
economy and to this country is shouldered by carers. If there is not
early intervention by appropriate medication, greater numbers of those
suffering from Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia will need
residential and long-term nursing care. Budget commitments and demands
on the NHS and elsewhere will simply escalate. The common-sense and
morally correct thing to do is to intervene as early as possible with
the appropriate medication. Will the Minister confirm that his
colleague—the local health Minister in Northern
Ireland—has not followed the NICE guidance in England and Wales
and will not wait for the judicial review of that guidance, but will
take the opportunity to make the right decision in Northern Ireland?
That would mean that at the earliest diagnosis of this ghastly,
horrible illness, GPs are not faced with a moral dilemma imposed on
them by the Government, but instead will be able to say to the carer
and to the sufferer, “Yes, of course, I can prescribe the
treatment on the NHS”. That is the confirmation I would like
from the Minister.
I
regret that the Minster’s colleague, who was responsible for
many things, including the ridiculous introduction of water charging
based on the capital value of someone’s property, is not present
now. I said in response to his intervention that I had attempted to
contact the water service helpline because my husband, for whom I have
power of attorney, is the householder in my home. My husband is
obviously unable to apply for a water meter and I, as his wife, can do
so. When I married my dear husband I felt as if I had married the
entire Herman family as I took Jack’s sister, who is a wonderful
woman, into our home. She lives within our
home and has always done so in a separate granny flat, which is an
integral part of our house. She is 80 years old—I am sure that
she will not read
Hansard so will not know that her secret has
been given away. When I phoned the helpline, I was queried that two
application packs for a water meter could not be sent to the same
address; what a ridiculous, outrageous reply from a helpline. When I
quibbled with the young lady, she said that she needed to take further
advice and, in fairness, she did come back after some time and confirm
that, yes, two application packs could be sent out to the same
address.
My family is
one of 17,000 families throughout Northern Ireland whose carers will be
in a similar position. I do not want them to be faced with a helpline
inquiry that could be easily resolved and I would like the Minister to
confirm that greater attention will be paid to those who suffer from
Alzheimer’s, particularly their carers, who carry an enormous
burden. If the Minister could lessen that burden, we would all gladly
welcome that, including
myself.
6.23
pm
Dr.
Alasdair McDonnell (Belfast, South) (SDLP): Thank you, Dr.
McCrea, for your tolerance and forbearance, and for affording me a
brief comment. If I had the time, I could probably take up the full two
and half hours teasing open the full implications of the budget and the
changes and adjustments therein. However, like the last two speakers,
if I had the time, I would raise the many health issues that affect
each and everyone of us in our daily lives and that we encounter during
our work as MPs. Major issues were strongly grappled with by the former
Minister for health, now the Under-Secretary of State for Culture,
Media and Sport, the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr.
Woodward). They are now being grappled with by the current Minister. I
mean no criticism or disrespect to either, but there are major
problems, including youth suicides, that must be dealt with. I believe
that mental health will be a Cinderella issue and will be deprived of
finances within the health service. Like the previous speaker, I have
deep sympathy with those suffering from Alzheimer’s. I could
spend time debating with the hon. Lady and other hon. Members the
implications of Alzheimer’s and the need for a much more
personalised support service. The service we have is far more
generalised and is not about names or people, but about numbers and
statistics.
There is
much to be done on cancer. Again, it needs to be factored into the
budget. Much of this could be further factored into primary care. I
commend the Government on the changes that have been made in the past
few years in terms of shifting care to primary care. They have worked.
I try to do an occasional surgery and do a little medical work to keep
my hand in, as it were. From my limited experience, I know the
difference that has come about. People are now getting a much better
service from primary care. I hope that that continues and is
expanded.
I commend
the hon. Member for North Down and reinforce what she said about better
access to vital drugs. The reality is that there are drugs that can
improve the quality of life, not just for Alzheimer’s patients
but for many others, and we are much too slow in giving access to them.
I honestly think that the
proverbial man or woman in the street believes that decisions are made
on a cost-saving rather than a clinical-care basis. I meet with that
daily, with six or eight people attending my office on a regular basis
screaming about drugs. That is only the tip of the iceberg in my
constituency.
I want
briefly to express serious concerns about an aspect of the budget that
has not been dealt with. We have talked much in the past few months
about generating prosperity, growing the private sector and reducing
the overdependence on the public sector that has existed in Northern
Ireland for the past 30 or 40 years. I notice in the spring
estimates and the draft budget notes that there are considerable
slippage and significant reductions in vital areas. That is
ill-advised. I do not mind changes taking place or waste being trimmed
out of the budget, but vital moneys should not be trimmed out.
Otherwise, one throws the baby out with the bath
water.
There are
serious issues in my constituency, but I also know of problems at
several schools in your constituency, Dr. McCrea, where the buildings
are falling down around the children. Many of those schools were built
35, 40 or 45 years ago. Schoolchildren are housed largely in
portakabins, in facilities that are not fit for them. They are expected
to learn in places that are more like air raid shelters or aerodromes,
where the wind blows through. I could mention several maintained
schools in my constituency that need refurbishment and improvement, but
I shall refer to just two. Cairnshill primary school badly needs
rebuilding, as does Taughmonagh primary school, which is in one of the
most disadvantaged areas in Belfast. There has been an argument about
its facilities for three years. The students gave up their school and
moved into portakabins to allow a special needs school next door to be
rebuilt and expanded. They are still in the portakabins and are being
told that they cannot have the school back. I urge the Minister to do
whatever he can to impress upon his colleagues that Taughmonagh primary
school has to be rebuilt urgently, because no child should have to
suffer what those kids have been going through. I could list other
schools, but I shall
not.
We need greater
and better focused investment in education because it is at the
under-age and early-years stages that education needs to be dealt with.
Once a child reaches 10, 11 or 12 years of age, their ways are set and
little can be done to remedy shortcomings or
disadvantages.
Under
employment and learning, I note that there is slippage in this
year’s budget and provision for much more slippage in next
year’s budget; in other words, the budget has been cut. If we
are to gear ourselves up for greater dependence on the private sector,
we badly need better training. I shall not deal with high-technology
training, as I could go on for ages about it. There are several issues
that I could deal raise, but I shall discuss just one: the need for
better modern apprenticeships. Any tradesman who I speak to tells me
that it is not cost-effective for him to apprentice a plumber,
electrician and so on. They do it out of the goodness of their heart,
but insurance and various other costs are so prohibitive that it is
mainly a nuisance and a burden. They give up in many cases because they
feel that it is
not worth while. I consider that modern apprenticeships are assets that
we need to work with and maintain.
We could
focus on many trades, but I am particularly concerned about building
trades. It was the tradition in Northern Ireland to have a surplus of
building tradesmen. Indeed, many of them emigrated and moved to big
cities in the United Kingdom. Today, we have a deficit and we are
bringing in plumbers from Poland and elsewhere. I have no objection to
that; I do not want members of the Committee to misinterpret what I am
saying, but the reality is that we have people who are unemployed, but
who could have been trained and who should have been trained. They
could be put to work and allowed the dignity of a job, but our
apprenticeship system is not working well enough for
people.
If we are to
move from less dependency on the public sector to more involvement in
the private sector, we need a greater commitment. I notice that
Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment funding is slipping and
sliding. Next year, we need much greater focus on preparation for work
and the organisation of inward investment. I am not making political
overtones or undertones, but we are sitting 100 miles away from a
fairly successful economy in the Great Dublin region and the Irish
Republic generally. We will have to compete
there.
I know that
Northern Ireland has problems with productivity and that ours is
perhaps quite a bit lower than the rest, but I draw the
Minister’s attention to the need for the corporation tax rate to
be looked at. While I am fully aware of the many difficulties, that is
the one thing that within four or five years would leave the Northern
Irish economy—dare I say it—flying. Whatever the losses
were in the short term, they would be rapidly recovered and would
create a level playing field with the Irish Republic. Others have a
different rate, but I should be happy with a similar rate of
12.5 per cent.
Extra
moneys have been allocated to regional development We have a massive
problem. We have tended at times to focus on water because of the
contentiousness of such matters. However, serious infrastructure
problems remain. I want to put on the record how I welcome it and say
that we should all accept the good will that has been shown to us by
the Government of the Irish Republic. Again, I urge that such action is
not misinterpreted politically, but seen as a good will gesture that
they are prepared to invest in some of the infrastructure in the border
region and further afield if we want them to. They are making gestures
in the right direction and I want our infrastructure to be improved
much quicker. We need a coherent plan to make that happen. It is not
enough to set aside money for it. We can set aside all the money that
we like, but if the machinery and an active and aggressive plan are not
there to ensure that the infrastructure is brought up to standard
quickly, it will not
happen.
I want
Northern Ireland to reach a stage when it is sustainable. I want each
child to have an opportunity of a real job. I want them to have the
dignity of a real job and the dignity of economic independence. I thank
the Committee for giving me the opportunity to make
those few points. I did so because having looked superficially at the
budget notes, I worry that we are not doing enough to encourage such
results. We talk a lot about generating growth in the private sector,
but there is not enough for us in the budget to give meaning to that
aspiration.
6.34
pm
Mr.
Hanson:
I thank hon. Members for their contributions
during this afternoon’s debate on the estimates. I remind them
that we are debating the supplementary estimate for 2006-07
retrospectively and authorising a proportion of potential expenditure
to be undertaken from 2007-08. We are not setting finally the budget
for 2007-08. That will, I hope, be a matter for the devolved Assembly
on its return, post 26 March or for me as Finance Minister, in the
unhappy event that the Assembly does not return. Hon. Members’
contributions today, in terms of their priorities, can still be
reflected on by both the Finance Minister here and/or in the Assembly
in due course.
In the
15 or so minutes that I have got to respond to the debate, I want to
try, broadly, to deal with the points that all hon. Members have
raised. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury made various points. I pay
tribute to his assiduousness in attending not just this debate, but
debates on all Northern Ireland matters. He made the astute point that
I have a team of civil servants backing me up, as Minister—as do
my hon. Friends—but he does not. He is an assiduous Member of
Parliament who undertakes work on many occasions, week in, week out,
not just with me as Minister, but with my colleagues. It is a burden
that he shares with dignity. Having said that, he knows that I disagree
with him on a number of points. I tried to give him a gentle kicking
earlier on expenditure to do with public spending policy, but we share
the understanding that he works hard on these
matters.
The hon.
Gentleman rightly identified that the proportion of spending in the
public and private sectors is a key issue. It is not the size of the
public sector that is the problem, but the size of the private sector.
It is important to grow the private sector. We have just published the
regional economic strategy after four or so drafts, in discussion with
the CBI, trade unions, local government and others. That is currently
out to consultation. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and other hon.
Members will consider that. I hope that we can, under the devolved
Administration, finalise that document to look at how we can develop
the private sector. A number of key areas, including skills, investment
and infrastructure, will be needed to ensure that we improve the public
and private sectors in Northern Ireland. The strategy will bring a lot
of good. The investment strategy, particularly in infrastructure, will
be a key factor in helping to support development in the areas that I
have mentioned.
The
hon. Member for Tewkesbury is right to say that economic inactivity is
a key issue. We have higher levels of economic inactivity in Northern
Ireland, which is partly explained by a number of councils, but we need
to ensure that people—particularly many people who are currently
on benefits—get back into work. The welfare-to-work programme,
involving my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston and myself
inthe Social Development Department, is trying to
undertake some changes to do that. That is a key issue. There is
probably some common ground between us that I hope the Committee
recognises in due
course.
The
hon. Gentleman mentioned affordability of housing, which will be
debated in an Adjournment debate shortly. I have taken an interest in
that. House prices are rising in Northern Ireland, as they are in other
parts of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. We are trying
our best to build affordable houses through the social housing
programme and we are aiming for 1,500 or so houses per year. We have
introduced the co-ownership scheme and considered a range of mechanisms
for that. However, because of the difficulties, we have also put in
place an affordability review, headed by the former head of the civil
service, Sir John Semple, which reported in draft to me earlier this
year. The final review will come out post the 26 March election and I
understand that it will advance some suggestions that the Government
need to consider to tackle those issues—not just in Government,
but with the private sector, the housing market and the lenders, as
well as the Housing Executive and social housing
providers.
The hon.
Gentleman mentioned the all-Ireland energy market, which is a source of
positive collaboration between north and south. The all-Ireland market
will help, over time, to address our high energy costs. The hon.
Gentleman also touched on the regional rate and the rate burden. I
accept that in April there will be a major change in the way that rates
are calculated, but the Government have committed to restrict any
increases in rates next year to 6 per cent. Obviously, the final rate
depends on the one set by the local councils, but we have given a
commitment to maintain the regional rate at a 6 per cent.
increase.
The hon.
Gentleman finally mentioned
tourism.
Mr.
Robertson:
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I
asked whether the change in the rating system is revenue neutral. He
has said on many occasions that it is, but the figures that he has
provided me with in a written answer suggests that it is
not.
Mr.
Hanson:
I have always said that the changes are revenue
neutral, and I stand by that. I will examine the figures again for the
hon. Gentleman, and write to
him.
The
hon. Gentleman mentioned tourism, which is important. One of the
benefits of the political peace process has been the growth of tourism
in Northern Ireland with a 13 per cent. increase in visitor numbers in
2005, and £354 million generated in the local economy. There are
some great sites in the constituencies of all hon. Members who are
present today. We want to work on
that.
The hon. Member
for East Antrim referred to the economic package from the Chancellor. I
know how important that is to him and others in relation to the
devolution process. Following a meeting before Christmas, the
Chancellor indicated £35 billion of expenditure over the next
four years and £18 billion of capital over the next 12 years. He
will meet the political parties after the election, and I am sure that
that will be discussed. The definitive figures for Northern Ireland are
higher than those for Scotland and Wales now, and the capital and
revenue have increased for the next four years. There will be debate
about that, but the
Chancellor has an important point to make. He is the right hon. Member
for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, and I want to put that on the record so
that when he reads
Hansard he will know what his constituency
is.
The hon. Member
for East Antrim also mentioned water, and we had a long debate about
that. Given the time, I do not want to cover that now, except to say
that £1.1 billion is due to be invested over the next five
years. That must be paid for somehow and the Government have decided to
raise that resource by £300 million a year. There is a debate
about that, but competence lies with the Assembly, and I hope that it
will examine those matters in due
course.
Elections take
place not just during election periods, but throughout the year, and it
is important to represent constituents throughout the year. The hon.
Member for East Antrim mentioned several key issues in his
constituency, including the A8 Belfast-Larne road. The Roads Service
published a consultation paper on the possible extension and
development of new road schemes. The A8 Belfast-Larne road has been
identified as a possible scheme. No final decisions have been made, but
I hope that they will be very shortly, under a devolved
Administration.
The
rolling stock on the Larne line and options for future train services
is another issue that is being considered. An interdepartmental
steering group has been established to consider investment in rolling
stock and the rail network. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland,
my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde, is leading that, and will
consider the issues in more
detail.
I
accept fully the points that the hon. Member for East Antrim made about
the need to invest in infrastructure in terms of capital not just in
schools, but in roads, rail stock and other aspects of infrastructure.
That is the whole purpose of the regional economic strategy, and
identifies a number of economic infrastructure projects necessary to
improve and step change Northern Ireland’s economy. I hope that
that will be considered in detail and commented
on.
The hon. Member
for Argyll and Bute raised a number of points, which I shall try to
answer in detail, so I hope that he will bear with me. He identified
extra money to the Department of Finance and Personnel, which
undertakes functions on behalf of a number of Northern Ireland civil
service departments, and that is reflected in some of the estimate
provision. It is not all DFP resource; it is sometimes resource that is
allocated by DFP for other aspects of Government
expenditure.
The hon.
Gentleman mentioned the £1.6 million reduction in air, sea and
ports. That mainly involves slippage into 2007 of the work schedule for
Warrenpoint harbour in Northern Ireland. That slippage is due to
clearance from the European Union on state aid issues. I hope that that
clarifies the point.
I
know that the Ballycastle to Campbeltown ferry service is of great
concern to the hon. Gentleman. Campbeltown is in his constituency, and
all politics are local. My colleagues in the Department of Enterprise,
Trade and Investment have worked with Scottish executives to try to
find a viable solution to the problem. The hon. Gentleman knows that
that has not been easy, and today there has been no resolution of the
issue. The challenge for us in the current financial climate is whether
we put £1.5 million, plus inflation,
into subsidising that ferry for the next five years at a time when there
are other demands on the public purse. The decision of the current
Administration is, “No, we can’t.” The decision of
a future Administration may be, “Yes, we can,” but that
will have to be examined in terms of affordability for the public
purse.
The hon.
Gentleman mentioned the Civic Forum. The Civic Forum’s costs
have plummeted for the simple reason that it mirrors the Assembly, and
the Assembly has not met for four years in any meaningful form.
Therefore, the Civic Forum is not an issue that is dealt with in
relation to the expenditure that we are discussing. In the event of the
Assembly reconvening, the Civic Forum—a commitment of the Good
Friday agreement—will be reconstituted. The resources will be
provided and that cost will be borne as part of the future estimates,
rather than the historical estimates. The money is not there simply
because the body has not
met.
The hon.
Gentleman mentioned water reform and the £3.45 billion estimate
provision needed to facilitate the creation of the water company GoCo.
The Department for Regional Development will transfer the assets and
liabilities of the Water Service to the new Government-owned company
GoCo by means of a transfer scheme, which is provided for in the
legislation being undertaken. The estimate provision therefore reflects
the fact that the assets and liabilities are transferred on the
establishment of the company shortly. It is a technical, non-cash
adjustment, and I hope that that answers the point. As of 31 March
2007, the carrying value of Water Service fixed assets will be in the
region of £6
billion.
My hon.
Friend the Member for Ealing, North raised a number of valid points
regarding capital investment re-profiling. In simple terms I can say to
him that the estimates that he referred to are for 2006-07 and we need
to have parliamentary approval of changes that have been made in the
estimates that were originally approved by the House of Commons before
the estimate came forward today. The purpose of the supplementary
estimate is to seek Parliament’s approval of the changes that
have been made over the past 12 months. As ever with any Department,
changes are made in the course of the year because sometimes projects
slip, sometimes other demands arise and sometimes things happen that
are special pressures in the course of the year. That is all monitored
by the departmental Minister and centrally by the Department of Finance
and Personnel. The changes and the re-profiling are essentially for the
purposes of audit of expenditure being addressed in a positive
way.
The
hon. Member for Strangford raised a number of points. I have already
covered a couple of points for her on intensive care costs. She
mentioned police services for Northern Ireland. That is a non-devolved
matter. I cannot go into it today, but I will examine it separately.
She mentioned autistic spectrum disorder. The Department of Education,
in conjunction with the education and training inspectorate, is
preparing a strategy for autism based on the action plan produced by
the five boards. I hope that that will be forthcoming
shortly.
The hon. Lady
mentioned suicide prevention, an issue that the Under-Secretary of
State for Northern
Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East, has
taken very seriously. We have a suicide prevention strategy in place,
following intensive engagement and consultation. It was published
on 30 October 2006 and additional funding is already
in the provisional estimates for next year—£2.5
million—to implement the strategy. That is extremely important.
The hon. Lady mentioned the Bamford review and mental health. We are
considering the review of mental health and we plan to complete the
work on that by April 2007. The review has produced a series of
initiatives that we need to examine, and my hon. Friend will examine
those matters in due
course.
My hon. Friend
the Member for North Down—I call her that because of her votes
in the Lobby to support the increases in expenditure—raised a
number of points. I accept fully the points that she made about the
historical nature of last year’s estimate approval and some of
the changes. As I have explained, these are in-year expenditure issues.
I want to focus, given that I am pressed for time, on the
Alzheimer’s issue, because I know that that is of particular
concern to her.
As the
hon. Lady rightly said, the Under-Secretary of State for Northern
Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East, said
in July 2006 that we would look at a local assessment of the new NICE
guidelines. We have now reviewed the local applicability of NICE
guidelines and we have asked for locally based experts to examine the
differences in Northern Ireland. We are currently examining all that
information. I hope that we will be able to issue a determination on
the NICE guidance as it applies to Northern Ireland by May 2007, which
is a couple of months away. My hon. Friend is currently considering the
local review, which will be informed by “Living Fuller
Lives”, the Bamford review report. I hope that he will be able
to make that decision locally.
The key issue remains the same
as in Great Britain—not only affordability, but the impact of
that level of drug prescription on Alzheimer’s disease
generally. We are considering that in a local context and I hope that
we will bring forward some suggestions
locally.
The hon. Lady
mentioned the Kilcooley estate, which is funded and supported by
Northern Ireland Alternatives. Again, that is a non-devolved matter,
but I have met representatives of that organisation this week to talk
about the scheme’s operation and the protocol that I have
brought forward, on which the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has
commented. I hope that we will at least be able to examine some issues
with Northern Ireland Alternatives. We had a very constructive meeting
this week.
My hon.
Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Dr. McDonnell) raised a
number of points. On capital investment in schools, I simply say to him
that we have spent more than £1.3 billion on capital schemes
over the 230 major works in the past seven years. I shall certainly
consider his comments about the two primary schools that he mentioned.
I shall refer them to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston,
who I hope will respond to him on those issues.
My hon.
Friend the Member for Belfast, South made important points about job
skills and training. We have
a very comprehensive programme of investment in those. We are seeking to
replace the job skills programme from September 2007. Again, my hon.
Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston has in the past few weeks and
months put significant investment into creating a modern apprenticeship
scheme. There is now not only apprenticeship training, post-school; we
are now establishing pre-apprenticeship training for 14 to
16-year-olds, level 2 apprenticeships for 16 to 24-year-olds and level
3 apprenticeships for 16 to 25-year-olds. As Minister
with
responsibility for the Department for Social Development, I am keen to
use some of the development in Belfast, such as Victoria Square, to get
new apprentices into that type of private sector-public sector
partnership. I commend the instrument to the Committee.
Question put and agreed
to.
Resolved,
That
the Committee has considered the Draft Budget (Northern Ireland) Order
2007.
Affordable
Housing
Motion
made, and Question proposed, That the Committee do now
adjourn.—[Mr. Michael
Foster.]
6.52
pm
Dr.
Alasdair McDonnell (Belfast, South) (SDLP): Thank you, Dr.
McCrea, for affording me this opportunity to draw meaningful attention
to what I consider to be a crisis of housing affordability in Northern
Ireland generally and the city of Belfast in
particular.
I
must commend my hon. Friend the Minister for recognising the
seriousness of the problem in the past year and appointing the former
head of the Northern Ireland civil service, Sir John Semple, to carry
out a review. I welcome that review. Given the findings of Sir
John’s interim report last December, I am satisfied that he will
effectively examine all the issues impacting on housing affordability.
However, examination of the issues is not enough in itself; we require
a firm commitment from the Minister and the Government that they will
implement urgently all the recommendations that Sir John will no doubt
bring forward in March to remedy the fairly drastic
situation.
In
preparation for this debate, I have reviewed many of the factors
influencing housing affordability, and I shall briefly outline some of
them. Demographic changes have had a significant influence on the
housing situation. The 2006 population estimates from the Northern
Ireland Statistics and Research Agency indicate that there has been a
significant increase in our population, which now exceeds 1.7 million,
representing 2.8 per cent. of the UK population. The formation of
smaller households within that increasing population is an even bigger
driver of housing demand. The current mean household size, estimated at
about 2.52 persons, is projected to drop to 2.2 persons in the next 20
years. Increasing numbers of older people, more single parents and
single person households and the increased incidence of relationship
breakdown will all contribute to a demand for more small households. In
overall terms the growth rate in the number of households in Northern
Ireland is twice the UK average, and the Northern Ireland demographic
structure includes the following significant
features.
There is a
declining number of children under the age of 16, who now make up 22
per cent. of the total population. Previously it was a much higher
proportion. There is a growing number of people of pensionable age, now
estimated at 17 per cent of the population. Approximately 106,000
people are aged 75 or more, representing 6 per cent. of the population.
As I mentioned earlier, the average household size is 2.52 persons and
falling, and more than 25 per cent. of all occupied dwellings in
Northern Ireland are single person
households.
Demographics
are just one aspect. While they can be a driving force to changing the
way we live and the size of our household units, the biggest single
factor that we have suffered from in the past few years is house
prices. Northern Ireland has experienced unprecedented house price
escalation. The most comprehensive review of house prices in Northern
Ireland is produced by the university of Ulster in conjunction with the
Bank of Ireland and the Northern Ireland Housing Executive.
For the third quarter of 2006 the overall average price of a residential
property was £180,128. Compared with the same quarter of 2005,
the average price levels were up by 32.1 per cent. The report
stated:
“Evidence
suggests that a key driver in the market is the high level of investor
activity.”
I suggest that
it would be better described as speculator activity. People are buying
houses as an investment and turning them over a year or two down the
road at a fairly handsome average profit of 32.1 per cent. in
12
months.
Another
reliable source of information is the Nationwide house price survey.
The survey just published in January indicates that the average house
price in Northern Ireland is now £181,000. That compares with
£189,000 for a home in England, £148,000 for a home in
Wales and £137,000 for a home in Scotland. In Belfast, the house
price increase during 2006 was 43 per cent. overall. The change in the
past 10 years was 322 per cent. That tells us how much things have
changed in 10 years—house prices have more than trebled. That
makes it evident how difficult it is for somebody to get on the ladder
at the bottom end and become an owner as a first-time
buyer.
In the rest of
Northern Ireland the percentage growth in the past year is reported as
fairly similar: 36 per cent. in the north-east, 36 per cent.
in the south-east and a little lower, 26 per cent., in the west. At 43
per cent., the Belfast price rise has been matched fairly well in most
other regions, although it is a little bit off the boil in the
west.
I wish to make
it clear that the young people and their parents to whom I speak are
nearing a point of despair. People have told me that when they hear
news reports on the latest house price increases, they actually switch
off the television. They cannot listen to it and do not want to
know—it simply drives them even further into despair.
Aside from demographics and
house prices rises, I wish to mention social housing as a driving
factor. Since 1996, housing associations, funded directly by the
Department for Social Development, have become the principal providers
of new-build social housing. The Housing Executive continues as a
social landlord, with a housing stock of approximately 96,000
dwellings, and is responsible for a range of identification and
analysis of housing needs and planning. The Housing Executive stock
currently represents 13.6 per cent. of the total housing stock in
Northern Ireland. The housing association stock of 22,000 homes
represents a mere 3.2 per cent. Private rented dwellings represent 9.5
per cent. and, worryingly, 5 per cent. of housing stock is
vacant.
Waiting lists
for social housing are a big issue. The common selection scheme was
introduced in November 2000 to embrace all housing applicants and
transfers who requested Housing Executive or housing association
accommodation. Between December 2000 and December 2006, the number of
applicants in urgent need and those in housing stress has increased
from approximately 9,000 to approximately 18,000. In the same period
the total overall number of applicants, as distinct from those in
stress, increased from about 21,000 to 33,000. The proportion of those
on the waiting list who are in housing stress has risen from
49.6 per cent. to 54 per cent. in three years. More than 50 per cent. of
applicants on the waiting list are single persons and small adult
families.
The
progressive increases in the waiting lists are attributable to a range
of issues, including the inadequate provision of new build social
housing; the continued sale of Housing Executive properties to sitting
tenants, reducing the stock available to others; the population
increase that I mentioned earlier, including the rapid rise in the
number of pensioners and single person households; higher market prices
forcing potential first-time buyers to seek social housing; and
significant numbers of immigrants seeking housing to rent, particularly
young people from eastern Europe and the former iron curtain countries.
Those all generate tremendous pressure on social housing. I could go
on, but I think that I have made the point.
The revised, census-based model
run in 2003 estimated that there would be an annual requirement for
between 1,400 and 1,500 social dwellings a year. Between 2001 and 2005,
only 3,800 of the required minimum 6,500 new social dwellings were
started. We are meeting only slightly less than two thirds of the
social housing need. With the continued selling of existing Housing
Executive stock and the demolition of derelict stock at current levels,
the review into affordable housing estimates that by 2025 social
housing will house less than 11 per cent. of our total households,
while at present it accommodates 17 per cent. So the waiting list for
social housing, which has increased by 55 per cent. over the past six
years, will continue to grow rapidly.
The Housing Executive has
recommended that the annual social housing development programme should
be increased to 2,000 homes a year. That was supported by Sir John
Semple, who concluded
that
“if anti-poverty is
to be a priority of Comprehensive Spending Review 2007, then provision
of sufficient social housing must inevitably be high on the priority
list.”
I
sincerely endorse that viewpoint, but I am of the view that the Housing
Executive and Sir John are much too conservative and cautious in their
call for an estimated 2,000 dwellings. Through my constituency office
and staff, I am overwhelmed by the number of people in housing stress.
There should be 3,000 homes to meet the demand. The situation might be
particularly bad in Belfast. Belfast might have and need substantially
more social housing, but such housing is needed throughout Northern
Ireland, too. The Minister and the Government should recognise that the
housing problem has become a crisis.
The Department for Regional
Development strategy, “Shaping our Future 2025” sets out
the strategic
approach—
7.4
pm
Sitting
suspended for a Division in the
House.
7.18
pm
On
resuming—
Dr.
McDonnell:
My next point is on the projected need for new
housing. Based on the DRD’s regional development strategy, the
number of new houses needed between 1998 and 2015 was estimated at
160,000. It was adjusted twice by the DRD, up from 160,000 initially to
200,000, and in March 2006 it was up to 208,000. Many district councils
argued that we will probably reach the need for the 208,000 by 2013
rather than 2015. I cannot emphasise strongly enough that the need for
housing is galloping away.
As Sir John Semple suggested in
his initial findings, I, too, strongly suggest that we ask the Minister
and the DRD to re-examine the 208,000 figure, because 220,000 or
230,000 homes might well need to be built by 2015.
The owner-occupied sector in
housing is robust, at 70 per cent. of total or 490,000 houses. It has
shown strong growth, but affordability is the crunch, and it has become
an increasingly significant factor in Northern Ireland. The Housing
Executive has a good affordability index, but it is modelled on the
fact that up to 30 per cent. of household income must be available to
serve as a mortgage if one is to be in a strong position to buy. Buyers
need to begin at a reasonable interest rate—it should certainly
be less than 6.8 per cent.—to get a 95 per cent. mortgage based
on their household income and a 25-year repayment period and to have
enough money to cover a deposit.
Between 2001 and 2004,
purchases by first-time buyers declined in proportion to the number of
houses turned over. In 2001, 60 per cent. of people buying houses were
first-time buyers. By 2004, the level had halved to 30 per cent. That
tells us quite simply that young people in their 20s were no longer
able to take on a mortgage because house prices had risen so steeply
that no houses were available. Whereas young people could previously
have bought a house with £100,000 or £110,000, and houses
were available across Northern Ireland and even in Belfast, that has
changed. House prices have jumped and are now closer to
£200,000, and incomes just do not
suffice.
The private
rented sector represents about 66,000 dwellings or 9.5 per cent. of
total housing stock. There is heavy investor interest and the private
rented sector is growing, largely because people can no longer afford
mortgages and have to rent. That is almost self-defeating. We would all
like everybody to be able to own a home, and we would like a situation
in which the 15, 16 or 17 per cent. who cannot afford a home are housed
in suitable social
housing.
I should also
like to make a point about vacant property. It is estimated that 35,000
houses are vacant—about 5 per cent. of the total housing stock.
That level must be reduced, I suggest, to 2.5 or 3 per cent. We must
cut it in two, and bring 17,000 or 18,000 of those houses into
use.
Planning is a
major issue, including lack of land and planning obstacles. We can
complain about the planners all we like, but one of the problems with
planners has been that they have been far too cautious in making land
available for housing. There is now a shortage of land, and land prices
are driving housing costs—not building prices but site prices. I
can give an example just beside me, in the heart of south Belfast. A
location for 10 houses and a couple of apartments was sold for roughly
£380,000 a site—certainly for £350,000. That is
scary, because when the house goes on top of that, it will not cost
less than £500,000.
We urgently require the
introduction into our planning legislation of the equivalent of section
106 to ensure that developers make provision for a proportion of social
or affordable housing in new developments. That arrangement has worked
well in England, where a number of social housing units are attached to
any major development. We must ensure that when it happens, if it does,
the developers are not then allowed to buy a bit of land in some
out-of-the-way place and fulfil their social commitments there. They
must be fulfilled right on the
site.
I could go
through a number of other issues that we need to deal with, but I have
given an outline, and I think that the Minister has got the point. This
is the biggest single issue aside from water rates—dare I say
it—that I have met on the doorsteps during the past four weeks.
I gather from his colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Northern
Ireland, the hon. Member for Inverclyde, that the Government will not
budge on the water rates, so I would like to see some budging on
housing affordability. We must be inventive to find ways and means of
allowing young people who need homes on to the housing ladder. That
could be done through easy access to owner occupation with better
mortgage rates or whatever, or through social housing. We cannot rule
out either. The crisis is there, and we have to deal with it
urgently.
7.25
pm
The
Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. David
Hanson):
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for
Belfast, South (Dr. McDonnell) on securing this Adjournment debate,
which comes at the end of a long Northern Ireland Grand Committee
sitting. He raises the important issue of affordable housing as it
affects his constituents and the whole of Northern Ireland. The points
that he raised are apt because of the consideration that the Government
are now giving the issue.
The housing market, and by that
I mean all parts of the market—social housing and owner-occupied
and privately rented housing—has changed dramatically over the
last couple of years. You will be aware, Dr. McCrea, from your
constituency, as my hon. Friend is from his, that house prices have
risen to a point where, in percentage terms, they are now among the
highest in Europe. That causes a range of problems. It is a success for
some, with the increased capital value of their property, but for
others it causes the difficulties of affordability and of getting into
the housing market.
The average overall increase in
house prices since January 2004 is some 51 per cent., and a range of
factors are involved. As my hon. Friend said, they include rises in
land values and in house prices generally, and to a lesser extent the
growing political stability in Northern Ireland, which is attracting
investors into the private sector. Indeed, in Belfast we are seeing new
tower blocks of apartments and flats, which are attracting people into
the city for the first time in a long time.
As my hon. Friend said, house
price inflation is significant. In fact, the university of
Ulster’s quarterly house price index shows that the average
house price in
Northern Ireland is now £180,000, which is up by 32 per
cent. on the previous year. The number of first-time buyers is down by
33 per cent., which is a significant reduction over previous years, and
advances from the lending bodies have significantly increased because
of people’s capacity to buy.
For all those reasons—my
hon. Friend put it in a very positive way—action needs to be
taken. I and my colleagues in the housing division have commissioned
Sir John Semple to carry out an independent review into affordable
housing, one that will look at all the barriers affecting those seeking
affordable housing across all housing sectors. Sir John was appointed
in September 2006, and produced an interim progress report in December.
He consulted widely and received more than 90 responses. I hope that he
will produce a final report for me—or, as I always say on such
occasions, for my successor—by the beginning of April so that we
can consider some of the key issues on affordability.
In the absence of that final
report, it is difficult for me to give definitive conclusions, but I
have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said about the general
direction that needs to be taken. We need to reflect seriously, as will
an incoming Administration, on the points that my hon. Friend
mentioned. Sir John’s interim report included thoughts on a
number of factors that I hope will alleviate the current situation and
give Government policy makers thoughts on how to tackle the issue of
affordability in the final recommendations.
I
specifically asked Sir John to consider a number of issues, including
the examining and planning of land use. It is important to consider how
to make the planning system work better, and how we can support the
delivery of more social and affordable housing as part of the planning
system; I know that Sir John has consulted widely with planning and
housing professionals and with lenders and house builders on that
issue.
My hon. Friend
mentioned empty homes, and I am keen to ensure that the review
considers that question. They are an untapped and wasted resource, as
is acknowledged in the Government’s sustainable development
strategy. We need to make better use of our assets across the board,
and we need to bring empty homes back into the housing market.
Again, Sir John will consider that matter carefully. Indeed,
the Hills review in England considered that very issue and is now
pressing for a rethink on how existing stock can meet social housing
need.
We need to
consider the level of building of social housing at present, as my hon.
Friend has pressed us to do. Our current target is to build about 1,500
units a year. I expect Sir John to press the Government harder to build
more social housing, as my hon. Friend suggested. Although his target
of 3,000 a year is noble, it is probably too ambitious for the
Government. However, we need to consider that
matter.
Northern
Ireland has a stock of approximately 695,000 well maintained housing
units. We have the lowest unfitness level of any public sector housing
in the United Kingdom. The Government already have various initiatives
in place to assist those in need of affordable housing, through
physical, bricks-and-mortar measures and financial measures relating to
sustainability. The housing development programme delivers about 1,500
units a year, which costs about £132 million per year with
private borrowings. I have introduced the Housing (Amendment)(Northern
Ireland) Order 2006, enabling the Northern Ireland Housing Executive,
from 1 April this year, to integrate social housing development
programmes with other operational programmes, including finding out how
we can work with neighbourhood renewal, regeneration zones, action
zones and community safety
partnerships.
The
co-ownership scheme is particularly important in helping to get people
back into the housing market. We have considered those matters
regularly. I recently reviewed the limits for the co-ownership scheme
and I wish to consider that again in the near future. There will be a
regular review of the levels of, and support for, co-ownership as a
whole. Substantial assistance is available through the housing benefit
system, assisting more than 132,000 in the private rented
sector—about which my hon. Friend did not talk in great detail,
but which is still important—which costs the Northern Ireland
taxpayer £386 million a year. We need to improve the private
rented sector as best we can. I am keen to look at improving
tenants’ rights, addressing unfitness and improving disrepair.
The Private Tenancies (Northern Ireland) Order 2006, which comes into
force on 1 April, will give a great deal of extra support to ensure
that tenants in the private sector have a proper, effective measure of
support in the
debate.
My hon. Friend
is concerned about a number of issues. I am grateful for his giving me
advance notice today in the
Belfast Telegraph of some of the
points that will be mentioned in the debate this evening. It is useful
to have such insider dealing, which always helps. In that paper, he
mentioned section 106 and how we can look again at new planning
regulations to help support affordable housing. I have already said
that we wish to consider that. Sir John’s final report will be
published shortly. It will detail a number of positive measures that
have been discussed with the planning service and the housing division
to help gain a better
understanding of affordability in Northern Ireland as part of the
planning process.
My
hon. Friend mentioned young people and the high cost of housing. Again,
we can do significant things, and the co-ownership scheme is one such
example. We need to examine what else we can do in the review. I do not
wish to pre-empt the review, but it will contain opportunities to take
further
action.
Interestingly,
as my hon. Friend mentioned, many current housing difficulties involve
single people, and they comprise the highest number of people on the
waiting list. Those are not just young single people. Sometimes they
are older single people. There is a social fabric issue in terms of
family split-up, divorce and partnerships breaking up, which is causing
additional pressures on the housing
market.
My hon. Friend
raised a number of valid points on significant issues that the new
Executive will have to address in the near future. I believe that the
Semple review will focus on some of those points and the new Executive
will have the opportunity to deal with those issues. There are no easy
options; all of them—the social housing build, bringing on empty
homes and revising planning applications—have costs attached.
However, the private and public sectors need to work hand in hand to
address affordability and access to the housing market, because if we
do not, the social consequences of that failure will live with future
generations and will add costs to the public purse in due
course.
I commend my
hon. Friend for his contribution. We will reflect on it. I look forward
to receiving Sir John’s report in the near future and I thank
Sir John for his work. I thank my colleagues in the housing division,
and I particularly thank David Crothers, the director of housing, who
will be retiring shortly, for his work on the review. I commend my hon.
Friend’s suggestions to the future
Executive.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Adjourned
accordingly at twenty-five minutes to Eight
o’clock.
