| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, to the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland, and to my noble friends for their kind words. However, I must confess that I think it immensely important that we should legislate in a way that ordinary people will understand and in a way that will be accurately quoted when statutes are cited. I must confess—I am grateful to the noble Baroness for pointing it out—that I did not realise that there were three, four or five precedents for this. I ought to have known about it but my research did not get me that far.
In view of what the noble Baroness said, I propose to ask leave to withdraw my amendment. However, I shall study very carefully what she said. If necessary, I shall come back to the matter at Third Reading, although I know that that is sometimes unusual and
difficult. However, I think that this is a new departure about which we should have real scepticism. I think that the great mass of people who are obliged to obey or be guided by our laws will find it puzzling to find this new departure from the ways in which we have expressed our laws for generations—indeed, for centuries. Those ways are immensely important and have been copied all over the Commonwealth.This new departure has, so far, not been justified and could cause trouble. As I say, I shall return to the point. I hope that the noble Baroness will think about this again. With those thoughts in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
London Local Authorities Bill [HL]
The Chairman of Committees acquainted the House that, pursuant to the resolution of 3 March, the Bill had been deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments together with the declaration of the agent; the Bill was presented, read a first time, passed through all its remaining stages pro forma and sent to the Commons.
- House adjourned at nine minutes past seven o'clock.
Official Report of the Northern Ireland Orders Grand Committee
Thursday, 4 March 2004.
The Committee met at a quarter past three of the clock.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Carter) in the Chair.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Carter): Before the Minister moves that the first order be considered, it may be helpful to say a word about the procedure for today's Grand Committee. Our proceedings are essentially the same as those of the House—noble Lords will speak standing, all noble Lords are free to attend and participate and the proceedings will be reported in Hansard. As we are in Committee, Members may speak more than once on any Motion.
As this is a relatively new procedure, I should perhaps make it clear that the Committee is charged only to consider orders, not to approve or disapprove them. The Motion to approve will be moved in the Chamber in the usual way.
There are no Divisions in Grand Committee, and any Motion on which agreement cannot be reached should be withdrawn. If there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Budget (Northern Ireland) Order 2004
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): I beg to move that the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the draft Budget (Northern Ireland) Order 2004.
It remains a matter of regret that this legislation is not being considered by the Northern Ireland Assembly, and I hope that the ongoing review process will lead to an early restoration date. However, given the prevailing circumstances, it is our responsibility to ensure that good government is maintained until the Assembly is restored.
The draft order before us today has two purposes. The first is to authorise the total revised amount of resources for 2003–04 of £12.956 billion and the issue of a total revised amount of cash from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund for 2003–04 of £9.579 billion. That represents a decrease in resources of £275 million and an increase in cash of £383.5 million over the position authorised by Parliament in the main estimates for the current financial year.
The second purpose is to authorise a vote on account to allow funds to continue to flow to public services for the early months of the next financial year until main estimates can be presented and considered. For that, the draft order seeks Parliament's authorisation for the use
of resources amounting to £5.157 billion and for the issue of cash from the Consolidated Fund of the sum of £4.362 billion.In general, the resource and cash amounts required on account for 2004–05 have been calculated as 45 per cent of the 2003–04 total voted provision. As its name suggests, the vote on account is not intended to seek final approval of the allocations for 2004–05. It simply seeks sufficient resources and cash to allow services to proceed until the detailed work on the main estimates has been completed in the early summer. By approving the vote on account, noble Lords will therefore not pre-empt decisions on any final allocation for 2004–05. Details of the sums sought are given in the spring supplementary estimates and the vote on account, copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
I shall not attempt to identify the numerous changes contained in the supplementary estimates, as the introduction to each departmental estimate in the supplementary estimates booklet sets out in detail the main changes for which approval is sought. I shall, of course, do my best to respond to any points of detail.
With regard to the 2004–05 financial year, it is normal practice to bring forward a vote on account at this point, prior to the year in which the resources and cash will be used. There will be an opportunity for a further full debate on the detail of the main estimates in early summer. I commend the order to the Committee.
Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the draft Budget (Northern Ireland) Order 2004.—(Baroness Amos.)
Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble Baroness the Lord President of the Council for introducing the order. I suspect that she and I, and maybe other Members of the Committee, are in a similar position, in that we have not spent half a lifetime in public accounts and national budgets.
I agree that it is sad that the Assembly is not able to debate the order. We can—as I hope we will in the next hour—look at the total figures but, because we are not close enough, we cannot get involved in the break-out of the funds. We have the block grant to Northern Ireland. It is now in the form of a comprehensive budget where the funds are split between the different departments for different projects, different reasons and different accounts. We are not as close to that as the Members at Stormont would be in order to argue and debate whether that proportionality is right or wrong. If I am proved wrong later by noble Lords, I shall withdraw that statement, but that is how I feel about it.
It is also worth saying that the economy in Northern Ireland, despite everything, is thriving. It is in as good a state as it has been probably for many years. Unemployment is down, property prices are rising, and business generally is strong. For example, the GDP has grown considerably more in Northern Ireland in the past year than it has on the mainland. Wearing a different hat, I was able to do a short
presentation in the City on how well the Northern Ireland economy had done in comparison to England and Wales, which is a very good thing.There are one or two areas that I should like to ask about in order to get them on the record. As the noble Baroness the Lord President of the Council said, page 6 of the supplementary estimates states that the total has been reduced year on year in gross terms. But the noble Baroness also made the point that that would result in a cash increase. It would be good to have that on the record.
Before I go any further, I should like to thank the noble Baroness the Lord President of the Council for allowing me to be briefed by officials last night. That was very helpful, although they now know how ignorant I am about these matters.
On page 3, there is a paragraph headed "Department of Education—Teachers' Superannuation". I understand that there is something about pensions in there. It would be worth having an explanation of that on the record. There is a minus figure against it. I assume that that can easily be explained and that there is not a serious problem with teachers' pensions funding.
I am ashamed to say that I really have little more that I can ask or challenge. As I said, I am not an expert in such matters. I was involved in the exercise last year. It is good to know that, however the exercise was done last year, it seemed to work quite well. Because I live there, I know that there are some major capital projects planned in the Province, which I hope will proceed. From what I know as a local, money seems to be targeted in the right direction: that is part of what we are here for.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: I, too, thank the noble Baroness the Lord President of the Council for introducing the orders and for allowing me to take part in the official briefing yesterday evening.
There is a sense in which I feel that this is akin to the 25 years or so that I spent in local government. I was looking at what ultimately became £230 million; we are now dealing with a figure that is 60 times that. At that time, there was virtually nothing else in my life for six weeks. A great deal of time before that was spent poring over, understanding, cracking a budget and so forth. We are trying to scratch the surface and barely laying a feather duster.
So what is it? The document before us is a substantial tidy-up of 2003–04, the year that ends in four weeks' time. Then it makes a start on agreeing what one might call a payment on account for 45 per cent of the resources required, which sees things going until the end of August.
What we are asked to do today is an enormous task. What we are doing, along with a couple of hours in the other place, really is just a feather duster. I echo the regrets that the Northern Ireland Assembly is not able to be in business to do this important work. What is the Northern Ireland Assembly for? It is there for two things: peace process enhancement, and the proper democratic stewardship of such important and
substantial resources. It is not able to carry out either function. In a way, I suppose that the Northern Ireland Grand Committee ought to meet daily, for a full day, for about six weeks. Therefore, our proceedings really are a feather duster.The general principle of the document is, "Steady as she goes; there should be no radical changes during direct rule. It is a temporary position. Don't disturb too much, and let's hope that, ultimately, democratically elected people in Northern Ireland can deal with such matters. Let's just keep the thing going. If you have to alter something because of a bit of inflation or because something obviously has to be done, so be it, but don't alter too much". I have some reservation about how long that line can be kept, but I understand it.
I would like to speak on three areas: one of regret, one of principle and one of detail. Without causing too much embarrassment, the first matter about which I want to talk is in the budget for the Department for Employment and Learning. Provision is reduced in subhead 2/3 by £7.8 million, given the reduced requirement for the Springvale campus. It must be a very sad day indeed for my noble friend Lord Smith of Clifton, who endeavoured in his stewardship of the University of Ulster to make his own substantial contribution to the peace process. It is a shame that those in charge of higher education in Northern Ireland have such limited vision that we have to delete nearly £8 million for what was intended to be a substantial enhancement of education and a substantial involvement in the peace process.
My second point is that there is a substantial budget—£50 million or so—for the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. It is intended that that continue on that sort of basis. That £50 million raises some important matters. In a way, it is split in two. A lot of it is grants to voluntary organisations, and it is also for initiatives by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. If they are not there to take initiatives, who will take them? Will they be civil servant initiatives? Will they be taken by Ministers here? What democratic accountability is there in respect of them? I am sure that many of them will be first-rate and sound, but they will be done with public money. How does that fit in with the principle of "Steady as she goes"?
The third matter on which I wanted to speak was something about which I thought I knew a little. It is a detail on one area of expenditure—that for the railway system in Northern Ireland. This book of accounts contains the large investment, or at least alterations to the investment—I am not quite clear on exactly how that fits in. I am sure that most Members of the Committee will be aware that the rolling stock of the railways in Northern Ireland is all life-expired, with the exception of the Enterprise stock used for the Dublin service.
Paragraph 1(vi) on page 193 of the Northern Ireland Spring Supplementary Estimates 2003–2004 states that there is an extra £5.728 million allocated for rolling stock—that is something about re-phasing. I am not clear whether that figure relates to the rolling stock
that it was thought would be bought next year, and that a payment on account can be made at this point, or whether it is a late payment because the arrangements of the purchase were such that it was made in an earlier year. Does the budget provision to purchase new rolling stock provide for the entire network or only part of it? If it does not provide for it all, should the shortfall be an early candidate for virement in terms of the entirety of the Northern Ireland budget in 2004–05? If that is to be the case, and rolling stock is to be ordered to add to the order already placed, the timing of that will be significant.Mr Roy Beggs raised the matter of Northern Ireland Railways in another place and referred to the "non-core railway". Who has defined the non-core railway? Seemingly, the reference relates to the routes from Coleraine to Londonderry and from Whitehead to Larne. Which Westminster politician or Northern Ireland politician has come up with the phrase "non-core", or has it come from somewhere else? The Whitehead to Larne route is a strange sort of "non-core", when it is part of the Cork to Larne TENS network, with enhancement funds provided by the European Union. The Coleraine to Londonderry route is a strange "non-core", when that part of the railway takes people from Belfast to the second city of Northern Ireland.
It was interesting that a Question was put by that questioner of questioners, the noble Lord, Lord Laird, on what plans Her Majesty's Government have to promote the railway line between Coleraine and Londonderry as a tourist attraction. The Answer, which is credited to the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, but is so unimpressive that I suspect that someone else dreamt it up, stated:
- "The Government provide substantial resources to Northern Ireland Railways to enable them to maintain railway services including services on the Coleraine-Londonderry line. They would welcome any increase in the low levels of patronage, but do not promote it or assist in promoting it as a tourist attraction".—[Official Report, 24/2/04; col. WA 42.]
Railway enhancement has taken place in the British Isles, with lines and stations reopening and considerable enhancement of tourism on lines such as Settle to Carlisle, south Devon, Fortwilliam to Mallaig, and so on. Coleraine to Londonderry is in such a class. Enhancement has also taken place in the Republic of Ireland, with stations and lines re-opening. Why is Northern Ireland the poor relation? Reference has been made to two important lines as "non-core", and there is the already mothballed line between Lisburn and Antrim.
That is a bit of detail so far as this is concerned. We could scratch at that kind of detail throughout the book were there anything like the opportunity to do
so. While the devolved Assembly is not in business, there ought to be a way in which we can scratch and scratch away at an issue in an endeavour to influence it. However, we cannot do that in a couple of hours here and a couple of hours in the other place.3.30 p.m.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |