| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Laird: I join Members of the Committee who have already spoken in tribute to the noble Baroness the Lord President of the Council for her introduction to the debate, and to the civil servants who have obviously done considerable work in putting together the document. I am sorry that I did not attend the briefing last night. I do not know whether I was invited. It was probably entirely my fault, but I knew nothing about it by whatever mechanism. It might not have affected me.
I was very impressed with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland. He made a major contribution today, not only in regard to the railways but by referring to the fact that scratching at details is not satisfactory for a document of such size, worth and impact. We can only poke in and poke out as we see fit. That is an extremely important point at this time when there is no devolved government. I would obviously like there to be an Assembly at which such matters could be better scrutinised.
As the noble Lord said, there have been many years of under-investment right across the board in Northern Ireland. The example that he used was that of railways, which is a good example. The standards of safety that apply throughout the rest of the United Kingdom do not apply in Northern Ireland. With the railway system, we are sitting on a possible disaster. If there is ever an incident involving the safety of our rolling stock—I hope that there is not—it would be a major scandal that the safety regulations that affect the rest of the United Kingdom do not affect Northern Ireland because of under-investment. There will be very serious questions asked if that comes about.
To a lay person such as myself, an awful lot of money seems to be spent on administration. I am sure that I do not understand the problems. Let us take a simple example that we all know of and about which a lot of people in Northern Ireland talk. We have four health boards, which employ 800 people and spend £27.5 million a year on administration. The best research that I can do shows that in any other part of the United Kingdom an area the size of Northern Ireland would be administered by 50 people spending £5.5 million. We are heavily over-administered; money is wasted on administration.
I am sure that there are many parts of this document that I do not understand. Let us look at the section on the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development at page 15. Nearly £31 million is spent on administration for veterinary services and yet the net resources are just £880,000 million. If I read the figures right—perhaps someone will explain it to me—nearly £31 million is spent on administering an £880,000 million budget. I assume that there is a logical explanation for that—because it is Alice in Wonderland if there is not.
I could go through the document and talk about the Department for Employment and Learning and the labour market, details of which are on page 88. The total budget was £16 million, of which £14 million was spent on administration. Page 128 deals with business development services and shows £11 million spent on administration when the total resources are £11 million; there is £200,000 left to administer. I must have read the figures incorrectly; that cannot be.
Like many other people, I am glad of the pension protection fund initiative but perhaps the Minister will explain why it does not apply to Northern Ireland.
As regards local management of schools, I do not know whether any man or woman alive understands the formula for the funding of schools. Recently, I sought information about the funding of primary schools in Belfast, and discovered that Stranmillis Primary School in south Belfast is heavily underfunded and rapidly sliding into the red. I am not a financial wizard, but no one can explain to me the system of funding for a school such as Stranmillis Primary School. I just take that as an example. It has the lowest per capita figure of any primary school in Northern Ireland.
There must be targeting social need in Northern Ireland. As the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said, the economy is such that unemployment is at its lowest, certainly in my lifetime. I welcome that. But there are still areas of great deprivation. We need to target social need heavily. Is there recognition that in targeting social need and supporting organisations that put culture, health and support into local areas, we are saving Her Majesty's Government funding in other areas—they are not in this document and not under consideration today; they include such aspects as police overtime and compensation.
I declare an interest as co-chairman of a cross-border body. I cannot prove these figures, but if we gave £10,000 in grants for TSN areas, that would probably save about £100,000 in police overtime and perhaps £1 million in compensation. Eight years ago, it took £6 million to put the city of Londonderry together again after the marching season. We put a small amount of money into that, backed up by other good governmental organisations. It no longer costs £5 million in compensation; and there are no longer police overtime costs. It costs £250,000, and the city of Londonderry is full. It is a throbbing and exciting festival, and there is not a stone thrown in anger. Sometimes I wonder whether the Government get their sums right and understand what is more important—trying to stop trouble before it starts by socially acceptable means or waiting until people have to be hosed off the streets, damaging the image of Northern Ireland, and having to pay compensation?
I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Smith. I had a very peripheral involvement in the noble Lord's imaginative scheme for Springvale. I, too, am disappointed that that has not taken place. I was one of those who, in another place—in Stormont—represented West Belfast. I was convinced that that would have been a great help to many people in both major communities in West Belfast.
As I said earlier, I am the co-chairman of a cross-border body. The cross-border bodies are mentioned in the estimates, as there is bound to be an effect on the budget. I have never been able to work out how the budget for the cross-border bodies is reached; it is a source of amazement to me. Obviously, I shall not receive any credit for being able to deal with figures because I cannot understand the process at all. I have with me the North/South Language Body financial memorandum; what actually happens bears no relation to it.
Last year the budget was set at the behest of the Dublin Government. The Government backed down only because it was scuppered by the teeth of a court and shown that the British Government had been fettered by the Irish Government's announcing the budget in advance. I do not want to have to do that again this year: but, again, Dublin has set the budget in November for the language implementation body.
It also refers to a document of 19 November 2002 which takes the place of the North/South Ministerial Council's decision-making process. The document raises some concerns. It states:
- "We will consult with the appropriate bodies".
Our budget is set by the Irish. What the Irish know about the culture of the Ulster Scots is beyond me, yet they can set our budget. Will the Minister say what mechanism is used for setting cross-border bodies budgets? With whom are there to be consultations? As I understand it, proportionality changes from year to year depending on the arrangements. How is proportionality worked out? Someone once described proportionality to me as the difference between what is put into the relationship by the British Government and what the Irish Government puts in. It has changed for some bodies but it has not changed for the language implementation body. I want to know why that is and what information formed the basis for the decision that proportionality will remain the same as it was in year one.
I also want clarification of what exactly is the new policy. As I understand it, under the current arrangements, cross-border bodies are supposed to work only on care and maintenance, yet Waterways Ireland is to get an extra 40 per cent. On the other hand, we, a new body, which started from ground level on the basis of funding four Ulster Scots groups in 2000 but funding 246 last year, receive only an inflationary allowance given to us generously by the Irish Government.
Why are we treated differently from other bodies? Why is there care and maintenance? What is the meaning of care and maintenance? It is stated that there are no new policies. In my opinion, a new policy is when you stop a policy. We have a policy of grant-aiding groups; we have a policy of trying to take people away from paramilitarism in Belfast and targeting social need. Those are policies that we now have to stop because Dublin did not allow the British Government to give us the money. In my opinion, stopping a policy is the same as having no new policy. We have to stop our policies.
As to care and maintenance, has it held up the activities of either the trade body or the tourism body? Is care and maintenance stopping Tourism Ireland from bringing tourists into the island of Ireland? We should all be treated on an equal basis.
I feel that I have asked enough questions at this point but I reserve the right to come back.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Dubs: I am delighted with this procedure; it is much better than doing everything on the Floor of the House.
I fully concede that, if there were no devolution in the future, we could refine the process. But I hope that devolution will happen before we go much further and that what we are doing today will be seen as a historic procedure.
I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Shutt and Lord Laird, that there are ways in which we could scrutinise the headings in more detail. Having been involved on the ministerial side in some of these matters, I partly feel tempted to ask questions relating to my former department. I shall not do that—I do not believe it is appropriate—but I certainly understand that behind the figures are policies. This is an opportunity to scrutinise the detailed policies, but that would be a very difficult task because perhaps 100 or 150 key policy areas are covered by these figures.
I want to ask two questions, one of which I have given notice of, and the other so straightforward that it will not be difficult. The latter is simply this: what assumptions have been made in the figures as regards costs of the Assembly and, indeed, for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in the case of there being devolution, and in the case of there not being devolution? In other words, do the figures allow for the Assembly and the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to be brought up to speed very quickly when the happy day arrives, which I hope will not be too long ahead?
The question of which I gave notice is simply about integrated education. I should declare an interest: I am chairman of the All-Party Group on Integrated Education in Northern Ireland. It is a very important issue. I know that the policy of the Government—it was the policy of the Assembly—is that there should be growth in integrated education as demand for it rises. What assumptions have been made about integrated education in the figures? I could not detect the words "integrated education" in the descriptions of the figures themselves, but could we be told a little about how the Department of Education sees the development of integrated education? What resources will be made available for it?
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page