| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Glentoran: I would like to come back with two general points. One is to do with the administration of Northern Ireland as a whole. I know that a review is taking place, but it is a good time to put some markers down. As the noble Baroness will know, I asked the Government a number of Questions a month or so ago about costs of administration. To summarise a little, 37.5
per cent of all those employed in Northern Ireland, not including the security forces, are employed by the Government in government administration. That is a pretty serious figure. It is a long way above anywhere else, certainly in the European Union. It is a very non-productive group.I think that we have 26 local authorities. I have the number of quangos, but I did not bring it into Committee. We have regulators and ombudsmen everywhere, and they all have their own offices costing £1 million or thereabouts each. Everything is duplicated and not linked. The noble Lord, Lord Laird, mentioned the situation with hospital boards. We have education and library boards all over the place, with everything duplicated and duplicated.
I sincerely hope that the Government will attack that serious waste of resources. The money could be spent considerably better than on that over-regulation. It is a government fad, as we know, throughout the United Kingdom. Since they have been in power, regulation has multiplied and multiplied, and it has happened in Northern Ireland. One has only to look at the number of inspectorates, commissions and quangos set up. The list goes on and on, and every one needs to be paid for.
My second point, perhaps with a less aggressive tone, is on the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister and the salaries of the Assembly Members, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. If I have the figure right, it is about £100 million. So far as we can see, that money is not being earned. Nearly £50 million is sitting in the budget of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, with another £47 million listed on the back page for Members' services and salaries. That does not make sense. With due respect to those in the Room, we need a Northern Ireland Civil Service, but do we need 10 departments' worth of officials while we do not have an Assembly?
I could go on. Someone needs to look very quickly at the administration costs of the Province. Frankly, it is mad if it is not going to change. Some of us believe that it could be 10 years before it changes, the way things are going. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and I often disagree on the matter; sadly, I have been right rather more than he has at this stage. I sincerely hope that I am proved wrong, as he knows. I believe that in financial planning we should plan for reality and not for blue skies. I end on that point.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, on a point of general principle touched upon by the noble Lords, Lord Shutt, Lord Dubs and Lord Laird, if—and one certainly hopes it is not the case—we are here again next year because there is no re-activated Assembly, can some provision be made for a greater amount of time for us to consider the budget? Basically, we are rubber-stamping what civil servants have cooked up. They have cooked-up quite brilliantly—I congratulate them on that—but the political input is zilch, and that is not good for democracy.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I remember that in my days as a local councillor—on Westminster City Council,
no less—we went through such issues page by page. That would be fairly difficult in the case of parliamentary scrutiny of government in Northern Ireland but, short of going through the order page by page, I find it difficult to see how the noble Lord's wishes can be met. Perhaps we should all think about the issue outside the Committee and then put our views to my noble friend, outlining what procedures might meet our needs—without becoming local councillors.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I wish to make one further point. Although the Springvale project was very much the project of the noble Lord, Lord Smith, I was also involved. I believe that the Government are making a huge mistake in withdrawing it. I have walked every inch of the site and I have been involved with the Millennium Commission. We have put an outreach facility there which is operating and working wonderfully well. If only it had the university around it as was envisaged, dreamt about and planned by the noble Lord, Lord Smith, and his colleagues at the time. I believe the figure given then was £70 million or £71 million; I do not know what it is today as it is withdrawn.
It will be a serious retrograde step. The area around Springvale is one that needs education to bring people together. It is on the peace line—everyone in the room knows that, but those who read Hansard may not—and would have been a perfect vehicle to help improve education at all levels. I think that I am right in saying that there is a comparatively high level of adult illiteracy in that part of Belfast compared with other parts of the city—the noble Lord, Lord Smith, is nodding in assent. People are frightened to admit it; they are embarrassed by their children and it causes domestic problems which many of us know about. It is wrong to take away that facility for the sake of £71 million which, if the Assembly is not going to sit, could come out of the salaries of its Members.
Lord Smith of Clifton: I thank all noble Lords who have commented on the demise of Springvale. It was a very great personal disappointment to me.
In answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, we have had perhaps two or three days to look at this order. It would have been nice to have been given 10 days because we could have gone into it in greater depth. I agree that, with budgets, you more or less have to take them or leave them; you cannot really change them. But it would be a courtesy to the people of Northern Ireland if we were able to give the order a reasonable amount of attention rather than the rather peremptory treatment it is receiving today.
4 p.m.
Baroness Amos: I thank noble Lords for the points they have made. Perhaps I may start by addressing the general concerns that have been expressed.
I agree completely with the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that the Northern Ireland economy is thriving. It is something we should be pleased about. I share the regret of the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, that the Northern Ireland Assembly is not able itself to consider these estimates in
detail. That is why we wish to see a restoration of devolution and the work of the Assembly as quickly as possible.I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Laird, that it is important that we target social need in areas of deprivation. My noble friend Lord Dubs said that the Grand Committee had been a useful process. I agree, although I hope that we will not have to consider the budget in detail in a year's time, as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Smith. I am aware that the noble Lord is thinking about what might happen, but we all hope that we shall see a resolution in a far shorter time.
A number of general points were raised. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, referred to the fact that we are issuing a revised amount in cash terms because there has been a decrease in other areas. I referred to that in my opening speech, but, to clarify, I shall say it again: the total revised amount of cash from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund for 2003–04 of some £9.79 billion 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. If one looks at the two figures, it is clear that there has not been an overall reduction.
The noble Lords, Lord Laird and Lord Smith, asked about the spending plans for 2003–04. The overall spending plans for 2003–04, on which the estimates are based, reflect the draft budget prepared by the Executive in September 2002, prior to suspension. Although I take the point about local participation in the exercise, some local views are reflected, given that the process took place prior to suspension, and the 2004–05 plans have been discussed with local parties. I take entirely the point about the time available to scrutinise the plans in detail, and I hope that when we come to look at the main estimates later in the year, noble Lords will feel that they have an opportunity to do that.
The noble Lords, Lord Laird and Lord Glentoran, raised a point about administration. In the estimates for administration, there is a quirk in the system that we operate, and the same position applies in Whitehall: the cost of civil servants appears as administration, yet many of those civil servants will be engaged in direct service provision to the public and not in administration. For example, within the agriculture department, the bulk of the work is carried out by vets engaged in scientific activity. So the term "administration" is not used in the way we would normally understand it. A key feature of the overall budget announcement has been a bearing down on administrative costs, with a consequential shift to investment in services. That will be one of the key issues for this year's spending review. I hope that I have assured the noble Lord, Lord Laird, on those points.
The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, mentioned the review of public administration launched in June 2002. Its aim is to review all aspects of the public sector in Northern Ireland and to develop a system of public administration that meets fully the needs of the people in
Northern Ireland. Of course suspension of the Assembly and the Executive has had an impact on the timescale of the review. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State Paul Murphy has said that he is committed to the work of the team, which is continuing to help establish a modern system of public administration that is both efficient and effective. In October last year, a consultation document on the future of public administration in Northern Ireland was issued. The deadline for responses to the consultation was extended to 27 February. Those responses have now been received, and we will look at them.We are also undertaking a fundamental efficiency review, which reflects the work of Sir Peter Gershon in Whitehall on efficiency.
I think that that addresses the wider points raised. I shall now respond to the specific points. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, referred to the reduction in resources identified on page 6, which is linked to the Department of Education's pension issue. The consequence of the application of a new accounting standard for the first time at main estimate stage was recently reviewed on the basis of actuarial advice, hence the reduction. It has no impact on the delivery of public service. I hope that that addresses the noble Lord's concern.
The noble Lords, Lord Shutt and Lord Glentoran, referred to the Springvale project and the particularly important role that the noble Lord, Lord Smith, played in it. Following the University of Ulster's withdrawal from the project in September 2002, the Springvale board carried out a review of the project. The review was completed in January this year, and a report has been forwarded to the Department for Employment and Learning. I have been advised that my honourable friend the Minister is considering the report's proposals, and a statement will be made in due course.
The noble Lord, Lord Shutt, raised the issue of the budget of the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. All the department's work is subject to the oversight and control of my honourable friend Ian Pearson, the relevant Minister.
On transport, the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, talked about the railways. The rescheduling of rolling stock was expenditure originally planned for 2002–03 that has slipped to 2003–04. It does not cover the entire network, and any underspend will be considered for virement into other priority areas. The definition of "non-core" railway networks is based on usage and flows from the regional transportation strategy. The strategy looks at the most frequently used part of the Northern Ireland network, which is commonly known as the "core". In looking at that, the regional transportation strategy has also identified "non-core".
The noble Lord, Lord Laird, asked about the funding of North/South bodies. I must say to him that I would have been very surprised if he had not pressed me on those points. All budgets for North/South bodies are agreed jointly by the Governments north and south. The noble Lord is quite right that, under current arrangements, North/South bodies are required to
operate on a care and maintenance basis only, and, in this context, budget proposals should not include any substantive development costs. The noble Lord raised specifically the issue of Waterways Ireland. The 2004 budget contains an allocation for a new headquarters, which is still subject to approval to proceed. The increase is not with respect to new policy issues but with respect to a new headquarters.On the issue of the North/South Language Body's budget, and in particular on proportionality, the agreed allocations did not reflect the figures included in the agency's final draft business plans, as they were considered by the sponsor departments to be in excess of care and maintenance. The respective agencies' business plans were approved on the basis of the budgets agreed by the sponsor departments. It was agreed that the funding, although less than that originally sought by the respective agencies, was sufficient to allow each agency to carry out the necessary activities to sustain and build on its 2003 baseline position.
The issue of proportionality is based on an assessment of the perceived benefits to each jurisdiction of the work of the body. The assessment for the agency is that that has not changed. Of course, that will be reviewed each year as part of the budget process.
My noble friend Lord Dubs asked a specific question about the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister and what would happen. For 2004–05, the detailed plans assume that the Assembly will be functioning normally, which of course is our sincere wish. If that is not the case, relevant resources will be redeployed to priority areas.
On the issue of funding for integrated education, the Government respond to parental demand but do not seek to impose any particular type of education. Funding is made available for integrated schools that are robust, do not involve unreasonable public expenditure and meet the specified criteria. The current expenditure on integrated schools will be £53.3 million in 2003–04, with £14 million allocated for capital expenditure. Funding of around £500,000 a year is also provided to the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education, to further promote integrated education.
I hope that I have addressed the points raised.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page