---

Budget (No.2) (Northern Ireland) Order 2005

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for his opening remarks, in particular those on legislation. However, scrutinising finance is of a different order from scrutinising legislation. How on Earth that can be dealt with to my satisfaction, I do not know. I have studied this estimate book for about four or five hours, but I cannot scratch it. I also find it deeply unfriendly. It is not user friendly and it would be no bad thing if someone had another go at producing it. For example, a narrative would be useful for any major changes, which we do not have in the book. I am not surprised that people find the book difficult: I find it very difficult. I can make these comments largely because the figures pop up at me rather than my having to scratch very deep. It would take many weeks to do a proper job. As regards Northern Ireland, I always start off thinking about the wonder of the Barnett formula and the wonder of European money, about which there is an English jealousy. If Northern Ireland was funded on the same basis as England, the jam would not spread particularly far. Nevertheless, there are substantial resources in the population of Northern Ireland, the resources available and the comparison that we have. Depending on whether we are looking at resources or cash, I would wish to raise the subject of European funding. On page 17 of the document—I shall go through it not page by page but in order—our expectations for 2005–06 are £549,425,000, an increase over last year when the figure was £390,191,000. That is 4 per cent of the Budget of Northern Ireland, or 5 per cent if one is looking only at cash. On any basis, it is a lot of money. One wonders, with other activities in the European Union and eastern Europe, how long this can last. One also wonders about the relative importance of that which is funded from Europe and what it is paying for to that which is funded from the mainstream and what that is paying for. Some of the expenditures which are funded from Europe may be more important than the mainstream. The voluntary sector has been adept at picking up European grants, and I worry how it will cope in the future if these moneys are reduced. That is a very important issue for Northern Ireland, where the voluntary sector has done such wonderful work over the years. Secondly, I am interested in value for money. Even though, in English terms, the extra resources are substantial, I am not worried about that, provided the money is spent well. However, on page 47, A.8, headed ““Cultural Policy””, shows that the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure spent £1 million last year and the year before, and this year the expenditure is £5   million. I am in favour of culture, but I do not know that I am particularly concerned about cultural policy. I wonder what one gets for an extra £4 million. On the next page, the total expenditure for Arts Council, Museums and Galleries, and Sports Council comes to just short of £40 million. The previous year it was £30 million and the year before that it was £26.9 million. Again, that is an interesting lift. The Minister may know the reason for that large increase. Perhaps more wonderful things are to happen or there are deferred repairs to pay for. On such an occasion as this, it is useful to ask a question. There is another matter on page 93. With regard to the Department of Employment and Learning, a note indicates that there is £166,429,000 grant-in-aid to universities, while another £41,897,000 is provided for capital grants to universities and colleges of education. Over the last weekend and a little before then, there was quite a lot of publicity regarding the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Ulster, Professor Gerry McKenna. From what I read here, this seems a pretty pickle. There were complaints from all directions, and eventually Sir Michael Buckley was hired to investigate and produce a report to see if there are grounds to investigate and produce a report. It is a sort of report before a report. It may well be that because reports and investigations cost an absolute fortune—I am thinking of Bloody Sunday, and so forth—this may be a cheap way in which to do this sort of thing. I do not know; but there has been a tremendous cost to the public purse. Sir Michael Buckley and his two assistants have had to be hired, while the vice-chancellor has been on sick leave, has been suspended or is having a sabbatical. There is the use of his house and, no doubt, a financial settlement. Has the department and the Minister been kept informed of all this and agreed whatever package there is, and are additional monies required for this? Is there going to have to be some virement within this budget because of those extra expenditures, and would that virement be outside the university’s budget, or would it affect the other university—Queen’s University, Belfast? It would not seem right for that to happen. Of course, if it were a school that we were talking about, the expenditure might be put into special measures. I do not know what plans there are. Will the Northern Ireland Audit Office conduct an inquiry into whatever settlement there has been, what financial controls there are and into the governance of that university? It would be useful to know what the position is. On Page 131, the financial administration of the Department of Finance and Personnel seems to cost £14.3 million, whereas previously it cost £8 million and, the year before that, £6.9 million. Again, it would be useful to understand why there should be that lift. Of course, one explanation could be that things have been put in different columns, but if that has happened, it should be explained. The cost of financial administration has nearly doubled, and that should be probed a little. On the next page, page 132, is the item Ulster Savings. On 13 December 2004, I spoke on that issue. Noble Lords will remember that Ulster Savings was a savings bank in Northern Ireland that decided to close down; this has been going on for several years, but we were told that there was about £8 million left. I suggested on that occasion, seven or so months ago, that there will come a point when you cannot find anyone else and asked what would happen to the capital sum of £8 million. I suggested that a useful place for it would be to help to endow the Community Foundation for Northern Ireland and to put to work that money which had been saved by people but was not going to claimed because people were dead—or whatever has happened to them. The noble Baroness, Lady Amos, gave a response, indicating in effect that I was a year or two too soon. Interestingly, however, on page 132, the actual amount to be expended by Ulster Savings is nil, which rather suggests that no wages are being paid out to people in Ulster Savings to try to find any more people who have disappeared, and that they have reached the end of the process. I would not mind knowing what the score is in that regard, and I would like to think that the idea that I suggested will be very seriously pursued. It seems wrong for that money simply to be used for reducing the national debt. On page 217, we see the Department for Regional Development. I have spoken before about the railway services in Northern Ireland; thankfully, more resources have been put in, both for rolling stock and track renewal. However, I hit upon the heading, ““Road passenger services””, which is obviously the bus services of Northern Ireland. I was surprised to see that the revenue figures had increased from £36 million to £40 million. This year, however, the figure is £73.2 million. That seems quite a hike. Are there to be a lot more bus services in Northern Ireland? There are also tremendous sums for repairing depots and so forth. The book does not tell us about that expenditure. The next area is the Northern Ireland Assembly, on page 274. It is interesting that the resources are in place to pay for Assembly men. I am not making a point about the sums of £32 million, £33 million and £47 million; the latter figure clearly refers to a full year. However, as this is 4 July, we are three months out and the Assembly has not been fully in progress. As I understand it, the £47,656,000 figure applies to full Assembly operation rather than the reduced salaries currently being paid. So the virement already exists if anyone wants to take it, and no doubt that will happen because that is the way of the world. If the figures were to follow suit, £12 or £13 million could be made available, unless there is a solution and the Assembly returns. However, that does not look likely at present. I turn to page 306 which refers to the Food Standards Agency. The preamble on page 305 tells us that the Northern Ireland Food Standards Agency is,"““part of the UK wide Food Standards Agency, which has its head office in London and . . . offices in Belfast, Aberdeen and Cardiff””." Those started life on 1 April 2000, but Northern Ireland became a separate identity on 1 April 2004. For two years it cost £2.8 million, but this year it cost £3,795 million—a 34 per cent increase. Is something happening in food standards that is much more costly? Is that 34 per cent replicated in England, Scotland and Wales, or is this a special deal for Northern Ireland? I move to what may be my final point, the Northern Ireland Audit Office, dealt with on page 317. Interestingly, point 3 of the introduction proudly states:"““The provision sought for 2005–06 is 8.5 per cent higher than the final net provision””," estimate for 2004–05. Hallelujah! This department is saying that it will cost 8.5 per cent more. I do not know why it says that, though that is clearly the case. That is not stated everywhere, but this department says it will happen. I am delighted that it has. I think that there is a case for indicating whether the markets are moving up or down. The department says what is happening and I give it credit for that. As I say, those are the few points I picked out. They struck me as worth discussing. However, one could dig very deep indeed, going into the realms of agriculture, mainstream education and so on. There must be a better way. I hope that the points I have raised will receive good answers. However, there could be very many more questions. This way of scrutinising is just not the best.