---

Budget (Northern Ireland) Order 2006

I too thank the Minister for introducing the Budget order. I apologise for the momentary delay; I was watching the monitor, but it beat me. However, here we are again. There should be 108 people doing this while sitting in Stormont. We are doing it for half an hour, but they should be doing it every day. As I have said before, all we can do is scratch a little and see what there is. My noble friend Lord Smith of Clifton, who we are resting today, asked me whether I had seen yesterday’s and today’s Irish Times. There is speculation about a shadow assembly. I misheard him and thought he actually said ““a shallow assembly””. However, whether it is a shadow or shallow assembly, there is talk of it. Does the noble Lord believe that we are any closer to that? There is also talk of a road map. We have heard about road maps, but to me it seems to be more of a meandering stream. If there is any news of it, that would be helpful. The order in a sense gives us an opportunity to say anything we like about Northern Ireland, but I think we are better placed this year because we have three, or perhaps four, documents—the original set of estimates, the fresh set of estimates with the new figures, the priorities up to 2008 and, most usefully, the Northern Ireland Annual Abstract of Statistics 2005. Taken together, they raise one or two questions. Looking at the detail of the document we are discussing today, it is clear that certain changes have been made. It sets out four big numbers. Three of those big numbers are about superannuation, but the way that they appear here makes it seem like funny money. In the next set of columns, we are talking about cash. Nevertheless, serious sizes of money are involved, such as £1,190 million for superannuation, which has been included in the accounts because of expectations of what will have to be paid in superannuation that were not expected when the document was first produced. We know about that, and about superannuation. The fourth of the big numbers—£370,778,000—is about depreciation of roads. That is funny money, in my view. But there we are—that is how these things are now done. However, coming to real money, I have about half a dozen detailed points that I should like to make. If people go to pages 217 and 220 of the department’s regional development budget, they will see references to ferry, air and sea and also rail services. I start with ferry, air and sea because the last time I went to Northern Ireland, two or three weeks ago, I went by air to Belfast City Airport. Previously—not the time before that, but not that long ago—I was then able to go from the city airport to the Sydenham railway station and get a train to Belfast. However, the airport has been shifted about one-third of a mile but the railway station has not. The whole business of putting a couple of platforms at the side of a railway line is one thing; the creation of a new airport is another. One would have thought that there could have been some synchronisation. I have no idea where that is in the plans, but it says in the document that there is £15 million rescheduled for railway capital projects in later years. Is the new airport railway station included in that figure? That seems a fair question to ask. Looking at the statistics booklet, it is interesting to read that in the batting order of airports, Belfast City Airport is number 16 in these islands. London City Airport is number 18 in terms of the amount of traffic.  At London City Airport, there is 80 per cent of the trade of Belfast City Airport. The railway station for London City Airport opened in December. That is interesting. Obviously London gets a lot of preference; often Northern Ireland does, but there is a certain lag here that, in my view, need not be. My second point, which I raised one year and two months ago, concerns Ulster Savings. The Committee may well remember that Ulster Savings has now ceased. People have been paid out but there is about £8 million left. I suggested that that £8 million would be a useful gift to the Community Foundation for Northern Ireland. The reason that I mention that today is that this is the last time that there will be a budget line for Ulster Savings in the figures before us. This year the figure is nil, but the previous year it was 0.2. Next year, there will not need to be anything in the Budget, because the previous year it will have been nil. Therefore, although I shall not forget it, this is the last time that it will be on the agenda for one of these meetings. I have the notes of the debate on the previous occasion. I would like to know whether there have been further claims on Ulster Savings, whether the bottom has been reached at £8 million and what moves will be made. As I said, I do not want to lose that money, which could do a lot for the voluntary sector in Northern Ireland. That would be quite proper and in line with so much of the thinking at that time. The third item concerns the offices of the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister. On victims, the budget head is £5.5 million. The papers we have today say that we do not need £1.5 million of that. Why? A lot has been said in this place and in the Chamber about victims and support for them. Bearing in mind that that budget was billed nine or 10 months ago and it was thought that £5.5 million was needed, it is surprising that that need is no longer there in an area which is of such concern. The fourth item I want to question is that of the Civic Forum. On the same page—page 267—£1,000 is allocated for the Civic Forum, and £1,000 for next year. I met members of the Civic Forum. It seemed to be an effective body, much concerned about activities in Northern Ireland and playing its part for civic society. I do not understand why it had to be shut down at the same time as the Assembly. Interestingly, we have referred many times to the Assembly and the payment of wages and salaries. That has been kept going, but the Civic Forum has not. If the wand is waved and the Assembly is brought back tomorrow, the salaries are there and we know that they will be jerked up to the original figure, but there is nothing in the Budget for the Civic Forum. I would like to think that the Civic Forum is still part of the Belfast agreement and that it will be honoured. It would be useful to question the matter. Peppered around these papers are extra dispositions from the European Union, mainly on peace and reconciliation but also on the initiatives fund and the regional development fund. I reckon that there is about £25 million extra where there has been success in applying for money from the European Union, as compared to expectations previously. My question is this: can and will that money be spent properly? I have to declare an interest as a trustee of the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust. I have spent a fair time over the past 20 years giving grants in Northern Ireland. Only recently, I have seen applications where people have applied for money to do mainstream, wonderful, cross-cutting work in rural areas that is bringing the two sides together, but they are bereft of resources. They say: ““We cannot get money from Europe. There is a problem. We cannot get money from the National Lottery. We are having to come to you””. But we think, ““We should not be paying this bill””. Some of these resources should be going to organisations such as the one that I have described. I would like to think that they are being used properly and that this wonderful work is properly supported. Finally, I turn to education. Again, it is useful to have the document on the priorities budget. Page 16 refers to falling school rolls: there are nearly 50,000 empty places. Referring to the statistics document, if the number of children aged between birth and six years old is transferred to secondary education, there will be nearly another 30,000 empty places, which will make 80,000 empty places. I have not seen anything about how this is to be dealt with. Of course, if money is in plenty, one wonderful way would be to say, ““Oh well, teacher/pupil ratios will be splendid””. I doubt that that is the way forward, but it would be useful to know what will happen. The document also states—I was glad to see this:"““It is necessary to consider rationalisation of provision including an examination of parallel schooling structures””." I am a big supporter of rural schools. If they have to be small, so be it. However, I am not too keen on having two small rural schools. If there is a school at one end of a village with 20 Protestant children and another at the other end with 20 Catholic children, someone should take the initiative to band them together. The Churches could participate in bringing such schools together—the educational value is clear—rather than having two one-class schools. That matter ought to be looked at. I noted changes in the education budget. There is a minus figure with regard to GM and integrated schools and a large figure for grants in respect of the Education and Library Boards. I did not quite understand those revisions. It may be possible to be given an explanation for that. I have not mentioned agriculture or health. In 24 minutes we can do no more than scratch the surface and return to the matter on another occasion, or hope that someone else will do so.