Proceeding contribution from Lord Smith of Clifton (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 4 July 2006. It occurred during Debates on delegated legislation on Budget (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 2006.
Budget (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 2006
My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for introducing the order. I also share his view that it would be much better if Stormont was handling it rather than we here in the House of Lords. Like the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, I, too, read the House of Commons debate, which was rather thick on generalities and rather thin on specifics. If the House of Commons is meant to provide the detailed scrutiny and the financial implications for the Budget but is not doing it—we, by convention, are not meant to do it—no one is really doing it. That very serious failing is all too typical of the way in which Northern Ireland business is treated in the Palace of Westminster. On education and the Council for the Curriculum Examination & Assessment, there is an enormous increase from some £12.5 million in 2004-05 to just over £23 million in 2006-07. I would like an explanation. How is the issue of falling school rolls dealt with, and does this provide an opportunity for increasing the amount of integrated education in rural areas? It seems irrational and pointless to have two systems of education when there are falling rolls, and it is an opportunity to increase the amount of integrated education in Northern Ireland. This is a mere detail, but nevertheless we had better look at details. The district councils have served a writ of summons of well over £500,000 on the Department of the Environment. Why cannot this sort of thing be sorted out without involving the lawyers? Northern Ireland is terribly prone to giving employment to lawyers, of which this is a classic example. The spend for the Department for Social Development details the community and voluntary sector funding. Formerly, £47 million came from the EU. Now, £21 million is being voted for the community and voluntary sector. That is a significant reduction by any standards—it is more than 50 per cent. One cares about that because in an economy that is too heavily reliant on the public sector the role of community and voluntary organisations is vital. Yet it is very difficult for them to get funds from such a small private sector. They do not have the opportunity that those in England and Wales, for example, have to get large donations from donors in the private sector, simply because the private sector is so small there, and a great deal of what does exist is dependent on public sector funds. On the Department for Social Development, what is the reduction, which I think is over 50 per cent and will the community and voluntary sector be able to operate with such a considerable reduction in its funds?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 684 c5-6GC
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords Grand Committee
- Subjects
- Community development Costs Health Finance Education Government departments Grants Northern Ireland Public expenditure Voluntary organisations Transport Tourism Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund
- Legislation
- Budget (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 2006
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-22 02:15:06 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_335404
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_335404
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_335404