Northern Ireland Bill [Money] (No. 2) (Hansard, 18 November 1998)

§ The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram)
I beg to move, That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Northern Ireland Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by the Lord Chancellor under the Act.
The second money resolution is required as a result of changes made to the Bill since it left the House that make the Lord Chancellor liable to incur certain expenditure. The Lord Chancellor was not covered by the original money resolution made when the Bill was first introduced here.
Expenditure may be incurred in two discrete areas, the first of which relates to the tribunal which will be set up under the Bill to consider appeals against national security certificates. Provision has been made in amendment No. 348 for the payment of remuneration, allowances, pensions and gratuities to members of the tribunal, and compensation to former members in special circumstances. The amendment also provides for the payment of remuneration and expenses to the tribunal's staff and others employed by the tribunal. We shall have an opportunity to discuss the amendment later.
Provision has been made in Lords amendment No. 347 for the second area of expenditure, which is the payment of the legal fees that may be incurred by a defendant in criminal proceedings in which a devolution issue arises and for which he is granted legal aid. The additions to the cost of the Bill are both modest and necessary, and I hope that the House will support the resolution.

§ Mr. Kevin McNamara (Hull, North)
My hon. Friend the Minister has given no indication of the actual cost that is likely to be incurred in respect of the tribunal. I should be grateful if he did so.
I also ask him to consider whether we want to finance an organisation where the applicant will not see the evidence on which a decision about his future has been based; the tribunal can sit in secret and neither he nor his legal representative will be present. A barrister may be appointed from the Northern Ireland Bar to represent him, but that barrister will have no duty of care whatsoever to the person whom he is supposed to represent, and will have limitations placed on what information he may or may not give to the person whom he is supposed to represent; and if the certificate is upheld, it shall be conclusive proof of everything it contains.
Do we in this House really want to vote money for such a tribunal? I should have thought it a matter about which Members of Parliament who are also members of the legal profession would be somewhat concerned. It would appear that certain members of the Northern Ireland Bar—those who are regarded as the good, the just and the perfect—will be put on a separate panel, from which the Attorney-General will choose people to represent applicants; whereas others will not, and even though they are representing a client they will not be allowed to sit in on the tribunal.

§ Rev. Ian Paisley (North Antrim)
Will the Minister tell us something about those former members of the tribunal to whom he referred?

§ Mr. Peter Robinson (Belfast, East)
Will the Minister tell us whether the Government have calculated the cost of the component parts of the legislation? For example, what do they envisage will be the likely cost of the north-south bodies, the implementation bodies and the British-Irish Council? Do they think it sensible to have junior Ministers at additional cost, when the Bill already allows for up to 10 Ministers to deal with the existing six Departments in Northern Ireland? Those appear to be matters of expenditure which, had the Government been left to deal with Northern Ireland on their own, they would have told us were not sensible or prudent.
If the Minister has quantified the expenditure in each of those areas, can he justify it?

§ Mr. Ingram
My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) made a point about the principle behind the tribunal and I hope that we will have the opportunity to discuss that important matter in greater detail. I know that he is especially concerned. He asked specifically about the costs of the tribunal, but those are hard to establish because they will be driven by the number of cases that the tribunal handles every year. We anticipate two cases per year, at an average cost of £11,500. I said that the costs are likely to be modest, but they will be determined by events. Like everything else that the Government do, we have to make our best assessment; if there are more cases, they will have to be funded.

§ Mr. McNamara
Did my hon. Friend give an estimate of £11,500 for two cases, which would be £5,750 a case? I may have misheard him.

§ Mr. Ingram
I said that the cost had been estimated at £11,500 per case, but if I have misled my hon. Friend I am sorry. The cost will be driven by the number of cases, and it may escalate or it may be zero, if there are no cases.
The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) raised the question of former members of the tribunal. Our proposals are modelled on the approach to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, and the order allows contributions to be made to pensions. That will give us flexibility to deal with special circumstances, but those costs are also likely to be modest.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) raised issues outwith the terms of the order. I do not know whether he was at the Assembly meeting last week, when my hon. Friend the Minister of State presented the budget. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but it was an important meeting, and it is a matter of regret that he did not hear the full explanation given by my hon. Friend of the budget and the costs that will devolve to the new Assembly.
Indications were given in the report to the Assembly of the costs that would fall on it as a consequence of some of the new bodies that will arise from the agreement. Costs relating to the British-lrish Council will be met by the two Governments, but they will be modest, given the frequency and length of the meetings. Those costs are a necessary component of meeting the Government's obligations under the agreement.