Grand Committee Report of 13 December 2004

Official Report of the Northern Ireland Orders Grand Committee
Monday, 13 December 2004.
The Committee met at half past three of the clock.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo) in the Chair.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): Before the Minister moves that the first order be considered, it may be helpful to say a word about the procedure for today's Grand Committee. Our proceedings are essentially the same as those of the House. Noble Lords will speak standing; all noble Lords are free to attend and participate; and the proceedings will be reported in Hansard in the usual way.
As we are in Committee, Members may speak more than once on any Motion.
I should, however, make it clear to noble Lords that this Committee is charged only to consider orders, not to approve or not approve them. The Motion to approve will be moved in the Chamber in the usual way.
The main difference between our proceedings and the proceedings on the Floor of the House is that the House has agreed that there shall be no Divisions in a Grand Committee. Any Motion on which agreement cannot be reached should be withdrawn.

Official Report of the Northern Ireland Orders Grand Committee

  Agriculture (Northern Ireland) Order 2004
  The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): I beg to move that the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the draft Agriculture (Northern Ireland) Order 2004.
  The purpose of the draft order is to introduce measures that will do three things. First, the order will allow the creation of a new Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute that will carry out statutory agricultural science functions and will also have a commercial role in scientific activities, including research and development. Secondly, the order clears the way for improvements in the delivery of higher-level agricultural education. It does so by enabling withdrawal of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development from direct involvement in the provision of teaching at the School of Agriculture and Food Science at Queen's University, Belfast. Responsibility for teaching courses relating to agriculture, food and the environment will therefore move to a similar basis as for other university studies. Thirdly, the order provides for the winding-up of the Agricultural Research Institute and for the functions and assets of that body to be subsumed within the new Agri-food and Biosciences Institute.
  The policy measures in the order have been reached after lengthy consideration and discussion of the structures needed to serve the agri-food sector over coming years. There is widespread consent—resulting from four main public consultations—to the proposals. I commend the order to the Committee.
  Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the draft Agriculture (Northern Ireland) Order 2004.—(Baroness Amos.)
  Lord Glentoran: I thank the Lord President for bringing the order before the Committee; I also thank her and her officials, who gave me a very full briefing this morning.
  Over many years in Northern Ireland, the farming industry has been our biggest and most important industry. We have for many years been extremely well served by the Department of Agriculture. I declare an interest as a Northern Ireland farmer. In particular, we were well served by Brid Rogers and her team during the days of foot and mouth.
  Overall, I welcome the order, which seems to do much with regard to tidying up. Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that I was anxious about funding and a number of the outlying institutions that those in farming and I know about. We have many scientific experimental operations and agricultural schools. I hope that none of those will come to any harm and will continue to flourish under the new structures. I was assured this morning by the officials that that is so and that there should not be a shortage of cash.
  I was, as always, concerned that the Treasury would be looking to nick a bit of the cash and to put it somewhere else. It appears that that is not so, although the Explanatory Memorandum contains figures that reduce the current £2 million for 2006 to £1.467 million and £1.5 million for 2007–08. However, again, the officials made the point to me that the new organisation should be in a position to become much more commercial and to earn money as a business, if it is set up entrepreneurially with the right sort of people. I see no reason why it should not benefit from both farming in the Republic—and, indeed, across the water, in Scotland, at least. I believe that some of the organisations that are operating in the field are well ahead of the field in those countries. Therefore, I sincerely hope that this move will be for the best.
  At this stage, I have no further comments. I support the order.
  Lord Smith of Clifton: We, too, support this order. It will update the provisions—and, frankly, not before time. The old 1928 Act, which is being repealed, represented the whole question of agricultural produce. But now the whole gate-to-plate spectrum has moved into food products themselves, and not only agricultural products, and it is important that that change in spectrum is reflected in the research and development capacity for the industry in Northern Ireland.
  Agriculture remains a very important industry in Northern Ireland. Quite considerable developments have occurred in food technology, and today we see a

  GC 3
  successful export of food products of a high quality from Northern Ireland to all parts of Europe. So the provision is welcome from that point of view. It is also welcome on the grounds that the relationship into which DANI—the Department of Agriculture in Northern Ireland—and Queen's University entered in 1928 became rather a cosy cartel in latter years. It is good that a new foundation for research and development is being put in place by this order. For that reason, we support and welcome the order, which is actually about 10 years overdue.
  Lord Laird: On behalf of my Ulster Unionist colleagues, I am happy to give this order a broad welcome. However, I wish to highlight a number of aspects which I believe require further clarification.
  In considering the new Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute, the Ulster Farmers Union expressed concern about the make-up of the board. It had hoped that the chairman and at least 50 per cent of the board would be made up of experts in the agri-food sector. While paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 attempts to address that concern by providing that the board shall,
  "secure that each member has experience in a field of activity relevant to the discharge of the functions of the Institute",
  it is still not clear how these appointments will be made, or whether it will be possible to have several people with experience of one area, such as fisheries, and none with experience of forestry, for example.
  That point was raised in another place last week, but the Minister missed the finer point, when he merely reiterated that the board will be made up of people of "the right calibre" who,
  "have the relevant expertise to be able to provide oversight of a body primarily involved in scientific testing and research and development in agriculture, animal health and related areas".—[Official Report, Commons, Second Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 6/12/04; col. 11.]
  What the Minister did do, however—and this we welcome—was to confirm that one space on the board would be reserved on a non-statutory basis for a person nominated by the Ulster Farmers Union.
  Will the noble Baroness tell us how the board will be appointed, what process will be in place to facilitate appointments and, indeed, whether it is necessary to have someone from each of the highlighted aspects of agriculture, food and the environment—animal health, fisheries, forestry, the natural environment and rural development—before the board can meet?
  Concerns have also been raised during the consultation phase and, indeed, at last week's committee in the other place, regarding the commercial work of the institute. The order contains a statutory obligation on the institute not to seek any commercial work that will prejudice the agreed programme of work for the department. Equally, however, the department has powers to give directions to the institute on the research that it should carry out, but such directions should not put the institute in breach of any existing contractual obligations. This rather complex system seems to me to be entirely open
  GC 4
  to confusion. Can the Minister tell us how the department will ensure that any commercial contacts gained by the institute do not prejudice department-guided work? Who judges whether commercial activities are prejudicing the departmental work done by the institute, and what mechanisms are in place to ensure that that does not happen? Will the Minister be able to intervene, or is it up to the institute to judge its own work? What does the noble Baroness anticipate happening in the inevitable event of a conflict of interest or cross-over of research? How would such a situation be administered?
  I now turn to the new department at Queen's University, the College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise. How closely does the noble Baroness anticipate the new college to work with the institute? Again, will there be cross-over and what mechanisms are in place to ensure that the college and the institute actually work together to develop global competitiveness and success for Northern Ireland's agriculture sector?
  Moreover, the legislation before us today does not indicate what will happen with regard to the college's funding after the initial three-year period. Can the noble Baroness assure us that funding will be guaranteed in the long term?
  In conclusion, I would like to draw the Minister on what impact she feels the new institute will have on stemming the spread of TB or other infectious diseases across our farms, or how its work will help prevent a repeat of the foot and mouth disaster. Will research into diseases such as those take priority?
  Lord Glentoran: Before the noble Baroness responds, I want to mention one figure. The thought of the institute having 18 people on its board fills me with horror. I am sure that any future chairman would be horrified to discover that he had to try to reach decisions with 18 people. That figure is too high.
  Baroness Amos: First, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken for their broad welcome for the order. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, referred specifically to funding. I wish to put it on record that the proposals are not specifically linked to cost-cutting exercises. Their purpose is to improve the structures needed for the future integrity and viability of providing agri-food, educational, scientific and related services. The setting up of the new body will result in additional initial costs but thereafter it should operate at costs either similar to the present arrangements or perhaps lower because of the coming together to achieve greater value for money. We consider these costs to be reasonable, bearing in mind the nature of the changes.
  As regards the point the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, raised about having 18 people on the board, I believe that the order has a range from eight to 18 as it is anticipated that specific skill sets will be required. Therefore, the range gives a degree of flexibility. However, I take the noble Lord's point that the maximum figure of 18 is a large number of people to work with. I welcome the recognition by the noble

  GC 5
  Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, of the major developments that have taken place in food technology.
  I turn to the specific points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Laird. First, I wish to address his comments on the composition of the board. I am aware of concerns about representation raised by the farmers' union. It is, of course, too early to be definitive about the nature of board membership, but I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Laird, that careful consideration will be given to the composition of the board. It is important to note that the board will need to have a very strong business remit both to deliver services and to win new commercial funding, including for research and development. We are keen to identify the key talents needed for the AFBI board and to match selection accordingly. We are looking to see whether the balance of corporate skills is appropriate for the important role that the board has to play. We want to ensure that collectively, as far as reasonably possible, the board reflects the differing community backgrounds in Northern Ireland.
  On further points made by the noble Lord with respect to appointments to the board, there is flexibility in the order to allow appointments to be made in a way that reflects the functions of AFBI. That was a particular concern of the noble Lord, Lord Laird. Early in 2005 the department will consider and decide on how composition of the board will be taken forward. The noble Lord will understand that I cannot be drawn further on that at present, but I can reassure him that appointments will be in line with guidance from the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Public Appointments.
  On the question of commercial work prejudicing work for the department, the department will agree with AFBI the work programme for each year in its business plan, so that there should not be any confusion about that. This will include an assessment of whether there is any potential prejudicial impact on AFBI's work. The department will require assurances that statutory testing will not be compromised, and it is right that the department should have powers of direction should these prove necessary. There will be a specific sponsoring division in the department to monitor and liaise with AFBI, and this division will deal with any conflict of interest that might arise, but I do not anticipate that any of those kinds of conflicts will happen.
  On the questions with respect to the College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise, it will have lead responsibility for providing dissemination of technical transfer, with AFBI playing a key role in support of the college. As may be expected with a front line scientific body, AFBI will be in a strong position to provide input to DARD's technology transfer work. The College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise will liaise closely with AFBI, universities, research institutes and other providers to ensure cohesive and comprehensive delivery of technology transfer. The sponsoring division will monitor all those arrangements.
  On the question about funding for Queen's University Belfast School of Agriculture, DARD will retain control of the funding for the School of Agri-Food and Land Use until 2008. This is a highly visible way of showing that the money is secured during the three-year transitional period. After the three-year period, appropriate funding transfers to the Department for Employment and Learning will take place. As a result, the Department for Employment and Learning will have sufficient long-term funding for continued operation of the School of Agri-Food and Land Use at current levels. This means that the school will be funded in the same manner as for other Queen's University Belfast facilities.
  On the final point made by the noble Lord, Lord Laird, on the impact on conquering diseases such as TB and foot-and-mouth, AFBI will have a major role in all scientific research and development. I understand that animal health research is already high on the agenda, and I foresee that position will remain unchanged. Prevention of a further foot-and-mouth disaster is a matter for the department to consider. AFBI's role will be to provide a unified emergency response should any such situation arise. I hope that I have addressed the points that have been raised. I commend the order to the Committee.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Financial Provisions (Northern Ireland) Order 2004
  3.45 p.m.
  Baroness Amos: I beg to move that the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the draft Financial Provisions (Northern Ireland) Order 2004.
  This order is required at intervals of every few years to adjust certain statutory financial limits and to deal with other routine financial matters. On this occasion, the order also contains provisions relating to the Ulster Savings scheme, and I will focus my comments on that, if I may.
  Article 2 of the order makes provision for the formal winding up of the Ulster Savings scheme, which was the subject of a policy consultation by the Department of Finance and Personnel. It is the final stage in a process that has lasted almost 15 years. A policy review undertaken in 1990 revealed that this method of saving was becoming less and less utilised and, faced with competition from banks and building societies, was becoming less competitive in offering savers favourable terms for their investments. This was in contrast to the original scheme started in the 1920s, when Ulster Savings raised funds for capital projects undertaken by local authorities and provided a secure investment source for individuals.
  The scheme became less popular in the 1970s, and the review undertaken in 1990 led to the cessation of new certificates being issued. Reinvestment in existing certificates stopped in 1997 and since then, the

  GC 7
  Department of Finance and Personnel, through the Ulster Savings branch, has made every effort to assist certificate holders in making alternative arrangements for their money. It has managed to achieve that, and 95 per cent of all holdings are now with their owners. The remaining 5 per cent, a figure of less than £9 million, lies dormant, and every effort has been made to contact the holders. Given that most of this figure relates to holdings from 1930 to 1960, it is safe to assume that many of the holders are now probably deceased.
  The order seeks to wind up the scheme formally, but in a way that means if any holders, or their estates, come forward, they will be able to cash in their holdings at the value when the order comes into force. The Ulster Savings branch at Coleraine will close, but this will not result in any job losses due to transfers and retirements of existing staff.
  The other matters in the order relate to routine technical financial adjustments. I commend the order to the Committee.
  Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the draft Financial Provisions (Northern Ireland) Order 2004.—(Baroness Amos.)
  Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble Baroness the Lord President for bringing the order before us. I have a few things to ask.
  I fully understand the reason for the closure of the Ulster Savings scheme and support it, but what is happening to the leftovers which, as I understand from talking to officials this morning, come to about £8.5 million? The Government need to put on the record what they will do with that and if they are continuing to search for those people who have holdings.
  I can see that expenditure on sustainable development is sensible, and have no difficulty with it. However, as regards expenditure on employment industrial relations law and practice, I feel that the Government are already spending far too much money on consultants in Northern Ireland. As the noble Baroness will be aware, I have asked a number of Questions to ascertain the large amount of money that has been spent on consultants. I am a little nervous about yet another opportunity to spend more money on industrial relations consultants. There must be better and other ways of learning about industrial relations, as there were in my day, when I had to do it the hard way. I would like to hear the reasoned thinking behind that.
  I have to declare an interest with regard to events, having been, arguably, the originator of the Northern Ireland Events Company. In fact, I started Positively Belfast, out of which evolved the Northern Ireland Events Company. I also spent nine years on the Sports Council Northern Ireland.
  Although I see the sense of paragraph 5 of the order, I want to be a little naughty and raise two issues which are close to my heart and concern actions proposed by Angela Smith MP to reduce the budget very
  GC 8
  significantly of both the Sports Council Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Events Company. To my way of thinking, and knowing quite a bit about Northern Ireland, as I do, it is about as stupid a thing as anybody could wish to do. Nothing other than good has ever come out of the Sports Council Northern Ireland in terms of community relations, education, working in schools and working across the tribal boundaries. The Sports Council's activities are largely low key and at grass roots level. For that, it should have serious funding. In my day, it was part of the Department of Education, and I thought that that was a good place for it, although I believe it has now moved.
  With regard to the NIEC, three major events represent the biggest opportunity that one could possibly have to present Northern Ireland on the world's television screens in a good light for a very small amount of money; namely, the North West 200 motorcycle race; the Milk Cup, which is an inter-schools football tournament that takes place in Coleraine in August; and, every other year, the PGA European Tour Senior British Open, which now attracts many of the great American players and gives Northern Ireland the opportunity to be beamed across the United States and the rest of the world and to appear in a very good light. To kill any of those events by nitpicking over a few hundred thousand pounds is just crass.
  I know that that is not directly related to the order and I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for perhaps having trespassed out of order. Having said that, I support the order.
  Lord Shutt of Greetland: I, too, thank the Lord President for moving the order. Somewhere else there may be discussions about sin. I hope that they may embrace redemption, forgiveness and turning the other cheek; we shall see.
  The order deals with expenditure on sustainable development, on employment and industrial relations, on events and on the laying of reports by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. Provided that all that is done with due economy, I am happy to support what appears in the order.
  I was to discuss the closure of Ulster Savings. That is near to my heart in one sense, in that I have been concerned for some time about windfalls—I produced a pamphlet eight years ago called Building Society Bounty—and orphan money. It is most commendable that, having made the decision to phase out Ulster Savings, about £164 million has been repaid in the past 10 to 15 years and that there is only a residual £8 million left. However, that is still a fair sum of money. What is to become of it? There would be something improper if that were written off to reduce the public debt. That money was saved by people in Northern Ireland. We are told that it is likely that most of the people are now dead. It would be a useful testament to the lives of those people who saved that money if it could be used for community purposes in Northern Ireland.
  The late Lord Taylor of Gryfe introduced an amendment in this House many years ago to the TSB Bill, which required that some of the resources—1 per cent of profits—of the Trustee Savings Bank, which was an orphan bank, went to community causes. There is quite an interest these days in orphan money and windfall money. Such a proposal would be a useful start. Public expenditure would not be involved; if all those people were miraculously to appear, they would get their £8 million. If that sum were endowed for the community foundation of Northern Ireland, that would give a tremendous lift to those people who are working with community and voluntary groups across all the divides in Northern Ireland. That would be a very appropriate use which ought to be considered. I suspect that this may be the last occasion on which this matter comes before us. Therefore, this is the time when that kind of decision ought to be made.
  No doubt it is considered that, subsequent to our having debated the measure, it will be passed on the nod. This constitutes an opportunity to announce whether the decision to which I have referred can be taken. That would give a tremendous boost—at a time when such a boost would be very useful—to the Community Foundation for Northern Ireland and would be incredibly helpful. It would be testimony to the fact that saving in Northern Ireland is to be taken over by an organisation that is helping all kinds of people throughout Northern Ireland. I would like to think that something was left over from this exercise. It is incredible that so many people have been traced. However, the sum of £8 million, endowed, would give an income of a third of a million pounds a year to the Community Foundation for Northern Ireland and assist it in its work. I put that forward as a suggestion.
  4 p.m.
  Lord Laird: I join others in thanking the Lord President for bringing the Financial Provisions (Northern Ireland) Order before the Grand Committee. It contains a number of provisions that are of particular interest to me. First, I identify myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, regarding the Events Company and the Sports Council. Those two organisations have made a worthy contribution to the image of Northern Ireland and have played a significant part in building intercommunity cohesion inside Northern Ireland, which is very important. They have also helped to improve Northern Ireland's image—this is just as important—outside the Province.
  I am a little concerned about some of the activities that could be carried out under paragraph 5 by the Northern Ireland Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure. I have some experience of that department, having been the chairman of a body that reported to it. Unfortunately, as regards dealing with the image of Northern Ireland, we had very little, if any, support from the department. I need to be convinced by the Minister that the department is not just saving money for money's sake or simply carrying out the activities required by the Dublin Government but is attempting to create an image for Northern Ireland which will
  GC 10
  help our tourist trade and help the communities inside the Province. I believe that that has not happened to date.
  For example, the body of which I used to be the chairman, the Ulster-Scots Agency, was told at one stage that it could not spend money outside the island of Ireland. That argument has continued for several years. However, recent legal opinion sought by Her Majesty's Government showed that there was no legal basis to discriminate against the Ulster-Scots people in that fashion. I say to the Government: let us hear no more with regard to difficulties outside the island of Ireland, and do not claim that the change is a concession, because if they do I will publish their legal opinion.
  I thank those officials in the Northern Ireland Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure who organised the unofficial publication of the Ulster-Scots Agency accounts 2000, and ask why these were not first laid before Parliament. I have been trying to obtain those figures for years. I will take time at a later stage publicly to name and thank those officials involved and to explain how and why they leaked the accounts.
  I return to another aspect of funding that concerns the image of Northern Ireland—one of the areas into which we in the Ulster-Scots Agency were not allowed to put money last year and this year due to budget cuts by DCAL. I refer to the beautiful town of Bushmills on the north coast of Antrim. Bushmills is a natural Ulster Scots town, full of native speakers and having all the physical aspects of a planter town. In recent years it has been neglected and now has a disadvantaged population. Some of us are determined to help the local folk to a better and more prosperous way of life. Besides the Giant's Causeway and the famous distillery, the town could be a major tourist attraction if presented as such. To date, much work has been taking place to support the local groups and to place Bushmills into its Ulster Scots context; all this despite little support from Her Majesty's Government.
  I beg the leave of the Committee to make a point that I believe should be put on the record. I have learnt recently that a party of 50 Lithuanians who came to the area to work until Christmas were intimidated and left. I want to say in the strongest possible terms that whoever made the threatening call from a local public phone box is furthering no cause. The Protestant cause, the Unionist cause, and the case for Ulster Scots are all damaged by this sort of scum behaviour. It is the very opposite of Ulster Scots historical heritage to treat people as anything other than totally equal and welcome in Ulster.
  We ourselves were forcibly moved from Scotland to Ulster 400 years ago and suffered at the hands of the local Irish. So we can understand those who come to your land for economic advantage and safety. If any Ulster Scots are taking part in racism, they are letting down their forefathers who wrote and signed the Declaration of Independence and created the great nation of America, and they must be condemned. Such thuggish behaviour is not done in the name of Ulster

  GC 11
  Scots. Our desire is to live in a multicultural society of equals. It is an ongoing struggle to get the Irish to accept us as equals. So Ulster Scots must not be let down by racism in any form against the Irish or those from overseas. It is no excuse that a small section of the Irish community treats us in a racialist fashion.
  I refer to paragraph 6 of the order, in which I am also interested, which deals with the laying of reports of the Comptroller and Auditor-General as to the economic efficiency of public bodies. There seems to be a problem somewhere in the administration of Northern Ireland, which we must find and put right. I take as an example the underspend of £315 million by the departments in Northern Ireland last year. Yet, to the surprise of most people, the Department of Education underspent in the past financial year by almost £52 million. Year after year the education budget is not spent in total and substantial sums are handed back.
  I know that the mandarins will come up with excuses about capital project delays and other totally incomprehensible explanations. As a simple person who created and ran his own business for 22 years, it seems to me that if there is a regular pattern of available funds being underspent something is wrong. It must not be beyond the wit of our local mandarins to see the budget implications and to allocate the funding in such a way that money could be used to solve problems and thus not wasted.
  I crave the indulgence of the Committee and take as an example Artigarvan Primary School in County Tyrone. The school has served the local area from its current building for over 30 years. Under the worthy leadership of headmaster Nigel Cairns, the school has an outstanding record of high-quality teaching and learning. The accommodation for the 186 pupils comprises seven primary classrooms including one mobile classroom and a part time nursery unit. Six of the children have statements of special education needs. All are catered for by six excellent teachers and by a part-time special needs teacher. There is also a part-time nurse.
  The pupils are lively and willing to learn—the average attendance is 94 per cent. Artigarvan is a housing growth area and the parents, with the board of governors, are all very supportive and hardworking. Artigarvan Primary School, by any standards, is an outstanding school doing a quality job for the community. Yet Artigarvan Primary School has no library, no staff room, no special education needs classroom, an inadequate playing pitch and little parking area. The assembly hall has to double as a canteen, the PE hall is too small, and there are totally inadequate toilet facilities for staff and pupils. There is no PE storage, and little storage for books, resources or materials. The flat roof over the kitchen is constantly in need of repair, and there are many health and safety issues.
  The school, through its headmaster and board of governors, has repeatedly had its requests for a modest injection of funding turned down. I am sure that there are many other schools in a similar position, but to
  GC 12
  continue this example, how do the excellent people of Artigarvan, who pay their taxes and are law-abiding and decent, the salt of the earth, feel when they learn that the Department of Education had an underspend of £52 million last year? They are entitled to feel aggrieved and wonder what sort of Alice in Wonderland world they live in. Will the Lord President give me an assurance that the case for extra funding for Artigarvan Primary School will be reexamined as a matter of priority? Will she further assure me that the underspend in the 2004 budget for each department will not be lost, but transferred to the current year, as promised by the NIO Minister, Ian Pearson, in July?
  Baroness Blood: I thank the Minister for bringing this order before us today. I support the comments of my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, on the Sports Council and the Northern Ireland Events Company. They portray the real Northern Ireland, where people come together and enjoy life. I declare an interest as a trustee of the Community Foundation for Northern Ireland. Over the years of the Troubles, groups such as the Sports Council and the Community Foundation have held the front line, while we have allowed our politicians to get to a photo finish—almost.
  I would be encouraged if the Minister could tell us today that this windfall from the Ulster Savings scheme could be used in that way. One of the things being hotly debated in community circles in Northern Ireland is the Assets Recovery Agency, and what it does with the money it recovers. There is a feeling that the money should be going back into the community from which it has been taken. The proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, is an excellent way to say to the people of Northern Ireland, "here are people who invested in their savings, and this is what will be done with the money". I urge the Minister to think seriously about the proposal.
  Baroness Amos: I thank noble Lords who have spoken. I recognise the strength of feeling about the plans that the Government may have for this money in the longer term. I will respond to the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Shutt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blood, with respect to her comments on the Community Foundation and the Sports Council.
  As yet, there are no firm plans for the funds. I anticipate that in due course—we are talking about a few years' time when there will be very few outstanding holders—the options for any unclaimed certificates will be examined. That will be done in the wider context of the issue of dormant funds in the public and private sectors. Some £2.9 million was redeemed this year. It is reasonable to perhaps expect some more next year, and perhaps the year after that. The ideas that noble Lords have come up with today will be taken into consideration when we are thinking about the options with respect to any future underspend.
  The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, was keen to know that we had done all that we could to ensure that people knew what was going on and that there had

  GC 13
  been adequate publicity on the closure of Ulster Savings. There has been extensive publicity since the 1990 policy review. Advertisements in the local press and through the Post Office network announced both the cessation of sales of new certificates in 1991 and the cessation of reinvestment of existing certificates in 1997. Repeated mail shot exercises have been carried out on the basis of the last known addresses for the holders. A public consultation on the legislative proposal ran from 2 August to 22 October this year, with a consultation document being issued to over 300 people and organisations in the Northern Ireland public sector and the wider business, voluntary and community sectors. I believe we have done all that we can but we will of course continue to ensure that this is known.
  4.15 p.m.
  The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, discussed the use of consultants with respect to employment tribunals. The general financial power will help the law centre, a voluntary body, with financial support. It is unlikely to be wasteful, with a figure amounting to only £100,000 per annum to run an employment rights project for people with financial constraints. Its own in-house legal team will be involved in discharging the money. It is not for use on consultants. Having heard a programme only last night on, I believe, Radio 4, about the kind of debt that people get themselves into and the problems they have with employment rights, I believe that having a law centre giving such advice will be very helpful.
  I have already answered a couple of Written Questions from the noble Lord, Lord Laird, on the money being spent on events. Perhaps I may explain the context. The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure currently supports events through the funding of the Northern Ireland Events Company. However, the sole authority at present for the department to pay grant aid relating to promotional activities and events is the supply estimates and the confirming appropriation order. This provision provides the required statutory authority; that is all that it does.
  On the budget for the Northern Ireland Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure and the Northern Ireland Events Company, the Draft Priorities and Budget 2005–08 was published for public consultation on Tuesday, 12 October of this year. Comments had to be submitted in writing by 7 December and the agreed final budget will be published on 20 December, when departments will be notified of their actual allocations for 2005–06 and indicative allocations for 2006–07 and 2007–08. Final decisions relating to the amounts available to the Northern Ireland Events Company have not yet been taken.
  The noble Lord, Lord Laird, discussed the Comptroller and Auditor-General and the need to lay his value-for-money reports at Westminster. The Comptroller and Auditor-General has been publishing value-for-money reports during the period of suspension, and these play in important role in terms of accountability. The Comptroller and
  GC 14
  Auditor-General has been able to lay the reports in the Assembly but, since 22 October 2004, due to an oversight in earlier legislation, no longer has the statutory authority to lay those reports before Parliament. Although there is an administrative agreement, the order will enable the Comptroller and Auditor-General formally to lay them at Westminster. That power will be effective only while the Assembly is suspended.
  The noble Lord, Lord Laird, also gave some specific examples; I hope he understands that I cannot address them this afternoon. I am, however, happy to read them again and, if I can help him further, I will of course write to him.
  On underspends, I was not aware of an earlier commitment having been made. However, I am sure that if my ministerial colleagues made an earlier commitment with respect to underspend, those commitments will be honoured.
  Finally, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Laird, we all agree that racism has no place in our society. I hope I have addressed all the questions that have been raised. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, wants to speak.
  Lord Shutt of Greetland: Before the noble Baroness concludes, I am grateful to her for her comments on my point about Ulster Savings. Where does she envisage we will go from here? Is it thought that each year we will learn how much more money, if any, has been repaid? It appears that the actuaries of this world will be able to assist in that regard. It may well be possible to say, "The maximum that is now likely to go is £1 million, which will leave £7 million". Therefore, what would be the process for going down the route I suggest, which the noble Baroness has indicated the Government may well consider?
  Baroness Amos: It is quite hard to say now what the process will be. As I said, some £2.5 million was expended recently. We anticipate that the amount claimed each year will fall. As I said in my opening remarks, of that £9 million, given the period against which those certificates were taken out, we anticipate that a number of those people are already deceased, although their estates may claim the money. We will probably not start addressing the process for a couple of years. I know that that does not answer the query of the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, in terms of what we then do. He has come up with some very good ideas which can be discussed. But our view is that it would be slightly precipitate to begin doing so immediately, given that the order comes into effect on 1 April. At that point, people will stop receiving any further interest. We would like to see what happens with respect to people coming forward over the next year or so.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  The Grand Committee adjourned at twenty-two minutes past four o'clock.