HL Deb 21 October 1998 vol 593 cc1485-504

(" . The grounds of the Stormont Estate shall only be used for events other than those authorised by resolution of the Assembly where permission has been granted by the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission.").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 194 to 199, which also stand in my name and refer to Clause 75. In so doing let me declare an interest. Some Members of the Committee may be aware that in June this year I was elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly as a Member for the East Belfast constituency in which the Stormont estate is situated. Therefore, unusually for a Member of your Lordships' House, this is a matter which I can regard personally as a constituency matter.

After my election I was appointed initial Presiding Officer of the Assembly. As such I feel that it is inappropriate during my tenure of that office to speak in your Lordships' House on issues which might be contentious in Northern Ireland or which are or may become the responsibility of the Assembly.

As initial Presiding Officer, I am also chairman of the shadow Assembly Commission, a body analogous in a designate form to the Commission of the other place. The purpose of tabling these probing amendments—their rather inelegant construction, particularly Amendment No. 116A, reveals them as probing amendments—is at the request of my colleagues on that Assembly Commission. Let me explain to the Committee why I do so.

First of all, I must set out the background to the concerns. One of the first acts of the Northern Ireland Parliament in 1921, when it was established, was to look for a site for the new government buildings. The site at Stormont on the outskirts of Belfast was chosen and Parliament Buildings erected, at a cost to the Treasury on this side of the water, as a gift from the rest of the United Kingdom to the people of Northern Ireland, and opened in November 1932. The land and estate were transferred under the Stormont Regulation and Government Properties Act 1933 to the Northern Ireland Ministry of Finance to be held, retained and used for the accommodation of Parliament and public departments.

In those days the notion of Parliamentary Commissions established as bodies corporate was not envisaged. Indeed, it was almost 50 years later when the House of Commons Commission was established. This Bill and the Scotland Bill make provision for the establishment of relevant commissions for the newly devolved bodies. It is surprising therefore that the old system of vesting ownership in a government department is contained in the Bill. It is even more remarkable, as Erskine May points out, that since 1992, as a result of a report by Sir Robin Ibbs, each House of this Parliament takes full responsibility for managing its own internal administration. This involved in particular taking over from the Department of the Environment responsibility for the maintenance of the fabric of the Palace of Westminster and the Parliamentary estate. In other words, the maintenance, repairs, works services and all matters which were previously the responsibility of the Department of the Environment have come directly within the responsibility of the House of Commons Commission and are borne on its vote. It is remarkable that, given this development, the Bill takes the retrograde step of vesting the responsibility, the ownership and the management in the hands of the Department of the Environment, not in the hands of the Assembly Commission which the Bill establishes. Furthermore, the Bill establishes it as a reserved matter of the Department of the Environment—in other words, although changes may take place in Northern Ireland there is nothing that the Northern Ireland Assembly can do to address this matter subsequently.

Other matters follow. There has been no decision yet on whether there will be a Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland, as Members of the Committee will know. It is for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of the Assembly to put forward a report to the Assembly on the number, type and form of departments that there might be, and for the Assembly to vote on the issues. There is a real question as to whether the current Department of the Environment in its present form will continue or whether it will be divided up into a number of departments. If that were to be the case—and it is not altogether an unlikely scenario—then the Assembly could not regulate for the placing of the responsibility for this matter in one of the new elements of the Department of the Environment because it is a reserved matter. It could legislate for a change of department. It could legislate to get rid of the Department of the Environment. But it could not deal with one of the responsibilities of the Department of the Environment.

Furthermore, planning permission in Northern Ireland—unlike the situation on this side of the water—is not a local government matter. On the issue of the prime site, in political terms, in Northern Ireland, the ownership of the site would be vested in the Department of the Environment; any development of the site would be with the Department of the Environment; any planning permission required would be with the Department of the Environment; and even in respect of its consideration as an historic building, the historic buildings branch of the Department of the Environment would have the decision. No other government department and no other level of government in Northern Ireland would have the capacity to monitor what was happening on that site.

In the new system of government for Northern Ireland there is no collective Cabinet responsibility. Ministers will be elected in proportion to the number of Members they have in the Assembly. There is no necessity—and some would even speculate little likelihood—for collegiality among all the Ministers. It is therefore quite possible that the estate, the very seat of government in Northern Ireland, could become a matter of internecine squabbling and dispute between the Minister of the Environment, if such there continued to be, and other members of the Executive with whom he or she might disagree. That is a completely inappropriate eventuality but one that it is not entirely difficult to foresee.

It therefore seems to the shadow commission, of which I am the chairman—and let us not forget that the shadow commission has been elected on a cross-community basis by the Northern Ireland Assembly—that it would be much better if the whole estate were to come under the ownership of the commission after the appointed day, although some elements of its use and management might be delegated to a relevant government department.

One further issue causes unease among my colleagues on the commission and Members of the Assembly. Under Clause 75 the Secretary of State is empowered to require the Department of the Environment to make available, for whatever purpose the Secretary of State may wish, any accommodation or facilities—other than the Parliament Buildings—within the Stormont estate. The shadow Assembly Commission is wholly supportive of the view that the Secretary of State should have accommodation for herself, her staff and her colleagues, and all that is necessary, on-site. Of this there is absolutely no question. It is vital for the functioning of the new arrangements that the Secretary of State, the new Executive, the Assembly as a whole and relevant civil service departments are in close proximity to each other.

However, the Secretary of State has also shown that she has an interest in holding rock concerts and other open-air events in the parliamentary estate. Some of these—such as the recent Elton John concert—are excellent. They are welcome, successful events. But the fact that any successor to the current Secretary of State may—without any prior consultation with the Assembly or its commission—simply require the Department of the Environment to make available any accommodation and facilities, temporary or permanent, has created a degree of uneasiness in the shadow commission.

It is clear that there could easily be a conflict between leisure activities going on outside on the front lawn of Stormont and parliamentary and government activities going on inside. Some of your Lordships might say that this is simply Assembly Members insisting that if there is entertainment to be provided they should have exclusive propriety over providing the entertainment. But it is much more serious than that. People who live in the area have concerns about what happens on the estate. Both they—my own constituents, people in the area—and the Assembly Members would be astonished if the Northern Ireland Assembly did not have any say about what went on in the grounds of their own Assembly building.

As I have noted in correspondence to the Secretary of State, I am sure there is bound to be a way in which all the interests can be accommodated. Much more difficult and controversial matters have been accommodated in other agreements that we have reached. I have no doubt that this matter can be resolved, too. I very much hope that in his reply the Minister will be able to clarify the matter in a way that the Bill manifestly does not. That is the purpose of these probing amendments. I beg to move.

6 p.m.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead

I am sure we would all agree that if the Assembly is to gain respect as a governing body it is surely right and proper that the standing of the estate should be restored, particularly in the aftermath of certain carnival events in the grounds. I wonder how the curtilage of what the noble Lord referred to as the whole estate is defined. Would Stormont House and Stormont Castle be included, or would that perhaps have the effect of downgrading the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland as a tenant?

Lord Cope of Berkeley

I have a good deal of sympathy with the amendments spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice. In the course of describing the role, as planned, of the Department of the Environment in its various guises, the noble Lord revealed what not everyone in Great Britain has appreciated over the past few years. I refer to the extent to which direct rule has been very direct and very complete. Until now, under direct rule, the Department of the Environment has had all those powers.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, I hesitate at the phrase "the whole Stormont estate". It does not seem to be logical or very wise that Stormont Castle, Stormont House and the government buildings that lie below them should be included in the part to be controlled by the commission. But it does seem that the commission has a good case for controlling Parliament Buildings itself and the main part of the fine grounds, down to the two entrance lodges, particularly as Amendment No. 116A refers to controlling events which may occur on the terrace in front of Parliament Buildings.

I have occasionally attended events there—band concerts by the RUC and so on—with great pleasure. It is a wonderful setting for such events and I hope that they will continue. However, it should be, I am sure, the commission in future which gives permission and makes the arrangements for such events to happen from time to time when possible, rather than the Department of the Environment, if such a department is set up. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, has put his finger on an important matter. I trust that the Government will be able to respond at least fairly favourably.

The Earl of Onslow

I rise only to say that the Department of the Environment has no say in what happens in West Clandon village hall; it has no say in what happens in Guildford town hall; and it has no say in what happens in Surrey County Council. It seems rather odd that it has these draconian powers over Stormont. If I were from Northern Ireland, I would be very cross about it.

Lord Dubs

It is a pleasure to have the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, back with us. I appreciate the constraints under which he will make contributions in the House in future. Nevertheless, it is good to see him here today. On the last occasion I saw him he was presiding over the Assembly, and he did that very effectively.

I assure the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, that there is no intention on the Government's part to interfere with the right of the Northern Ireland Assembly, through the Northern Ireland departments, to control and manage all government property in the transferred field. For example, we intend to table an amendment to paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 to limit the reservation of government property to that property which belongs to Her Majesty in right of the Crown, or which belongs to a department of the Government of the United Kingdom, or is held in trust for Her Majesty for the purpose of such a department. All other property of the Northern Ireland departments will become a transferred matter, thus avoiding what could have been an undesirable fetter on the Assembly. We shall return to this point later.

Clause 75 deals with property held in trust or used for the purposes of the previous Northern Ireland Assembly or partly for that purpose and partly for other purposes. This essentially refers to the Stormont estate, but that is actually held in trust for the purposes of the old Stormont Parliament and the public departments in Northern Ireland rather than for the previous Assembly. So the Government will be introducing an amendment to Clause 75 to put beyond doubt that the clause is intended to refer to the Stormont estate. The Assembly commission will be responsible for whatever property, staff and services are required for the Assembly's purposes. That will certainly include Parliament Buildings itself, but the commission will have no capacity to hold land for the purpose of the public service in Northern Ireland and can have no jurisdiction over those parts of the Stormont estate which are not required for the purposes of the Assembly. The clause vests control of such property in the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland and makes clear that in future, subject to one exception, all such property shall be applied for the purposes of the Assembly or such other purposes as the department may determine. As the Department of the Environment will be accountable to the Assembly, that will give the Assembly fairly comprehensive control.

The exception to which I referred is found in Clause 75(2), which provides that the Secretary of State may require the department to make available to him or to her any premises or facilities which fall within the scope of the clause except Parliament Buildings itself, subject to payment of such charges as the Secretary of State and the department may agree.

The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, acknowledges the likely need for the Secretary of State to have suitable accommodation on the Stormont estate. I am delighted to hear that he senses no widespread objection to that. It would facilitate the kind of close and constructive working relationship with the new institutions which the Government certainly want to develop. He expressed concern, however, about the implications of the word "facilities". I can assure him that the term was not included with any ulterior motive. It is the language of the equivalent provision in the 1973 Act and simply reflects the likely need for ancillary services to be made available to the Secretary of State along with any office accommodation he or she may require. I believe that the term should therefore remain in the Bill.

However, I can give the noble Lord the assurance that the sole intention behind the clause is to enable the Secretary of State to obtain appropriate and convenient office accommodation and support services on the Stormont estate and that there is no intention on our part that the terms of the clause should be used to override the views of the Assembly on what should be the appropriate use of the Stormont estate as a whole. To do otherwise would fly in the face of the principle of devolution. Indeed, in general, I and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State would expect any arrangements made between the Secretary of State and the Department of the Environment to be reached by agreement following consultation and to be generally acceptable to all interested parties, including the Assembly. I trust therefore that, with those assurances, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his new clause.

Lord Alderdice

I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. I hope he appreciates that, with regard to accommodation for the Secretary of State, the noble Lord and his colleagues, staff, and so on, there is no sense of anything other than a welcome and a feeling that we all wish to work together.

However, there are some practical problems. The Bill states that Parliament Buildings is the only place that is exempt. I do not need to tell Members of your Lordships' House that when one comes to work in a building where one parks one's car is a rather important issue. It will be no surprise to your Lordships to know that, apart from the functioning of the Assembly chamber itself, office accommodation within the building and car parking space outside it are matters that have preoccupied myself and my colleagues considerably over the past few weeks.

As the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead, indicated, the question of curtilage is critical. According to the Bill, it is Parliament Buildings alone. Therefore, the Assembly commission will have no right to decide anything about who should and who should not use the car parking spaces immediately outside the building. In practical terms, we have been doing that, but there is a real question as to whether the Bill gives us the right to do so. When we move beyond that, we are immediately into the question of the driveways, as to who can park on them and who cannot, where and when.

Indeed, there are questions of security. Just yesterday we were honoured to have a visit from the President of the Czech Republic, President Václav Havel. Recently we have had visits by President Clinton and the Prime Minister. It is of great importance that the Assembly commission should be able to make arrangements properly and decently for such guests. It needs to have some say over what happens in relation to the driveways; whether the grass is cut; questions of security and so on. And yet it is quite clear that we have no say in that. It must be done at arm's length through the Department of the Environment. Our experience of that department, whether recently or over a long period of time, is not such as to inspire us to believe that everything will be, as they say, hunky-dory in making sure that matters are all to rights.

It would be quite possible to say that an element of the parliamentary estate—that portion which is not being used for other buildings which involves the driveways, the lawnways and so on which directly surround Parliament Buildings itself—could be identified and that portion of property which is entirely appropriate to Parliament Buildings and the functioning of the Assembly would come under the remit of the commission. That is not necessarily a complex business.

Of course, there is the question of Stormont House, Stormont Castle and whether they may be appropriate settings for the new executive which will quite clearly need extensive accommodation outside of Parliament Buildings. In the past, when there was a Northern Ireland administration, it used Stormont Castle. Apparently it is undergoing renovations but in future there may be a wish to use the castle. Those are not specifically matters for the Assembly commission. The commission's concern is not just with Parliament Buildings but its surroundings—the car parks, drives, lawns, gardens and so on. Those are all matters which are associated directly with Parliament Buildings and would affect its functioning and its proper keeping in order. Those matters should be the responsibility of the Assembly commission.

It is a complex legal matter which goes back to a number of Acts of the Northern Ireland Parliament and subsequently back to 1933. A number of the comments which the Minister has made about technical changes which he hopes to introduce in respect of Clause 75 and others are matters which the commission and I shall wish to study closely. There has been a reasonably full airing of these matters. I shall be content to withdraw the amendment but I shall reserve my right, on my own behalf and on behalf of the commission, to return to the issue at a later stage if we are not able to work out matters satisfactorily.

Lord Dubs

I want to be as helpful as I am able to be. The reference to Parliament Buildings simply excludes the Secretary of State from making a request. It does not imply that the commission's writ is limited to Parliament Buildings. The commission is charged under Clause 22(4) with providing the property or services required by the Assembly. I hope that that goes some way towards helping the noble Lord.

Lord Alderdice

The noble Lord's comment is extremely helpful because it opens up possibilities which we may be able to explore at a fairly early stage. He has opened up an extremely helpful door. We may be able to explore that with his colleagues and achieve a resolution which is satisfactory to us all. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 44 and 45 agreed to.

6.15 p.m.

Clause 46 [Payments out of Fund without appropriation Act]:

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 117:

Page 23, line 22, after ("three") insert ("working").

The noble Lord said: The aim of our financial provisions is to continue the tried and tested methods which have been in place now for more than 70 years.

The government amendments which I am moving are mostly technical. Amendments Nos. 117 to 122 tidy up Clause 46 which is designed, first, to enable the financing of public services to continue if the Assembly is unable to agree a budget by the end of the financial year; and, secondly, to encourage it to agree by the prospect of a substantial cut in the amount of money available for public services. There is a risk that the Assembly might not agree because the budget, in accordance with the terms of the agreement, is subject to a cross-community vote. I hope it is not a big risk. I am sure the Assembly will take its financial responsibilities very seriously. But it is a risk with this sort of voting and we need to make provision.

The noble Lords, Lord Cope of Berkeley and Lord Molyneaux of Killead, also address that contingency in Amendment No. 127 where they propose that the Secretary of State should fix the budget if the Assembly cannot do so before the end of the financial year. But I believe that their solution is wrong in principle because it would involve the Secretary of State in devolved matters which are not her responsibility and would provide an easy way out of an impasse for some members of the Assembly.

The default provision provided in the Bill, as amended, would enable the Department of Finance and Personnel to authorise up to 75 per cent. of the previous year's budget from the start of the financial year to keep public services running. If the Assembly still had not reached a decision by July, the Department of Finance and Personnel could authorise the expenditure of additional sums up to a total over the whole period from the start of the financial year of 95 per cent. of the previous year's budget. That cut in the amount of money available for public expenditure on default would act as an incentive to members of the Assembly to agree a budget on time while providing protection for essential services.

In Amendments Nos. 119A and 121A the noble Lord, Lord Cope, suggests that we should reduce the sums of money available to the Department of Finance and Personnel to 50 per cent. at the start of the financial year and 75 per cent. for the whole year. That would certainly be an even stronger incentive to the Assembly to agree a budget than our proposals. But I think ours are strong enough. The noble Lord's proposal would present a grave risk to the people of Northern Ireland if the Assembly were not to agree. I beg to move.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

As the Minister said, I have tabled several amendments which are designed to make it more difficult for the Assembly if it does not agree a budget and hence to put pressure on it to agree a budget.

The Minister suggested that my proposal in Amendment No. 127 would be an easy way out; that is, giving permission for the Secretary of State to take over the budget if the Assembly fails to agree one. I had hoped that it would be difficult for the Assembly to give up its own powers, particularly over finance, to the Secretary of State. But I suppose that it could work either way.

At one stage I had some experience, which is not irrelevant, when I had responsibility at the Treasury for agreeing the Community budget during the British presidency. We had an awful job to achieve agreement among all the necessary parties by 31st December. It is therefore within my knowledge that the European Union has a device whereby if it fails to agree, one-twelfth of the previous year's allocation can be released each month as time goes on. That obviously provides considerable difficulties for the administration and hence it is extremely keen to avoid that happening. However, it has happened in quite a number of years. We avoided it happening in the year that I was in charge of those matters. I would like the Committee to think that that was entirely due to my skill and ability but I had some luck on my side. Therefore, I succeeded, but not everybody has managed that.

It seems to me that 75 per cent. and 95 per cent. are very high and not much of a penalty. It is not a penalty which would bite very quickly. I believe that 75 per cent. is nothing of a penalty to apply between March and July. I should imagine that they would have an awful job to get through 75 per cent. of last year's money in that period of time, and even 50 per cent. is not a very sharp instrument in that respect. Ninety-five per cent. for a whole year is of course a considerable incentive. A reduction of 5 per cent. is not easily obtained in public expenditure, but it does not apply for much of the year. I also suggest tightening that up, but I do not feel all that strongly about these issues. It is important that there should be a mechanism, and that it is provided in the Bill. I should like to see it a little stronger so as to encourage the Assembly to come to an agreement. However, unless I am encouraged by subsequent debate, I do not think that I shall be pressing the three amendments very hard.

Lord Holme of Cheltenham

I think that the eventuality with which the government amendments and those of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, seek to deal is by no means unlikely. We could be faced with precisely this eventuality, so we are not talking about an academic problem but about a real problem resulting from the Assembly not having the political maturity to deal with its responsibilities properly. It is a possibility. We hope it is not a likelihood; but it is a possibility. I have to say that between the two ways of dealing with it I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Cope, say that he was not too dogmatic about them. I quite take his point that the Government's penalties are not "front loaded" as it were, and in that sense do not act as a sufficient deterrent. However, given the choice between his method of dealing with it and the one that the Government are proposing, from these Benches we would support the Government.

Lord Dubs

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Holme, for his support. I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that a reduction of 75 per cent., which he suggested would not have that much impact for quite some time, could in fact bite fairly quickly, because the Assembly would very soon find that the departments in Northern Ireland were developing serious cash-flow problems; indeed, they might develop those problems within a month or two. So I think that it is a tougher sanction than perhaps the noble Lord suggested.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 118:

Page 23, leave out lines 26 to 29 and insert— ("(a) the authorised officer of the Department of Finance and Personnel may, subject to any Act subsequently passed, authorise the issue of sums out of that Fund for the service of year 2; and").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 119:

Page 23, line 31, at end insert— ("() The aggregate of the sums issued under subsection (1) for the service of year 2 shall not exceed 75 per cent of the total amount appropriated by Act for the service of year 1.").

[Amendment No. 119A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 119, not moved.]

On Question, Amendment No. 119 agreed to.

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 120:

Page 23, leave out lines 35 to 38 and insert— ("(a) the authorised officer of the Department of Finance and Personnel may, subject to any Act subsequently passed, authorise the issue of sums out of that Fund for the service of the year;").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 121:

Page 23, line 41, at end insert— ("() The aggregate of the sums issued under subsection (2), and (where applicable) the sums issued under subsection (1), for the service of any financial year shall not exceed 95 per cent of the total amount appropriated by Act for the service of the preceding financial year.").

[Amendment No. 121A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 121, not moved.]

On Question, Amendment No. 121 agreed to.

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 122:

Page 23, line 42, after ("section") insert— (""Act" means an Act of the Assembly or, in relation to any time before the appointed day, an Order in Council under Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974;").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 123:

Page 23, line 44, at end insert— ("(4) Subject to subsection (5) below, the Secretary of State shall make such a payment at least once every financial year. (5) No such payment shall be made unless the Secretary of State has laid before the House of Commons a statement certifying that the payment recognises the needs of Northern Ireland relative to the needs of the United Kingdom as a whole.").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 123 and it has been suggested that it would be convenient to discuss Amendment No. 124 at the same time. Both these amendments address the question of how much money is going to go from the United Kingdom to Northern Ireland to enable the Assembly and the Executive to carry out their tasks. There is an expectation that if this whole process works as we hope and a more peaceful time comes to Northern Ireland, public expenditure can be reduced considerably within Northern Ireland.

Of course I go along with that to a certain degree. But it does concern me that the Treasury—whose ways we all know well—might take this as an excuse to advance too early on the Northern Ireland budget and try to save money that way. I shall not go into the difficulties which the Treasury faces at the moment as a result of the Government's economic policy, although one could go on for some time about that. We know that all governments at all times—and certainly the Treasury at all times—look, quite rightly, for savings in public expenditure, so they might look at Northern Ireland a bit sharply.

It therefore seemed to me that we should try to place some safeguards into the Bill to ensure that Northern Ireland got its fair share, even though that might be less than has been required in recent years when the security situation has been so difficult. Amendments Nos. 123 and 124 suggest two ways in which we might achieve this desirable end. I am reinforced in making the case for this by the fact that I have read, and heard about, reports that the Treasury was doing its best the other day to reduce the amount of money that was likely to be provided for redundancy for prison officers.

There may be nothing in this, and I am not necessarily asking the Minister to comment specifically on this case, but if the Treasury were trying to cut down the amount of money being made available to prison officers who have been made redundant, I think that would be a false economy. It should certainly not be regarded as part of the peace dividend. In the course of the past few years, prison officers have been among those, alongside the Royal Ulster Constabulary and others, in the front line of fighting terrorism. If we have now got to the position, partly as a result of the releases under the Belfast agreement, where in future we shall require fewer prison officers, it is my belief that those who no longer have a job in this capacity should be most generously treated.

That view is reinforced by what seems to me, and to many people, to be the generous treatment apparently being lined up for those prisoners being released. The comparison has already been drawn, and I need not emphasise it. At any rate, it is my view that Northern Ireland will continue to require a considerable amount of finance even if the, so-called, "peace process" goes ahead as smoothly, as easily and as fully as we would all wish. There will be a lot of winding down to do. There will be a lot of unemployment at the end of the peace process and there will be many deserving cases, as it were, who have been part of the security effort.

The economic situation within Northern Ireland is not such as to allow anybody to relax. The level of unemployment, and so on, is high and will get higher rather than lower initially if peace comes fully. For all these reasons, I have a great deal of sympathy with Northern Ireland continuing to receive a disproportionate share, by comparison with its population, of the funds available from United Kingdom taxpayers as a whole. Without any safeguards, I think the situation will be so much more difficult to resolve and will leave a lot of bitterness behind. It is with all those thoughts in mind that I advance these two propositions, which are intended to secure the funding of the Northern Ireland government in future upon a sound and, I believe, a generous basis.

6.30 p.m.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead

I am not a lawyer nor an accountant and I hesitate to go into too much detail in relation to the admirable case made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. However, when one lives in Northern Ireland—in that I include the Minister, who does so for a great part of his time—one is aware of the hardships and difficulties which will, strangely enough, arise from the establishment of peace. Looking at this long-range from the Treasury point of view, one would imagine that the opposite might be the case. But I hope that the hand of Northern Ireland Ministers will be strengthened as the noble Lord, Lord Cope, as a former Treasury Minister has proposed. I recognise that generosity is not a speciality of the Treasury, but in this case it ought to look carefully, through the eyes of the natives, at the situation which will develop in Northern Ireland, not just for the remainder of this financial year, but, in particular, for the year beyond that.

Lord Holme of Cheltenham

Now that I fully understand the purpose of these amendments, which I confess I did not originally, I wholeheartedly support them. They are worded in such a way that it was not immediately apparent to me. I had the opportunity of speaking with the noble Lord, Lord Cope, beforehand and now understand that they are meant to keep the Treasury at bay. That is absolutely essential.

The economy of Northern Ireland has many assets but it is still precarious. There will need to be generous and enlightened support from mainland Britain and consistent support from the Treasury for some years to come. If the amendments do nothing else, I hope that they will allow the Minister, when he replies to this discussion, to make it clear that there will not be an early pre-emptive strike by the Treasury to try to claw back the peace dividend to Whitehall rather than leaving it in Northern Ireland where it can fructify.

Lord Dubs

There is no need to stipulate that the Secretary of State shall pay money into the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund every year. The Secretary of State is merely the vehicle through which the money for the fund is conveyed. It is the House of Commons which votes the money as part of the annual allocations.

The noble Lord, Lord Cope, proposes that there should be a special provision so that money will not go to Northern Ireland unless the Secretary of State certifies that it recognises the needs of Northern Ireland in relation to the needs of the United Kingdom as a whole. That is unnecessary. The money which goes to the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund is allocated according to a formula which takes account of the financial requirements of all regions within the United Kingdom. It acts by applying Northern Ireland's broad population share (currently 2.9 per cent.) to changes in comparable Great Britain programmes.

This formula has produced fair settlements for Northern Ireland and enabled the Secretary of State to determine spending decisions in accordance with Northern Ireland needs and priorities. The Government are committed to maintaining this formula for the foreseeable future. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will feel it unnecessary to press his amendment.

Lord Skelmersdale

If the Secretary of State is a vehicle for paying money voted by Parliament across to the Assembly, why do we need Clause 45? Clause 45 states, The Secretary of State shall from time to time make payments into the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland out of money provided by Parliament of such amounts as he may determine".

Lord Dubs

That is formal procedure through which consolidated money is paid and therefore it appears on the face of the Bill, as it should.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

In the light of the discussion, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 46, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 47 and 48 agreed to.

[Amendment No. 124 not moved.]

Clause 49 [Financial acts of the Assembly]:

Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 125:

Page 24, line 35, after ("Personnel") insert ("or such other Minister appointed under section 15 as shall be nominated by the Treasury").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 125 is directed to subsection (1)(a) of Clause 49 which provides for the Minister of Finance and Personnel to approve any vote of money. It was said earlier in our discussions that we cannot prejudge whether there will be a Minister of Finance and Personnel; he may be called something else. It was said that it is not for this Chamber under the legislation as proposed to designate the Ministers; it is up to the new machinery being set up, particularly the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, who have some difficult hoops to go through in that process.

It may be that at some crucial point there is a vacancy in the post as a result of the mechanics not being applied. That is not desirable. The amendment enters a kind of threat to the Assembly; I am using the Treasury as a blunderbuss, or perhaps as a Sword of Damocles, to be held over the machinery to make sure that they appoint someone as Minister of Finance and Personnel. It is desirable that there should be somebody in that position. That is the purpose of the amendment. It raises the question as to what happens if there is a vacancy at DFP at the relevant time. I suggest one answer, but there may be others. I beg to move.

Lord Dubs

I can understand why the noble Lord, Lord Cope, wants a fall-back minister to be able to make recommendations on financial matters, but I do not believe his solution will work. The Treasury may not make nominations to ministerial posts in the Assembly under Clause 15. The Assembly is a devolved government and should not be subject to direct influence or interference from the Executive. Even supposing that the Treasury could play such a role it would not be appropriate. The Minister of Finance and Personnel—or whatever title he may be given—will have a difficult role in needing to obtain cross-community support for major decisions. He must be given the trust and respect which a permanent substitute, standing in the wings, would scarcely allow him to develop.

I hope therefore that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

I am glad the Minister understands that I tabled the amendment because of the danger of there being a vacancy. However, he did not suggest a solution to the potential problem. In the phrase he used, The Minister of Finance and Personnel—or whatever title he may be given", the Minister cast doubt on his Bill. If he is called anything else, as I see it he cannot act under this provision. If he was given some other title, then he would not be the person referred to in the section. In that situation a difficulty would arise.

Lord Skelmersdale

Before my noble friend withdraws his amendment, as he is clearly going to do, perhaps I can say that as the nomenclature of departments is in the hands of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister—according to the formula—they may easily come up with a different title. Will the Minister consider within the next few days whether it would be appropriate to substitute the words, "as nominated by the Treasury", for "nominated by the Assembly"? That would address his point and help out my noble friend.

Lord Geddes

I apologise to the Committee for taking any part in this debate; I have not taken part before. This specific point seems to me to be a simple and practical one. As the Minister said, there may not be a Minister of Finance and Personnel as such. Would there then be the ludicrous situation such that primary legislation would be required to change what would then be the Act? Surely there is an easy way around this, such as was suggested by my noble friend.

Lord Dubs

Let me see whether I can help. We cannot prejudge whether there will be specifically a Minister of finance and personnel, but the arrangements for allocating ministerial functions and, if necessary, for transferring such functions will ensure that a Minister remains responsible for that function. If a vacancy arises, Clause 15 provides for such a vacancy to be filled by the nominating officer of the party concerned. I believe that we have covered all such contingencies reasonably satisfactorily. As I said earlier, if we assume that the Assembly will fail in some way, we are simply encouraging a mentality of failure, which is surely not helpful. We have to believe that the Assembly will succeed in this as in other matters.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

We have had an exchange on that matter previously. However, I believe that in drawing up the legislation, we must consider some contingencies and the fact that the whole thing may not go entirely smoothly.

With regard to this clause, we still have the difficulty that at some point the Assembly may want to give the Minister fulfilling that role a different title. The Assembly may want the responsibility for personnel to rest with a different department from that with the central responsibility for finance. That has happened here in Great Britain. The Minister responsible for the Civil Service looks after the personnel side. The same could easily happen over there.

Therefore, I shall give further thought between now and Report to the possibility of altering the clause so that it refers to "the Minister responsible for finance" or another such more general phrase because that may cover that aspect of the difficulty.

Lord Dubs

Perhaps I may make one further comment. I am advised that a Minister with a different title cannot act in the way suggested, but the arrangements for the transfer of functions will ensure that a Minister with a different title can inherit the functions of an existing department or Minister. I believe that we have still covered the point.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

That sounds very interesting and I shall consider it between now and Report in deciding whether to table another amendment. However, I shall not pursue that now and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.45 p.m.

Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 126:

Page 24, line 42, leave out from ("Crown") to end of line 1 on page 25 and insert— ("(2A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act and any Order in Council made under the provisions of this Act, the Assembly shall neither impose nor vary taxes.").

The noble Lord said: I believe that this amendment is fairly clear. It seeks to place beyond peradventure the fact that the Assembly and the Northern Ireland Government cannot impose or vary taxes. We shall come later to some slightly confusing or at least oddly worded provisions on taxation. I note that the Government have tabled some amendments to those provisions which will probably improve them.

I believe that it is clear—I am suggesting in the amendment that it should be made very clear—that the Assembly will not be a tax-raising body. The particular form of devolution chosen for Scotland provides for a tax-raising body although that for Wales does not. I believe that we need to make clear what we are doing in this case. I beg to move.

Lord Holme of Cheltenham

I am not persuaded of the necessity for this amendment. It seems redundant to insert into the Bill references to those things that the Assembly shall not do. However, to the extent that this is a philosophical issue, I think that there is probably a difference between the Conservative Benches and our own. I believe that ultimately the logic of devolution is that there should be greater tax-raising—or at least tax-varying—powers in the bodies to which power is devolved to the nations of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. However, I am content for the present because we are all clear that the Assembly shall not have such powers in the short and medium term. I do not like the amendment, however, because I would not like it to appear that that option is closed for ever when it seems to me to be the logical development over time of the principle of devolution.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead

I referred to this thorny subject at an earlier stage. I am not in favour of a devolved assembly, wherever it may be in the United Kingdom, having tax-varying powers, because ultimately everything depends on Treasury decisions. However, the problem is that in the early years of the existence of this Assembly—the same would apply to an even greater extent in Scotland—extra funding will be required (from whatever source) for the simple reason that so much is expected of the devolved structures. So much is being promised by those who in Northern Ireland have stood for election and by those who—Heaven help them!—will stand for election in Scotland that they will make promises which they cannot possibly deliver when they come into office. It might be a salutary safeguard to have on the face of the Bill a clear statement that, however great the pressure applied, Members of the Assembly cannot be expected to find an easy way out by increasing taxation.

I believe that it has been estimated that in Scotland taxation may vary—may be raised—by up to 3p in the pound and that, on current calculations, that is intended to produce about £450 million. However, having read the Scottish papers, I believe that about three times that amount will be required if all the promises being made by the parties which are striving for electoral support are to be fulfilled. I support the amendment because it is important clearly to establish that however great the needs, the demands and the clamour, such a power will not be available.

Lord Desai

Perhaps I may raise one small point. On an earlier occasion, the noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan, pointed out that when attracting investment Northern Ireland is competing with the Republic, which has a much lower rate of taxation. That is why it may be necessary to consider such powers. Why, therefore, seek to put such an amendment on the face of the Bill when it merely makes life difficult?

Lord Dubs

I think that this amendment reflects a misunderstanding. The reference in Clause 49(2)(d) to, imposes or increases a tax", does not give the Assembly power to impose general taxes of a type which are normally levied on a UK basis such as income tax. It refers only to local taxes and in practice to the regional rate—there is no community charge in Northern Ireland—which, as a purely local tax, it is perfectly suitable for the Assembly to levy.

If your Lordships look at Schedule 2(9) to the Bill, which I hope will be slightly amended to cover duties as well as taxes, you will see that taxes under any law applying to the United Kingdom as a whole are in the excepted category, which means that they are permanently outside the competence of the Assembly. They cannot change category by order. They can be changed only by a subsequent Act of this Parliament. So there is no possibility of the Northern Ireland Assembly being able to levy, for example, income tax, but it can levy taxes which are not levied on a UK basis such as rates. This is the power which the Assembly has had in the past and it is right that it should continue.

Reference has been made to the possibility of the Assembly having tax-varying powers generally. There is no provision in the agreement for the Assembly to have a wider tax-varying power so that it could, for example, vary income tax. The issue was put to the parties both during the talks and afterwards but there was no great degree of support for it. It will be open to the Assembly to ask for such a power in future if it wishes. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 49 agreed to.

Clause 50 [Draft budgets]:

[Amendment No. 127 not moved.]

Clause 50 agreed to.

Clause 51 [Audit]:

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 128:

Page 25, line 15, at end insert ("on the nomination of the Assembly. () The Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland shall not, in the exercise of any of his functions, be subject to the direction or control of any Minister or of the Assembly; but this subsection does not apply in relation to any function conferred on him of preparing accounts.").

The noble Lord said: Government Amendment No. 128, which affects Clause 51, is the first in a series of amendments which fulfil undertakings given by my right honourable friend the Minister of State in another place to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. It makes the Assembly responsible for nominating to Her Majesty the Queen its preferred candidate for the post of Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland. It makes it clear on the face of the Bill that the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland will continue to be independent of the Assembly's and Ministers' control except in preparing accounts where he will, of course, prepare and submit them as the Assembly requests.

In another place my right honourable friend undertook to consider whether we could make additional amendments to the Bill which would bring the audit provisions more into line with those in the Scotland Bill. I hope to do so on Report.

In connection with the same clause, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Cope, to reconsider his Amendment No. 129 which makes the Secretary of State responsible for advising Her Majesty about a suitable candidate for appointment as Comptroller and Auditor General. The comptroller will audit the expenditure of a devolved Assembly and other bodies for which the Secretary of State will have no financial responsibility. It would be contrary to the principles of devolution for the Secretary of State to be involved in making a recommendation to the Queen about such a devolved post.

Amendment No. 128A proposes to insert a reference to "junior Minister". I have sympathy with this. We shall be reviewing generally the various references to Ministers and junior Ministers before Report.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

This series of amendments concerns the position of the Comptroller and Auditor General. There are three points to consider. There is also the minor point of the insertion of the words "junior Minister". In the light of what the Minister has said, I shall not move the relevant amendment when we reach it.

The three points of substance are, first, the appointment of the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland; secondly, his independence; and, thirdly, his relationship with the main Comptroller and Auditor General. It is proposed that, as in Scotland, the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland should be appointed on the nomination of the Assembly. The main Comptroller and Auditor General for the United Kingdom is appointed now by the Commission of the House of Commons. That seems to me to be the better way to do it rather than have the Assembly make the nomination. I shall not press that point. I believe that he should be appointed through the parliamentary machinery. I think that is probably the correct way to appoint him. Therefore I shall not pursue Amendment No. 129.

Secondly, we are also concerned about the independence of the Comptroller and Auditor General. I shall leave that matter until we discuss later amendments. The third aspect is the position of the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland vis-à-vis the main Comptroller and Auditor General for the United Kingdom. I am not sure whether the latter will have any oversight over what the CAG for Northern Ireland does. After all, we are talking here substantially about United Kingdom taxpayers' money. There should certainly be some link between the two people. We should certainly consider whether the Comptroller and Auditor General should have some oversight through the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland as regards what happens to the United Kingdom's money.

This is a difficult point but it is important to get it right. There has long been a separate Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland, as there has been a separate Consolidated Fund for many years. That has continued to be the position—in some respects this is slightly anomalous—during direct rule. The CAG for Northern Ireland is still in post, as he has been throughout the period of direct rule. If possible, I should like to be given reassurance now or later on the matter of the relationship between the CAG and the CAG for Northern Ireland.

Lord Holme of Cheltenham

I think that the key issue here is the relationship between the Comptroller and Auditor General for the UK as a whole and the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments on that point. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, rightly said that we are talking here substantially about British taxpayers' money. Although we have a devolved Assembly, the oversight of the correctness of process seems to me to be relevant to the British taxpayer too. I should be grateful if the Minister could spell out what relationship, if any, is envisaged between the Comptroller and Auditor General for the United Kingdom and the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland.

Lord Dubs

The Northern Ireland Comptroller and Auditor General will be entirely independent. It is not envisaged that he would in any way report to the United Kingdom Comptroller and Auditor General, or indeed that there would be oversight on the part of the UK comptroller over the Northern Ireland comptroller. That is not the intention. However, in a more informal sense there is nothing to prevent the Northern Ireland Comptroller and Auditor General from having links with the United Kingdom Comptroller and Auditor General. I believe that has been the case in the past and will continue in the future. However, in a formal sense, the Northern Ireland Comptroller and Auditor General will be entirely independent.

Lord Holme of Cheltenham

Before the noble Lord sits down, will he go further as it would be extremely sensible to establish some rationalisation of process and approach between the two Comptroller and Auditor Generals, even, as he put it, on an informal basis?

Lord Dubs

I fear if it were to be suggested that the Northern Ireland comptroller would in some way report to the United Kingdom comptroller, that would detract from the authority of the Northern Ireland Comptroller and Auditor General. I think it is proper to view the Northern Ireland Comptroller and Auditor General as an independent person who has full authority and full responsibility for the reports that he makes on government expenditure.

Lord Holme of Cheltenham

If the noble Lord will forgive me, that is not what I said. I did not suggest that the Northern Ireland comptroller should report to the UK comptroller. I asked the Minister whether he would go so far as to say that it would be extremely sensible and desirable for them to establish a close liaison on process and other matters. I did not merely suggest that that might happen, but rather that it would be sensible for it to happen.

Lord Dubs

There would be a lot of sense in pursuing informal contact and informal co-operation of that kind. I know the noble Lord did not quite suggest the point to which I replied. I simply wanted to establish the independence of the Northern Ireland Comptroller and Auditor General as well as agreeing that informal links and a relationship with the UK Comptroller and Auditor General would be mutually beneficial.

[Amendment No. 128A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 128, not moved.]

On Question, Amendment No. 128 agreed to.

[Amendment No. 129 not moved.]

Clause 51, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 52 agreed to.

Lord Desai moved Amendment No. 130:

Before Clause 53, insert the following new clause—