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.

As we are in Committee. Members may speak more than once on any Motion.

Since this is a new procedure. I should perhaps 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 will be no Divisions in a Grand Committee. Any Motion on which agreement cannot be reached should be withdrawn.

I should explain that if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and then resume after 10 minutes.

Perhaps I may apologise for the two or three minutes' delay. I explained to the Deputy Chairman that I would be answering the last Question in the Chamber. It slightly overran the proceedings in the Grand Committee, for which I apologise.

I am asked, before coming to the main business, to say a few words about the two Northern Ireland orders on the Order Paper for approval by the House today. On the Order Paper they are marked as dinner break business, but it has been agreed by the usual channels that it would be more convenient to continue with the Courts Bill until about 8 p.m. and then to take the orders.

I beg to move that the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the draft Strategic Investment and Regeneration of Sites (Northern Ireland) Order 2003.

The purpose of the order is to provide for the creation of a strategic investment board and to allow the Office of First Minister and Deputy First Minister to hold, manage, develop and dispose of the transferred military and security sites. Specifically, the order takes forward the Reinvestment and Reform Initiative which was announced in May last year. It was developed jointly under devolution by the Government and the devolved administration. I hope that Members of the Committee will regard this as a key initiative.

It will help the administration to take a long-term, strategic approach to investing in the infrastructure of Northern Ireland. It will offer an opportunity to turn symbols of conflict and division within Northern Ireland into ones of prosperity and regeneration. More directly, it will contribute to a tangible improvement for the people of Northern Ireland by improving public service infrastructure and the benefits to be derived for the social and economic regeneration offered by the former military and security sites.

The order therefore provides for a strategic investment board which will bring a new approach to managing and financing infrastructure programmes. It should bring greater expertise and management focus to the public sector. We hope that it will provide a centre of excellence; a source of advice to the Executive as it sets its overall investment plan and to individual Ministers and departments as they procure individual projects. This must be the best way to use such specialist resources.

The order provides for the Office of First Minister and Deputy First Minister to make use of the transferred military and security sites to achieve major economic and social regeneration. The Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister will work with other government departments and social partners in taking forward that regeneration.

The provisions of the order were subject to a number of consultation exercises held throughout Northern Ireland and the views of local political parties, businesses and the trade unions were obtained.

The Strategic Investment and Regeneration of Sites Bill reached the First Stage in the Northern Ireland Assembly. It did not receive a Second Reading. Some have said that the Bill would not have passed Second Stage in the Assembly, but I remind Members of the Committee that the Bill had previously been agreed by the Executive and had the full support of the two largest parties within the Assembly. Indeed, a project board made up of nominees of the four main political parties represented in the Executive advised both the Northern Ireland and direct rule administrations on the preparation of the legislation.

The idea behind the board has wide support on the clear basis that it will add value to make investment happen and will not undermine the responsibility of individual Ministers. The section on sites does not prescribe any particular course of action, but provides a range of options. In taking this forward, plainly we will look for the widest possible consensus.

We are here to carry through work previously agreed by the Executive Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I cannot see ultimate value in speculating what might have been, particularly at a difficult time for the institutions of Northern Ireland. I recognise that not every party in Northern Ireland supports all aspects of the order. That is not an experience I have found common in Northern Ireland at the present time. I know of the debate surrounding the need for a strategic investment board and the proposals for regeneration. I commend the order to the Committee.

Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the draft Strategic Investment and Regeneration of Sites (Northern Ireland) Order 2003.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

I have tabled an amendment to the order, which we shall consider when we debate the order in the Chamber tomorrow. I have two difficulties with the order, one of which was alluded to by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal. The order has had a bumpy passage in the Assembly. It was presented on two occasions and was pulled on both because the two main parties would not have been able to muster a majority in favour of it. One can put an emphasis on the wishes of the Executive, but looking at the wishes of the Assembly, which are sovereign in this matter, the order would not have been passed.

Therefore, we have the problem that we know the attitudes of a majority of the Assembly Members and every party, apart from the SDLP and the UUP, has raised objections to this. That is a broad, rainbow coalition. We must ask ourselves whether in its present form the order should go through, bearing in mind that it would not have received majority support in the Assembly.

My other problem relates to the composition of the strategic investment board. That is referred to in my amendment which we shall discuss tomorrow. It is a wide-ranging agency; it has a broad remit. The noble and learned Lord said that it would discuss and seek as broad a consensus as possible as to its mode of operation on various policies and projects it undertook. I grant that being that wide ranging has the advantage of flexibility, but the flipside is that it is ill-defined. Matters are therefore made worse by the fact that a number of key stakeholders, particularly those from the business community and the voluntary sector, are excluded.

That is unfortunate, bearing in mind the fact that the PPP working group in Northern Ireland forcefully suggested that business and voluntary groups should be involved in strategic policy planning. If the strategic investment board is not concerned with strategic policy planning, I would like to know what is.

I therefore have two problems. In relation to the first, it is up to the House to decide whether we should be pushing forward an order which would not have received majority support in the Assembly. The second is more important and deals with the composition of the strategic investment board. I give notice that I will be pursuing my amendment in the Chamber tomorrow.

I thank the noble and learned Lord, first, for helping us to set up the Grand Committee so that we can debate the serious Bills that now come to us as statutory instruments in a two-stage manner. That will be helpful. Your Lordships would want and should have an opportunity to scrutinise the orders seriously. More importantly, the key question that we should ask in the Committee and in the Chamber, when the orders come before it to be passed, is whether we are sufficiently content that the Northern Ireland Assembly would have passed the Bills, as the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, said. We should be sure that the orders represent what the people of Northern Ireland want.

We should be wary of imposing laws on the devolved administration in Northern Ireland. Power may not be devolved at the moment, but I hope that we all work with a devolved legislature in mind. That is important.

I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, had to say, and I intend to explore it a little further. It seems to me that there is a dispute within the Assembly between the DUP and the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. As far as I can understand from the politicians from Northern Ireland to whom I have spoken, the SDLP and the Ulster Unionist Party are content with the order and believe that it is the right thing to do and that this is the right way in which to manage it. Again, the emphasis is on management.

It is a good thing for Northern Ireland to have ownership of the sites transferred from the British Government to the Northern Ireland Government. I understand it to be an extremely good deal. Per se, it is a good thing for Northern Ireland, and it creates an opportunity for the proper development of the assets. However, I have had some happy and less happy experiences in government quasi-companies in Northern Ireland—one or two officials may remember things such as Positively Belfast and the Tall Ships—in which government funding got mixed up with private-sector funding and the business was run by a non-parliamentary board. I counsel caution to those responsible for setting up the structures within which the development board and the development corporations that are envisaged will manage the assets. I am nervous that there is dissent in the Assembly and, perhaps, in the Executive, although I am not sure whether that is so. I would like to be comfortable in my mind that the dissent in the Assembly was not such as to make it difficult for whatever organisation, investment board or development corporation to operate.

Northern Ireland is a small country. I have gained and suffered from the fact that, if two or three key people wind up a few journalists and others, a huge amount of damage can be done, casting doubt on the efficacy of what is being done. On one occasion, BBC news cast doubt on the accounts of a company of which I was chairman. It was a company similar to this and had £500,000 of government money—not a lot nowadays, but a lot then. I did not know that this was coming. It was out of context and did a huge amount of damage to what we were trying to achieve. That can happen only too easily, so it is important that we do not impose on the Northern Ireland Assembly legislation that it does not want. Secondly, if we believe that it is the right thing to do—and I believe that these projects should come under the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, covering the spectrum of the SDLP and the unionists—the overseeing Minister must be certain that there can be no criticism that is not answerable in the way that the directors of these companies work, report and oversee, the input from the NAO, and so on.

Before I speak on this, the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, prompt me to say that many of us in Northern Ireland thought that scurrilous accusations were made against him. Most of us in the business community and civic society in Northern Ireland felt, and still do, that he is a most honourable man. He behaved most honourably in what he did with regard to the Tall Ships, and I would have a clear conscience if I were him.

I am pleased to welcome this order. My only regret is that it must be considered here as an Order in Council, rather than in the Northern Ireland Assembly as a Bill. Your Lordships are, however, all too aware of the reasoning behind the suspension of devolution—namely, the persistent, deceitful and undemocratic activities of Sinn Fein/IRA, culminating in the discovery of a spy ring operating in Stormont. Until such activities are brought to a definitive end, the responsibility for scrutinising Northern Ireland legislation will continue to lie with this Parliament.

This order is the result of the reinvestment and reform initiative launched last year. This initiative was born out of a realisation that Northern Ireland has suffered from a serious and severe lack of public investment in its basic infrastructure over the past 30 years. Quite rightly, the necessary diversion of public moneys for peacekeeping and security meant that progress on our roads, schools and hospitals could not keep up with investment levels in other regions of the United Kingdom.

The new Northern Ireland Executive estimated that some £14 billion worth of investment was required over the next 10 years. The expected growth rate in capital expenditure within the Northern Ireland budgets is just over £7 billion, leaving a shortfall of £7 billion. From the £14 billion, 70 per cent needs to be spent over the next five to six years, particularly on our ageing water service. Furthermore, significant sums must be spent in the next two years if we are to avoid significant and expensive infraction proceedings emanating from Europe.

Regrettably, the Northern Ireland Executive was unable to secure significant additional resources from the UK Treasury to meet this shortfall. So, in November 2001, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, along with the Prime Minister and Chancellor, established a task force—the reinvestment and reform initiative—to make substantial investment in public assets.

The initiative bestowed a borrowing power on the Northern Ireland Executive to enable it to add significant spending power to departments, ensure the better utilisation of existing and new assets and ensure improvements in the delivery of public services. It also required the granting of significant and strategic redundant military and security installations to the Executive. Indeed, this forms the basis for the regeneration of sites element in the order.

Unfortunately, there has been some reluctance among the departments in Northern Ireland to replicate the beneficial use of public/private partnerships or private finance initiatives to solve investment problems. There is also a tendency for departments to hold on to assets that are no longer central to their principal activities and functions. This has led to stagnation and a lack of projects or investments from public or private sources. For instance, the Department for Regional Development still operates and manages car parks throughout Northern Ireland. Yet that same department has not brought forward a single proposal for the investment, restructuring and refinancing of our water service, despite nearly two and a half years of accountable local government. Such department-based approaches are costly, inefficient and have led to a very poor level of deal flow.

To combat such examples, the strategic investment board was created to develop, implement and drive an integrated strategy on behalf of the Northern Ireland Executive, working from the Programme for Government and adopted by the Assembly as a whole. I hope and trust that this will overcome the shortcomings associated with the existing department-based approach.

I welcome the granting of powers to develop, where appropriate, regeneration companies that will take forward the development of sites of strategic importance. The future development of the Maze prison, the Long Kesh army base and other sites provides the opportunity for alliances to be formed between the community and the voluntary sector, government and the private sector. It will transform areas normally associated with trouble and terror into areas of productivity, economic regeneration and social enhancement.

This order is one of the most important pieces of legislation to come out of the Northern Ireland Assembly. It will significantly improve our infrastructure and bring investment to Northern Ireland on a scale not previously thought possible. I commend the order to the House.

Does the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, agree with me that the composition of the company leaves much to be desired in that it does not involve important social partners? Does he agree that it would be much better for Northern Ireland if such an important agency were to proceed with the assistance and experience of those sectors?

I am not aware of what the composition of the board will be. But I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, that it will be to the board's benefit if the greatest number of people throughout the community who can be involved are asked to be.

I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Smith, has a point when he says that this order would not have been passed if it had come before the Northern Ireland Assembly. Although the order is about regenerating Northern Ireland in every aspect, there are also political considerations. Some of the objections in Northern Ireland are about the disposal of the available military lands. Some would like to see the disposal of those establishments while others would be bitterly opposed to it.

The previous speaker drew my attention to the composition of the board. The order states:

"The membership of the company's board will be controlled by the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister".

Currently, the First Minister is a Unionist and the Deputy First Minister is a nationalist. If it is within the power of those two to appoint the board's members, what will that say about the powers of the other elected Assembly Members who do not agree with every aspect of this order? This order is so important to the whole future of Northern Ireland, and I believe that all the political parties should try their best to find an accommodation to which they can all agree.

The noble Lord, Lord Smith, said that he tabled an amendment which will be considered tomorrow in the Chamber. As we are all aware, however, those who will take part in tomorrow's debates are currently sitting in this room. Most noble Lords in the Chamber tomorrow will not be overly concerned about what happens in Northern Ireland. If they read some of the accounts of what happened last week in Northern Ireland, I could understand why they do not want to be concerned with Northern Ireland.

If this order is accepted, it will be accepted under the aegis of the presently constituted Assembly. However, there has to be an Assembly election in May, after which the composition may be totally different. The new Assembly may not wish to go along with every aspect of this order. So the question is whether it is urgent to pass this order now. If not, I believe that all shades of opinion in the Northern Ireland Assembly should be taken into account. The most important point, however, is one that I have made. As I said,

"The membership of the company's board will be controlled by the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister".

Both are highly political figures in Northern Ireland. If they were to take decisions that could in any way be interpreted as excluding other Assembly Members, it would not bode well for the future of the board.

Although very few people are against the idea of the objectives of the order—to increase opportunities, investment and development—we have to consider the principle. The Government have said that they do not want the Assembly's suspension to hold up the government of Northern Ireland and that they want the passage of the legislation which was under consideration or was soon to be considered in the Assembly. However, the Government themselves admit that this order might not have been passed by the Assembly. Although I personally do not oppose the order, there is a principle here.

The Government expressed their hope, which we all share, that the Assembly will soon be restarted. Nevertheless, they expressly said that they would not wait to see whether that happens. They said, "We will continue what the people of Northern Ireland started because we want to show that the Assembly is effective". Still, they have admitted that this order would not have been passed. As I said, however, I am not against the order.

On a matter of correction, I said that at no time did I admit that it would not have gone through. I said that it was speculation.

My apologies.

I have just one query to put to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal, and that relates to the transfer of the bases. I am ashamed to say that I have not been back to May 2002 and looked at the detail under which the original agreement was made. However, I live within two miles of an RAF base which was surrendered from Ministry of Defence use in 1993. Ten years later, it is still in the Government's hands. I have no criticism of that fact, which involves about £500,000 of expenditure annually. Am I right in assuming that, when the bases are handed over, all potential military damage to them will have been removed so that, although they are brownfield sites, they are free from pollution? If they are not free from pollution, on whom will the expense fall? Will it fall on the Ministry of Defence or on the new owners?

I am grateful for the contributions that have been made. I am particularly grateful for the generosity of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, in expressing appreciation for what we tried to do about producing a procedure that is quite novel in this place.

It seems to me that the division of question and criticism has been twofold: one, should we be doing it; and, two, the nature and constitution of the board. The noble Lord, Lord Smith, said that the Assembly is sovereign. Speaking for the Government, we should prefer that the Assembly had never been suspended. It was suspended with great reluctance. Our present hope, as the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has said time and again, is that we shall have elections on 1st May. However, let us assume that we do not. Are we then to let these opportunities of which the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, spoke so glowingly dribble away? The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, is a good one. He spoke of about 10 years that have been wasted or not used fruitfully. I do not think that we will discharge our duty to the people of Northern Ireland if we let these opportunities go. I am very grateful for the support that the noble Lords, Lord Rogan and Lord Glentoran, have given to this.

It is possible that this order would have gone through the Assembly—I do not know, and I do not think that any Member of the Committee could possibly be in a position to know with any degree of moral certainty. What I can say is that all the parties on the Executive—the four major parties—took part in the discussions. It is possible that the Assembly would have passed it, but it is possible that it would not have done. Are we then for the future to say either, "The Assembly might not have passed it", or even, lamentably, "The Assembly never even considered it"? Are we then to do nothing? I think not.

The order has the support of the two biggest political parties, the SDLP and the U UP. All four Executive parties were represented on the project board. The Executive Committee met on a number of occasions to look at the contents of the legislation and the path that it would take. This order itself has been the subject of further consultation between the Minister, Mr Ian Pearson, and the Alliance, the Women's Coalition and the PUP. The Minister has also met the DUP and Sinn Fein. So I think that we have done our very best, and acted as honourably as we can, in taking this matter forward.

A number of Members of the Committee—the noble Lords, Lord Fitt, Lord Glentoran and Lord Smith, and the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough—asked about composition. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Smith, talks about needing to ensure that the board would be a model of social partnership and involve key stakeholders. The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, is quite right. The membership of the board has not been set. However, it would be wrong of me not to share the current thinking with the Committee. The current thinking is that there should be one public sector representative, the interim chief executive, the chair of PUK plus three or four other experts who, of course, will be able to take representations from anyone who is interested. Quite careful thought will have to be given to who should be on the board.

The real dilemma is as follows. Should we do nothing at all—against which the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, has counselled—or must we go forward in circumstances which we all recognise are not ideal? The circumstances are not ideal, but it seems to me that the people of Northern Ireland are entitled to our going forward with economic regeneration. Let us not forget that the history of economic regeneration—investment and falling unemployment—is a success story of which we should speak more strongly.

On the particular point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, my advice is that we shall ensure that there is no contamination of the sites. The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, is quite right. We shall have to examine all the assets. Of course, the new body will have to look at the best possible asset utilisation.

I shall pass on to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State the concerns expressed about the identity of the board. I think it is fair to say that Members of the Committee know him to be an open-minded person who always pays careful attention to those matters.

We are faced with this problem. No one wants to be in a Northern Ireland order Grand Committee—we would rather that the Assembly was doing its work. Absent it doing its work—I must not use the word "absent"; the Prime Minister was criticised for being a lawyer when he used it the other day—without the Northern Ireland Assembly, we must do our very best. I have no doubt that, when it comes to tomorrow, I shall be able to commend to Members of the Committee and others in the Chamber that this ought to go forward.

I beg to move that the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the draft Budget (Northern Ireland) Order 2003.

Again, it is a matter of regret that this legislation is not being considered by the Northern Ireland Assembly. The purpose of the draft order is twofold. The first is to authorise the use of £306 million resources and £422 million cash for the year 2002–03. That builds on the amounts previously authorised, as set out in the main estimates for that year, and will take the total amount authorised to £10,503 million resources and £9,320 million cash.

The second purpose is to authorise a vote on account to allow funds to continue to flow to public services for the early months of the next financial year until main estimates can be presented and considered. For that, the draft order seeks the authorisation of Parliament for the use of resources amounting to £4,762 million and for the issue from the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland of the sum of £4,195 million.

In general, the cash and resource required on account for 2003–04 is of the order of 45 per cent of the 2002–03 total voted provision and, as its name implies, the vote on account is not intended to seek final approval of the allocations for 2003–04. We are simply seeking sufficient resources and cash to allow services to proceed until the detailed work on the main estimates has been completed in the late spring.

If your Lordships approve this tomorrow, they will not be pre-empting the decision of the Assembly on any final allocations for the 2003–04 budget, as only 45 per cent of the total proposed budget is being sought. The details are given in the spring supplementary estimates and the vote on account, copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

I shall not go through the detailed changes on a line-by-line basis as the introduction to each departmental estimate within the supplementary estimates book sets out in detail the main changes for which approval is being sought. Certainly, if Members of the Committee wish to raise matters of detail, I shall do my utmost to respond in writing at a later stage. Copies will be sent to all noble Lords who have an interest in Northern Ireland and further copies will, of course, be lodged in the Library.

In relation to the next financial year—2003–04—the cash and resource totals represent a vote on account pending the bringing forward of main estimates in early summer. A vote on account at this point in the financial year, prior to the year in which the cash or resources will be used, is a normal feature of government financial management. It arises because, following the approval of the budget in December, detailed work must be undertaken by departments to disaggregate and allocate resource requirements for individual purposes—often through very narrowly defined line entries.

There will be an opportunity for a further and full debate on the detail of the main estimates in early summer. I commend the order to the Committee.

Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the draft Budget (Northern Ireland) Order 2003.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

I thank the Minister for that explanation. I also take this opportunity to thank the officials, who were very patient in trying to explain to me, as someone who is completely ignorant of this level of national financing, how the budget may or may not work.

In relation to the order, ultimately I came to the conclusion that the first part—the £4,195 million—has already been accounted for and that decisions have been made by the Assembly as to how it should be used. As the noble and learned Lord explained, decisions are not ready to be made on the detail or allocation to departments in respect of the larger sum for the year 2003–04, and that is the sum likely to be required to run Northern Ireland for the year 2003–04. That is as far as I was able to understand the national accounting procedures relating to the order. However, it seems to be very satisfactory.

Of course, if we do not back the order, the good governance of Northern Ireland will come to a complete standstill. Tempting though that might be, we must nevertheless support it.

My question will be an ignorant one, but it is my test of whether I have understood matters. It appears that the figure that appears in paragraph 8 is 45 per cent of £10,503,229,000. It appears in paragraph 8 as £4.7 billion and is the amount authorised. Paragraph 6 states:

"The Department of Finance and Personnel may issue out of the Consolidated Fund and apply to the service of the year",

the sum of £4.195 billion. Does the difference between the two figures represent accrued resources? If not, what does it represent?

The noble Lord is right, and I am deeply grateful to him. That avoids any further explanation.

The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said—self-deprecatingly, as always—that he had found this a minefield. I must join him and say that I hope that we shall not both be caught in it.

I have one last question. In which budget is the money with which the previous order was concerned accounted for? Is it in the 2003–04 budget, the 2002–03 budget or neither?

It will be included in the detailed figures that will be subject to the debate that I said we would be able to have on the main estimates in the summer.

The Committee will be relieved to hear that the few remarks that I want to make will be of a less technical nature. Once again, I register my regret that the budget for Northern Ireland is being considered here as an Order in Council. Given the huge sums involved, it would have been more satisfactory if Northern Ireland Assembly committees had been able to scrutinise the budget in more detail.

As the order lays out, Northern Ireland can expect a fairly rapid increase in spending. In cash terms, the departmental expenditure limits—the amounts allocated from the Treasury for the 11 departments—will increase by 6 per cent from 2002–03 to 2003–04, by 5 per cent in the next year and by 6.3 per cent in the succeeding year. Some departments will receive even greater increases for the coming year. For example, the budget for agriculture will increase by 13 per cent, for health by 14 per cent, for the environment by 10 per cent and for culture, arts and leisure by 10 per cent.

The need to direct finances in Northern Ireland towards security and peacekeeping over the past 30 years resulted in chronic underspending on our infrastructure. Although the Assembly has sought to redress that imbalance and improve our severely run-down services, the experience of devolution so far has been that departments tend to over-bid for money, which results in money being left unspent. The Budget (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 will, I hope, go some way to reducing that underspend and encourage more efficient budget management.

A novel approach was taken to setting the budget for the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. The DETI's 2003–04 allocation, for example, was set as a range rather than a fixed figure. Uniquely, the DETI's budget has a large discretionary element—a range of £40 million—to take into account the difficulties in predicting how many deals will be agreed throughout the year and at what price. The DETI will be able to draw on that range when required. Such greater flexibility is to be welcomed.

Despite substantially increased spending on health over the past few years—by some £600 million per annum—and maintaining a greater per capita expenditure on health than in England and Wales, there appears to have been little or no improvement in the services available for people in Northern Ireland. Although we clearly welcome the 14 per cent increase for the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, we seek assurances that that money will be spent appropriately, that it will be directed to where need is greatest and that, finally, it will accrue the improvement in services that the people of Northern Ireland so richly deserve.

The Ulster Unionist Party believes that education should be a priority area for funding. We are concerned that many schools are struggling with funding difficulties on an ongoing basis and are facing teacher redundancies to avoid going into deficit. Funding is urgently required to ensure stability and a satisfactory provision of the core curriculum to all pupils. Currently £100 million is required to bridge the funding gap between schools in Northern Ireland and those in England. We shall continue to support the use of public/private partnerships and private finance initiatives where necessary and to support the capital build programme. But we wish to ensure that in education conventional funding has primacy and will still form the most important element of Department of Education funding.

Investing in education and skills is one of the key priorities in the executive's programme for government. We therefore welcome the addititonal £10 million that was found for university research, but we ask that the Lord Privy Seal consider the problems facing Stranmillis College and St Mary's College. Neither has received funding for research. Indeed, under new regulations, they will be marked down in the next review because they do not have research facilities.

The increase in funds for the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure is also to be welcomed. It is long overdue and will go a long way to reviving arts and sports across Northern Ireland. We are, however, very disappointed that money has not been made available to meet the need for a film and television commission for Northern Ireland. That is despite the fact that a full economic appraisal and business plan was in place. On the other hand, money was still found for Irish language broadcasts, when there was clearly no immediate need.

I very much welcome the order and the additional funding that it will bring to the departments in Northern Ireland. However, I trust that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal will be able to assure us that funding will be targeted to where it is most required and that it will bring about long-overdue improvements to Northern Irelands services and infrastructure.

I am grateful for the responses that have been given. I could not agree more with the noble Lord, Lord Rogan: these are large sums of money. I agree with him absolutely, as I believe do all Members of the Committee, that we would much prefer the Assembly and the relevant committees to be discussing these matters rather than us.

The noble Lord is right that there is a substantial increase in funding for education—a matter on which he particularly focused—amounting to 7.3 per cent. In addition to the existing service levels, the budget includes £52 million to increase the core budgets for schools over three years. It provides £19 million for priority curriculum development, £2.6 million for costs associated with a new cross-border centre for autism, and a real-terms increase of £:3.8 million for the youth service across the period. However, the noble Lord is right: these are very large sums and they are most gratifying.

The noble Lord raised a question which frequently arises in relation to England and Wales: will these enormously increased budgets produce real reform? Again, I believe that that should rightly rest with the elected representatives of Northern Ireland in the Assembly.