As we rarely debate orders in Grand Committee, 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.

I should perhaps make it clear to noble Lords that this Committee is charged only to consider orders, not to approve or disapprove them. The Motion to approve will be moved in the Chamber in the usual way.

The main difference between our proceedings and the proceedings on the Floor of the House is that the House has agreed that there shall be no Divisions in a Grand Committee. Any Motion on which agreement cannot be reached should be withdrawn.

Perhaps I may also remind noble Lords that if a Division is called in the Chamber, this Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.

I beg to move that the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the draft Budget (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004.

It is a matter of regret that this legislation is not being considered by the Northern Ireland Assembly, and we all hope that the ongoing review process will lead to a speedy restoration of the devolved institution. However, good government and the provision of public services in Northern Ireland must continue and therefore it falls to Parliament to consider the issue before us today.

The main purpose of the draft order is to authorise the balance of the 2004–05 main estimates, which is in addition to the vote on account that was approved by Parliament in March. The vote on account, amounting to approximately 45 per cent of the total provision for the 2004–05 financial year, enabled funds to continue to flow to public services for the early months of this financial year until the main estimates before us today could be presented and considered.

The balance of the 2004–05 main estimates contained in the order amounts to some £6 billion resources and £5.5 billion cash. When added to the vote on account, it will take the total amount authorised for 2004–05 to £11.3 billion resources and £9.9 billion cash. This reflects the outcome of the 2003 priorities and budget process announced by my honourable friend in another place on 13 January 2004.

That outcome evolves through a process involving widespread consultation with a range of local organisations including city and district councils, voluntary and community organisations, the business community and trade unions. In addition, as part of the consultation process, my honourable friend met with the main Northern Ireland political parties.

I can therefore assure your Lordships that the spending plans before us today reflect the priorities of the local community in Northern Ireland. The order also seeks to authorise the excess resource amount in both the 2001–02 and 2002–03 financial years. The matters have been the subject of consideration and of subsequent report by the Public Accounts Committee. The report which was published on 25 May 2004 recommended that the excesses should be authorised by Parliament by means of excess votes.

Considerable detail regarding the sums sought is set out in the documents supporting the 2004–05 main estimates and the statement of excess for 2001–02 and for 2002–03. Copies of these supporting documents have been placed in the Library of the House.

The introduction within each estimate provides a brief description of the nature of expenditure covered by the estimate, while the Part II subhead detail provides a breakdown of the proposed expenditure by functional area, with the associated cash requirement for the whole estimate. Comparative figures for the 2002–03 and 2003–04 financial years are also provided at Part II. I commend the order.

Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the draft Budget (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004.—(Baroness Amos.)

I am the first to admit my ignorance of the details of public accounting, and I shall leave that matter to others more expert than myself this afternoon. However, there are a number of issues to which I suggest Members of the Committee should pay attention when we discuss the draft Northern Ireland budget for the six-month period and onwards—for the second time in the year.

It is the duty of government to deliver competent and efficient administration to the part of the country or the nation for which it is responsible. This Government have been responsible for the administration of Northern Ireland for seven—approaching eight—years, I regret to say. They have had a number of complicated issues to face, over many of which we have been in agreement and support. However, we have now been without Stormont and the Assembly for nearly two years—and I agree with the Minister when she regrets that. I regret it very much and believe that the situation would be very much more satisfactory were it to be being discussed by the Northern Ireland Assembly in Stormont. However, there is a duty of care on the Government.

It is right to note, as my honourable friend David Lidington pointed out in another place, that the Auditor General for Northern Ireland indicates that the,

"quality of government services in Northern Ireland too often lets down the people who are using them and who are paying for them through their taxes".

The system of public administration in Northern Ireland was described as,

"disastrously fragmented. Almost every body in GB that carries out any function of government is duplicated on a tiny scale within Northern Ireland and that is an impediment to clarity and an enormous inefficiency".—[Official Report, Commons, Northern Ireland Grand Committee, 8/7/04; col. 009.]

On a Starred Question from the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, not long ago, I supported him and challenged the Government on this issue of wasted money. I believe that the Government are now guilty to a considerable extent of maladministration in terms of waste of public money in many different areas. Northern Ireland is grossly over-administered.

The Government referred some time ago to a review of public administration, which was to set out plans to reduce the amount of administration in Northern Ireland—hence, the costs—to increase responsibilities on local authorities and to reduce the layers of government. If I am right, that was nearly two years ago, and we have still heard nothing from the Government on the matter.

Furthermore, we have had the situation of absenteeism, which has now grown disastrously in the Civil Service in Northern Ireland. I believe that the cost of absenteeism in 2002–03 was £39 million of public money. Would the Minister at some stage tell me what the costs for 2003–04 are and whether anything has improved? I would also like to know where the reform of public administration has got to.

Another major issue affects this budget, on which I should also like answers—that is, the NIPSA strike. The civil servants or any other employees normally go on strike only as a last resort. Having spent 30 years of my life in the manufacturing industry and having started on the shop floor and worked up through not the union but similar movements, I know the effect of poor leadership and low morale on the workforce. It leads to frustration and to wanting some way out and some form of recourse.

The Northern Ireland Civil Service is in that situation, which is why we have the strike today. As I understand it, it is not getting any better; it is spreading and getting worse. Later today, we have an order regarding vehicle testing, which is bound to affect the overall budgets and finances of the Northern Ireland economy. We are an exporter. There are large hauliers hauling goods across Europe and bringing them back. Even if this order is accepted, it will cause huge difficulties on the continent if those hauliers are stopped regarding their necessary documentation. I wonder how many of the officials in France and Germany will understand about an order passed today. That is the situation only for the hauliers.

We also have the farming community, which has suffered enough in the past few years. I declare an interest here: I have a farm with tenant farmers who are dependent on the grants that they are not being paid. At the end of June, the agricultural industry and the farmers were owed £20 million. This weekend's Northern Ireland newspapers led me to understand that farmers are extending their borrowings with the banks, which is costing them more interest. Will the Government underwrite that interest and those loans? What recourse will the farmers have on account of the money that they will lose as a result of this strike?

Finally, I do not wish to quip, but I could, about the efficiencies in the planning authority, which is also going on strike as of this week. That will affect the whole of the construction industry. It will affect future housing, future roads, future construction plans and a large amount of the cash flow and turnover in the Northern Ireland economy.

I am making a case today that the administration of Northern Ireland is far less than satisfactory. Once upon a time we had a health service of which we were very proud. Now, our health service is probably as poor as anywhere in this country with seriously ill people waiting to get beds, hanging about on trolleys in hospitals that are dirty and maladministered. We had an education system of which we were proud. Will the noble Baroness the Lord President give me an undertaking that she will not continue the move on the education system for the sake of some Labour Party dogma?

At this stage of the debate on the Northern Ireland budget, I put to noble Lords that the Government are doing a poor job, have done a poor that is getting worse and the effects of maladministration, which have now spread into a serious strike within the Northern Ireland Civil Service, will affect a very fragile economy very seriously.

In considering this budget order it necessary to put it in its context. In so doing, I shall echo some of the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. The condition of public finance in Northern Ireland is a cause for concern, while the infrastructure of the state apparatus is, in some respects, bloated, unwieldy and not fit for purpose. By contrast, since the Belfast agreement the private sector has seen a buoyant revival.

Compared with a decade ago, the city of Belfast has been transformed beyond recognition. If that economic development is to be sustained and further progressed, it requires to be complemented with a modernised government machine. In that regard, things have changed little in the past 10 years and in some respects may even have deteriorated.

When I moved to Northern Ireland in 1991, it was essentially a public-sector economy and society. I described it as more collectivist than Stalinist Russia, more corporatist than Mussolini's Italy and more quangoised than the Britain of the two Harolds. Apart from the welcome resurgence of a prosperous private sector, little has altered in the mean time.

For example, as this budget order shows, there is a massive underspend of some £400 million of which £220 million is for capital projects. A supercharged investment board was created a year ago to offer strategic guidance in that vital area. What has it been doing all year?

Another symptom of the bureaucratic malaise that infects government in Northern Ireland is seen in the recent Northern Ireland Audit Office report, to which the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, alluded. It was a report on the excessive and growing recourse by government to commissioning outside consultants. The report identified an increase in expenditure from £10 million to £18.6 million during the past five years—a rise of about 80 per cent. However, that seriously underestimates the situation, which is itself a grave cause for concern.

As my noble friend Lord Shutt of Greetland pointed out, the report presented a very incomplete picture. He said:

"If one tries to piece together some of the evidence one cannot actually get to the actual expenditure on consultants".

By way of illustration, my noble friend said:

"In 2001–02, it was certainly in excess of £34 million … but the worst element of all in this is that in 88 of the 100 cases studied in this report, there has been no proper evaluation about whether there was any benefit in these consultants being hired".—[official Report, 8/7/04; col. 915.]

Thus, a double cause of concern is revealed by that NIAO report. On the one hand, it points to excessive reliance on outside consultants, poor procurement and a cavalier disregard for the DFP's guidance; while on the other, it shows up the inadequacy of the NAIO itself in being unable to come up with a comprehensive analysis of the full extent of the employment of consultants. Who will audit the auditors?

Why are highly paid civil servants fearful of taking decisions that they are paid to take without calling in consultants to cover their backs? How has that lamentable state of affairs been allowed to come about? Has there been any attempt in Northern Ireland to undertake a Gershon-type efficiency saving exercise in the Civil Service, as there has in Great Britain?

Northern Ireland, with 1.7 million people, is roughly the size of one and a half English counties, yet that budget far exceeds anything comparable in England and Wales. That is partly be due to the working of the Barnett formula, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, himself has repeatedly pointed out, is long past its shelf life and needs urgent reform. After all, happily, Northern Ireland is no longer the poorest region in the UK.

Secondly, the cost of security is disproportionately high for readily apparent reasons. However, even allowing for that, there can be no doubt that government costs are far too high. In that regard, I note that the costs of the moribund Assembly are estimated to rise from £33.7 million to £47.2 million per annum in the coming year. We hope that the Assembly will be restored in the autumn, because devolution should ultimately bring down the size of the budget. Initially, and not least because of the necessity to create no less than 11 government departments to accommodate the d'Hondt formula for the allocation of ministerial portfolios, devolution increased costs. In the longer run, however, I believe that, as local Ministers have to make hard choices between competing demands and have perforce to prioritise public expenditure, costs will fall.

Under direct rule, Northern Ireland politicians of all shades, both here in Westminster and locally, are just part of the claimant culture to which, in its turn, the Civil Service and its mode of operation respond. It is an unhealthy situation, with totally inadequate political scrutiny and public accountability. Let us restore the devolved institutions and slim the budget and the bureaucracy.

Many Members of the Committee will recall that on 8 July, when the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, intervened on the Question of my noble friend Lord Smith about consultants, he gave us a sample of the literature that he had been receiving. Although I have taken the lectern, the sample, I have brought would have sufficed.

I do not complain about getting the literature because it proves to us what we are lacking with the Assembly not functioning. As we open the post day by day, all these letters from various departments in Northern Ireland are a steady reminder to us that the Assembly is not functioning and that it ought to be. Reference has been made to the possibility of a resumption in the autumn. If there is no resurrection of the Assembly in the autumn, I do not think that we can carry on scrutinising like this. I have been trying to scratch about as best I can and it is very difficult. There is a democratic deficit. The Minister has told us about the consultation that has taken place to put this budget together. But I cannot measure the quality of that consultation. I am sure that it is there but I cannot measure its depth and quality. If we are to be back again, we will have to find other ways of doing this.

For a start, I find this document very difficult to fathom. I set about it by looking at the Barnett formula and seeing where that takes us in terms of the numbers because I cannot prove that it works. I cannot prove that what is in the document and what the Barnett formula produces match. I am not clear about what is paid for by UK taxpayers as a whole and is not covered under the devolved budget. I do not know how that fits with the Barnett formula. I also do not know how supplements from the European Union fit in. They are, to use the term, additionality. I cannot see how the big picture fits with what I see in this book. Indeed, in the book it is difficult to fathom what is different from A to B and occasionally C. It is designed to confuse. I would like to think that the starting point, the fundamentals, were clearer.

When I spoke in March, I referred to an area that I know a little bit about, Northern Ireland railways. I said to myself, "That's enough of that, pick something else to look at next time. See if you can get to something else in depth". But I regret to say that I must return to the railways because I referred then to a debate that appeared to be going on in Northern Ireland about the non-core railway, which was Whitehead to Larne and Ballymena and Londonderry.

What I did not know then was that a book was to be produced by the Railways Review Group A Position Report on the Future Investment Needs of Northern Ireland Railways. It is the least glossy of any of the documents that have come out of Northern Ireland. It is only 30 pages. However, page 30 refers one to a consultants report, which is obtainable at www.translink.co.uk—and all sorts of other things. That gives one another 220 pages from Booz Allen Hamilton. I have that in my paperwork here. Amazingly, there has also been a report on the railways in the Republic of Ireland by Booz Allen Hamilton. That report was over 400 pages. So there are well over 600 pages of consultants' report on the railways of Ireland.

Sadly, however, this modest 30-pager talks of the closure of railway lines in Northern Ireland and yet—this must be true because I read it in the consultants' report—Londonderry is the fourth city of Ireland. The railway line we are talking about would connect the second city of Ireland with its fourth city.

Looking at the report produced by the same consultants in the Republic, they talk about a feasibility study to look into the possibility of extending the railway from Londonderry to Letterkenny, which would be a costly venture. The consultants say that they have consulted with DETR Northern Ireland and Translink NIR, which suggests support. Yet those same folk are putting out these closure proposals. That is not joined-up government in any shape or form. It is time, as a piece of detail, for acts to be got together and acknowledge that the best option would be to return both of these railway lines. Indeed, the capital costs would be a mere fraction of what is to be carried forward in budget expenditure from last year to this. As I have said, that is an important piece of detail.

I know that some people are not too happy about cross-border bodies, but it is quite interesting to note, in terms of dual economy, that when we have Waterways Ireland, quite frankly it would make incredibly good sense to have "railways Ireland" as well. We should bear it in mind that the rail network in Northern Ireland is much smaller than that in the Republic, but they have so much in common when compared with anything in England, Scotland and Wales.

I want to talk next about European money. Several references are made to European funds from the various agencies throughout Europe in the budget document. What I cannot fathom is the approach to reconciliation. The last page of the yellow section of the book refers to the income coming from Europe in respect of the various funds while expenditure is set out on the red pages. It is impossible to reconcile the two figures, although that may well be quite proper given the timing differences. But no attempt has been made to reconcile that. I cannot prove that the European moneys received will match the moneys paid out.

Several fortunate areas of European funding have grown out of the misfortune of Northern Ireland such as, for example, the Peace II EU Programme for Peace and Reconciliation moneys. Much of that is spent on those people desperately searching for peace, many of them involved in voluntary and local community groups. Amazingly, peace money is also used to buy double decker buses in Belfast, but we shall let that pass by as one of those strange things that happens in government. I should have thought that the genuine expenditure of peace and reconciliation moneys is all about peace and reconciliation. However, I am worried about how the micro-economy that has built up over recent years will cope if, as a result of the addition of poorer states to the European Union, it is not possible to fund it in the same way. Questions arise over whether the peace and reconciliation funding programme will be slimmed down. There are concerns about that.

On any basis, the figure of £11,783 million is a large sum. I am concerned about best use of money. My noble friend Lord Smith has spoken about the various organisations in Northern Ireland, whose acronyms are NIA, NIB, NEC, NID, NIE, NIF, and so on, with the list going round several times because there are so many. Does every such outfit have human relations consultants, treasurers and staff to produce glossy books? Is there no possibility of economising on these establishment costs?

Perhaps we should consider benchmarking. The three largest counties in England are Essex, Kent and Hampshire, each with a population of around 1.2 or 1.3 million. The combined population of the neighbouring counties of Hampshire and Dorset is similar to that of Northern Ireland. The population of Hampshire and Dorset is around 1.63 million while that of Northern Ireland is around 1.69 million. The education budget for Hampshire and Dorset is £803 million while Northern Ireland's is £1,300 million. Of course, if a devolved government want to spend more money on education, they can, but I still wonder how those figures can be matched.

Has the noble Lord looked at the difference in birth rates?

I have not; I have looked only at the populations. Perhaps one can look at the figures in all sorts of ways. I accept that the comparison is totally imprecise. For example, the education budget of Northern Ireland includes libraries, but that constitutes quite a small proportion—around 4 per cent of each school's budget. Even deducting the budget for libraries, there is a huge difference. Perhaps it will be possible to look at the numbers and reduce the difference, but I guess that the figure for Northern Ireland will still be substantially higher, and that may be right. But I want to know whether such matters are looked at.

We are all concerned about due economy. Regardless of that, post enlargement there might be less European money. We should be looking at opportunities to reduce expenditure in Northern Ireland, because an absence of European money would result in the collapse of certain areas of the Northern Ireland economy, particularly those paid for under the European Union Peace and Reconciliation Programme. Although the Assembly is in suspension, it is important that the matter is looked at carefully. By looking at some of the ways in which Northern Ireland is operated, with a view to sharing costs of producing glossy books, accountancy and treasury posts and clerkships of organisations, there could be due economy and money could be released to enable frontline work and essential voluntary and community work to continue.

I agree almost entirely with what has been said already. Pending the possible reconstruction of the governance—not government—of Northern Ireland, a reduction in the vast number of departments and the thinning out of the number of curious bodies already referred to, which seem to be without visible means of support, we will remain in financial trouble. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, has highlighted much of the wasteful expenditure. Unfortunately, the lack of clarity will be noted by other regions of the United Kingdom, which will cast envious glances across the Irish Sea and wonder how we have got away with it for so long. The inevitable result will be that Her Majesty's Treasury will start to pay heed to this drain on UK resources. We must be careful.

I am not critical of civil servants as a body. They are bound to suffer from what I can only call the sheer stupidity and silliness of others. I implore Her Majesty's Government to institute a sound administrative structure for Northern Ireland on the grounds voted upon in 1979 by 14.5 million United Kingdom citizens. When some of us were bold enough to inquire why the structure was not proceeded with, the answer was, "Because, Jim dear, it was not enough". Perhaps it was not enough and the United Kingdom electorate's appetite for constitutional government was not satisfied, but they should remember—they probably now remember in hindsight—that the alternative to "not enough" was bound to be nothing, which is precisely what we have now. We will continue to have nothing until we stop playing games that are designed mainly—I have to say, perhaps uncharitably—to keep the news industry happy. We must have summits, get-togethers, departmental heads and so forth, yet it all amounts to nothing. It is a con job, as the news industry knows well, although it exploits it and uses the fodder handed out to them—who can blame them?

I implore Her Majesty's Government. They have exhibited a good deal of realism in their thinking on various other national and international policies. Surely, it is not asking too much for them to look again at what was voted upon by the United Kingdom electorate in 1979 but rejected because it did not go far enough, with the inevitable result that we got nothing.

I wish to raise an issue that affects all departments of government, whether those devolved in theory or those that have never been devolved. I refer to the continue existence of paramilitary groups, both those on ceasefire and those not so. I suggest that it is necessary and most desirable to have the maximum possible amount of exits and ways of leaving violence and terrorism which are open, available and can be used by those who want to do so. In brief, the object should be to deter the current rank and file of paramilitary groups and former offenders from moving into crime, as many already have done, and instead to help them in the direction of normal civilian employment.

For some, perhaps only a tiny minority, emigration may provide a solution. For others there is the public sector, which is, after all, a very large employer in Northern Ireland, the commercial sector and numerous voluntary organisations and community associations. What are the Government doing about those possible lines of exit? Are incentives of any kind being provided for those who want to cease a life of violence? In general, what is the Government's policy and future intention?

I wish to refer to integrated education, partly because the noble Baroness the Lord President of the Council, in an Answer to a Written Question last month, told me that procedures are in place for transforming existing schools to integrated status. That in itself is good news, but have those procedures been used in recent years and what is the prospect of their being used more in the next year or two, given that there is strong parental demand for more schools providing integrated education? In view of the reducing, and already lower, numbers of pupils in secondary schools, some existing ones are functioning at about half-capacity. That surely gives scope for some move into an integrated mode. I look forward to the Government's response.

I can identify with much of what has been said, but I wish to raise a number of issues. Further to the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Smith, I wish to draw attention to the fact that we have a Civic Forum in Northern Ireland, which was suspended along with the Assembly. Expenditure on the Civic Forum in the current year was £176,000 compared to £328,000 in 2002–03. Estimates suggest that expenditure for 2004–05 will increase to over £0.5 million. One wonders how the costs of a body that is still suspended can increase threefold. It is a waste of money. When do the Government propose to disband the Civic Forum?

The Government have said that they will refurbish or rebuild every secondary school in England and Wales to 21st century standards in the next 10 to 15 years. Will the Government confirm that they have the same plans for Northern Ireland schools, and if not, why? Will all mobile classrooms in Northern Ireland be replaced? If so, can the Government spell out exactly how they intend to do so? In my view, the only way to reform the schooling system is through public-private partnerships. What plans do the Government have to do that in Northern Ireland?

The Government have completely ignored the Ulster Unionist Party's objections to the Costello report, which we consider flawed, and the result of a widespread consultation exercise in Northern Ireland considering post-primary reforms. Why are the Government determined to implement Costello when all sections of society in Northern Ireland have indicated how ill suited it is? Grammar schools are not simply opposed to any change, as the Government claim. Representatives of grammar schools have been actively engaged in proposing workable changes as alternatives to the 11-plus, something that the Government have not managed to do in detail. What specifically are the Government's alternatives? What sort of system will emerge from the proposals? What will be the admissions criteria under the new system?

The problem of capping student numbers in Northern Ireland remains. Why is the cap unique to Northern Ireland? Will the Government tell us whether there is any financial reason why we cannot increase opportunities for participation? When will the Government end what I believe is a form of discrimination?

I move on to a topic dealt with extremely well by the noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland: the problem of the funding of the railways. I am not sure that we want to be the only part of Europe where railways may be closed down. In every other part of Europe, railways are seen as part of the solution. They are being revamped and much capital funding has been going into them. I do not understand why little money has been spent on the non-core system—the system that the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, described. I cannot understand why there is such haste for the consultation on the document that the noble Lord discussed. I cannot understand why, despite a lot of prompting, no one has come up with a concept to promote, especially, the section of line from Coleraine to Londonderry, as a tourist attraction. I also cannot understand why, when we are on the verge of getting many millions of pounds worth of railway stock in Northern Ireland, closing the non-core section of the network is being considered before the stock has even had a chance to show what it can do on the railway system.

On support for individuals with educational difficulties, I have supplied some information to the noble Baroness concerning a gentleman whose case I have raised before in this place, Owen Waide, a boy who suffers from Asperger's syndrome. A satisfactory solution was found to his problem that allowed him to become part of society, but the South Eastern Education and Library Board has cut funding for that young boy and his parents, who are now back to square one. Obviously, I do not expect the Minister to have an answer to an individual case, but I have supplied her with the information and look forward to hearing her answer to that in due course.

I raise an issue about which I feel strongly and have a fair bit of experience. That is the budget of the cross-border language body. The particular part of it in which I am interested, and of which I was chairman for four and a half years, is the Ulster Scots Agency. The Government's understanding of its priorities is haywire and more in the realm of Alice in Wonderland than of reality.

For 2004, the desired budget for the Ulster-Scots Agency had £600,000 removed from it that was specifically aimed at continuing a very successful policy of the agency in 2003. I want to be quite specific: it was removed without consultation, discussion or agreement. When I requested the minutes of meetings that the department says took place to discuss the matter, they were not available to me. Therefore, I can only conclude that there was no discussion; I know for a fact that there was no discussion.

Our policy, which is one in which I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, will be interested, was of replacing old-style murals depicting hooded gunmen and paramilitary imagery with murals celebrating historic themes such as scenes from the Great War and Ulster Scots language, culture and history. It was for the consignment of paramilitary flags to the past. It was for the organisation of family-friendly events on 11 July night, such as those organised by Mid-Armagh Community Network and the Schomburg Society of Kilkeel.

It was for the provision of help, advice and financial support to those community leaders who want to effect positive change in their localities. It made funding available to pull the carpet from under the feet of those unsympathetic to change, by depriving them of one of their major arguments for maintaining the status quo. It was for the creation of new opportunities for Protestant and Unionist communities to explain and share their culture to and with their Roman Catholic and nationalist neighbours.

I cannot understand what is so wrong with that policy that it did not even warrant discussion or any form of agreement with us. We were never asked about the policy. The Ulster-Scots Agency successfully implemented the policy during 2003 but had to stop it this year because of lack of funding, the money being taken out. It seems to me that Her Majesty's Government are happy to pay police overtime and make compensation payments, but not to pay £600,000 to the Ulster-Scots Agency, which, if it does not have the solution to the problem, at least has a solution. No one has told me any other solution to the problem of trying to put the society of Northern Ireland back on the rails, to deal with the paramilitaries and to try to take people out of their spheres of influence. Until someone tells me what is wrong with the Ulster-Scots Agency policy and gives me a better one. I think this is a disgrace.

But the same department that looked after the activities of the language body also looks after Waterways Ireland. Waterways Ireland had a 40 per cent increase in its budget for 2004. It has never been able to spend its entire funding in any year to date and, as I understand it, has replaced as much as £7 million in the central kitty. Yet it has had an increase of 40 per cent while we were deprived of a minute amount of money that would meet a social need in our Province.

cannot understand the decision-making process. Some people with a cultural view of Ulster-Scots activities went to the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure and asked to borrow £100,000 for Ulster-Scots culture. After 11 months, a lot of to-ing and fro-ing and requests for rewrites, the request was turned down. I have here an Answer by the Minister to a Written Question on 14 June this year. It refers to funding for the West Belfast Festival, of which I am supportive. I have no difficulty with the festival being funded; it is not money lent, it is funding. The festival organisers submitted a request for over £100,000 on 15 August 2003. What day was the request granted? On the very same day. Yet we asked for £100,000 as a loan for Ulster-Scots culture and after 11 months it was turned down.

What conclusion can we come to, except that the Ulster-Scots culture is not wanted on the island of Ireland? Things are slightly worse now. The North-South Ministerial Council, which has a specific remit, has been in discussions with both loyalist and republican paramilitaries. It has provided funding for an image consultant to provide a new image for Protestant paramilitary groups. I am not desperately opposed to that but this is the same organisation that presided over £600,000 being taken out of our budget, which stopped us doing socially acceptable activities during 2004. Yet it has been organising and spending resources on promoting and helping loyalist and republican paramilitary groups, including the provision of an image consultant.

I have no doubt that the answer will be that this help is provided to the bank account that is run by the Government of the Republic of Ireland. But meetings are attended by officials of the Northern Ireland Civil Service. What remit has the Northern Ireland joint-secretary to the North-South Ministerial Council to exceed his authority and to talk to Protestant paramilitaries or to any paramilitary group? What remit has he to exceed his authority with regard to the North-South Ministerial Council, or was he acting on behalf of the North-South Ministerial Council? It is time that we had a total review, an inquiry, into exactly how these cross-border bodies have been funded and how they are totally unfair, simply interested in one side of the community and not the other.

I am not opposed to cross-border co-operation and I have discussed the matter with the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, on a number of occasions. I would support much of what he said. However, if there are going to be cross-border bodies, let them not be these bodies. Let them be bodies that are there on the basis of equity, fairness and providing funding and support on the basis of all-round need, not simply skewed to the request of the Irish Government.

Perhaps I may come back, having listened to other noble Lords. I did not want to leave your Lordships with the impression that I was in any way being specifically critical of the Northern Ireland Civil Service. I was not. I was being critical of the way in which the Northern Ireland Civil Service has been managed by the Government.

We have always had a Civil Service in Northern Ireland of which we have been proud and I am sure we still have that. I wanted that to be on the record.

I had not intended to speak, but I found some of the comments depressing. As a one-time Minister, I have great sympathy for the noble Baroness today. She has to cover subject, after subject, after subject, the detail of which it would be difficult for her to understand. It is at present one of the most difficult portfolios to hold, particularly because of the way in which this budget is discussed in Parliament.

There has been criticism of the Orders in Council, which is right, and there has of course been the confirmation that we have no Assembly in Northern Ireland due to the political situation within the Province. The process, for which the Minister is now responsible and must reply to, must be brought to an end. It is inadequate and unsatisfactory for everyone.

Therefore, we look towards September, the possible resolution of the political divisions in Northern Ireland and the return of democracy to Stormont. At the moment, that does not look hopeful. The people have voted for parties of the extremes and the likelihood of an agreement emerging in September is, in my opinion, unlikely.

That being the case, we cannot continue with a suspended Assembly. One of the items in the budget is, of course, continued payments to Assembly Members and to their staff. I have defended them on previous occasions, but they have been made for the past two years. They are indefensible in future. If there is not agreement on an Assembly at Stormont, we must face up to the reality that devolution and the Belfast agreement have failed and that Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom will have to be governed from here in London on a more democratic basis, where the elected representatives are answerable for the decisions taken in Northern Ireland.

There are hundreds of issues in the order, so the Minister cannot be expected to know them all. One of the more important is the reform of the rating system in Northern Ireland. I have spoken on the matter previously, and pointed out that Northern Ireland is in competition with southern Ireland to attract inward investment. Southern Ireland has always had, and still has, the advantage of a low corporation tax—10 per cent. In Northern Ireland, although we had the high UK corporation tax, none the less, it was possible to point out to inward investors that we had derating for industrial premises.

But now what have we? We have the Government saying, "We are going to introduce rates for industrial premises. We are going to introduce rates for empty commercial and retail outlets". Incidentally, that move will deflate the property market in Northern Ireland as empty premises will now be sold rather than waiting for a potential tenant. So we are going to damage commercial property values in Northern Ireland and, at the same time, damage industrial investment.

4.30 p.m.

The Government have said, "While we introduce rates for industrial premises, at the same time we will initiate a reduction electricity prices for Northern Ireland". But recently the European Union, as it so often does, has rejected this initiative on the part of the Government. Thus the advantage of reduced electricity prices to balance the disadvantage of rates on industrial premises has now been lost. That being the case, since the Government's argument has now been undermined by the decision taken in Europe, I would suggest to Her Majesty's Government that this matter should be reviewed before any final decision is taken. If Northern Ireland is to be put at a disadvantage in comparison with southern Ireland—not only on the issue of corporation tax, but also on energy prices and rates—then that is bad news for the economy of Northern Ireland.

Having said that, I am not one of those who criticises the Government about everything in Northern Ireland, although there has been a lot of criticism today. Rather, I have to say that Northern Ireland is a wonderful place, even under the present Government. Things are going well. The population is increasing. I mentioned earlier the birth rate—we are now 1.7 million. Our unemployment is falling and our employment is increasing. Tourism is prospering and house prices are soaring. There is good news from Northern Ireland as well, so let us in Northern Ireland not always be seen to be complaining and bellyaching.

Why is the population increasing? It is doing so because young people who left Northern Ireland during the 30 years of the Troubles are now coming back. In addition—although the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, may be shocked by this—many English people are coming to live in Northern Ireland, saying that the quality of life is far better than that to be found in many other parts of the United Kingdom. I can cite many examples of that in my own constituency because, as a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, I happen to be one of the rare species who is an elected representative in the House of Lords. In the constituency of Strangford, the census records that around 8 per cent of the population was born in Great Britain, not in Northern Ireland.

One or two other issues have been mentioned. The noble Lord, Lord Shutt, spoke of the cost of education. He was quite right to point out that the cost of education per head of the population of Northern Ireland is much higher than it is in England. I cite the higher birth rate as one reason for that. We have more children per family than is the case in England. But there are other burdens, one of which is supported by the noble Lord; that is, that we have different systems of education. We are financing three systems of education in Northern Ireland, not one. We finance the state system, the Roman Catholic system and, increasingly, we are financing the costly integrated system. The result of all that is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, pointed out, we now have schools which do not have sufficient pupils. That is because in each town we are sharing them out between different schools.

Does the noble Lord agree that, because depopulation in some areas has resulted in insufficient pupils to support two forms of education, it presents a wonderful opportunity for another form of integrated education? In that way a small village can have at least one viable school rather than two non-viable schools.

That is not practical in Northern Ireland. We have been through this throughout the history of Northern Ireland. The Roman Catholic Church requires its own education system and Unionist governments from 1921 onwards have supported that. The notion that that should be in some way removed and replaced with an integrated system is a political path which I will not go down.

What the noble Lord is saying is completely false. We have seven new schools coming through this year, two of which are transformed schools. We cannot keep up with the demand for integrated education. In small villages Protestant and Catholic schools are dying on their feet, so they come to us and ask for an integrated system.

The noble Lord referred to the fact that the British Government now support this move. They are supporting it after we sustained it for three years. We have had to prove the credibility of integrated education before it received government funding.

That is partly correct.

It is not partly correct, it is correct.

No, that is only partly correct. I know the situation in the different towns in Northern Ireland, and we are beginning to finance three systems. I am correct in saying that, not incorrect. Those three systems are the state system, the Roman Catholic system and now an integrated system. The Government are supporting all three. That means that three types of schools are competing for children in each town and each village. In smaller villages, there is no way in which there can be three schools. It was bad enough having two. In England, there would be only one, and it would be a viable unit.

At the moment, it is not practical politics to suggest that the Roman Catholic Church should in some way close down its schools. That will remain a separate system in Northern Ireland, and I caution anyone to suggest that we should take on the Church to close down its school system in Northern Ireland.

On the question of roads, I must compliment the Government on the new bypasses that have been built in places such as Newtonstewart, Strabane and Omagh. However, I suggest that some thought be given to provision in Cookstown, which is one of the worst towns to get through when travelling to the west of the Province. I see many Members of the Committee nodding their heads in agreement. That requires priority attention, but it does not seem to be mentioned very often. Likewise, the road from Ballymena to Coleraine needs attention. We hear so much about the roads to Newry or Dublin, but the road to Larne, for example, carries twice as many cars as the road to Dublin. Why should the road to Dublin get priority from the noble Lord, Lord Shutt? That priority should be given to the road to Larne, which carries 16,000 vehicles per day. The Roads Service needs to give more thought to the road from Ballymena to Coleraine, and to a bypass at Cookstown.

I support the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, on the issue of railways. He mentioned something of which I was not aware and was interested to hear: that the same consultants were employed by both the southern Irish regime and the Northern Ireland Office. Interestingly, as a result of the southern Ireland part of it, the railway system is going to be expanded, whereas we in Northern Ireland are considering curtailing it. I hope that further thought will be given to the matter. The railway system from Ballymena up to Coleraine and Londonderry is vital for the second city in Northern Ireland. As road traffic increases, it is important that we have the alternative of the railway system, and I hope that no decision will be made to close that particular railway line.

I want to see some savings in the budget. In particular, I suggest that the Civic Forum should be done away with immediately—not pending some future reorganisation of public services or government in Northern Ireland. The Civic Forum has been an absolute disaster and a total waste of money, and it is astounding that while it is suspended it is going to cost us more in the forthcoming year. That is ridiculous. It is simply a talking shop and served no purpose whatever, even when the Assembly was in session.

Another move that could save money—the cost of a bypass somewhere, or £4 million to £5 million a year—would be the removal of the area health and social service councils, which serve no purpose whatever in Northern Ireland. We already have area health boards, and we do not need the social service councils.

Planning is important. The NIPSA strike has been mentioned. That is a serious matter. Planning is bad enough in Northern Ireland without having a strike. People who are investing and coming into Northern Ireland will tell you that planning decisions take much longer in Northern Ireland than they do for similar projects in Great Britain. Retail outlets are horrified at the time it takes to invest in Northern Ireland, due to the delays in the planning system, which lacks resources.

Recently I saw a case of a planning application in Armagh city to convert a room into an office. It was accepted in February, but six months later no decision has been made because of lack of resources. Now it may not be made for another few months, if there is going to be a strike. So there needs to be further investment in the planning service in Northern Ireland.

One project that is coming to some parts of Ireland is the Ikea store. It has difficulties in going to the Republic of Ireland because there is a restriction on the size of stores there. It could come to Northern Ireland if we had a proactive planning service in Northern Ireland and a proactive approach by the Government. The Government's attitude is that they do not want to speak to Ikea because they do not support stores. However, there are different ways and means in which to encourage a store of that nature. People go in their hundreds and perhaps their thousands from Northern Ireland to Scotland to go to the Ikea store. It would be a very popular store to have in the island of Ireland—and one hopes in Northern Ireland. But that requires the Government to show an interest and not just sit back and take no action.

Finally, I conclude on European Union money and the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, and others. The noble Lord said that he could not understand how much money was coming from Europe and how much was being spent in Northern Ireland. However, he failed to ask the third vital question—how much in the first instance Northern Ireland is sending to European Union, before the EU sends money back and before we then spend it. The bad news is that we send more to the European Union than we get back.

I should like to make a few brief comments. However, before I do, I should like to respond to a few things that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said.

Kilclooney!

I do apologise, but I have known the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, a long time and old habits die hard.

The noble Lord said that it would be a shock to me to know that the population was expanding in Northern Ireland and that people from England were moving there. Not at all. Northern Ireland is a wonderful place and I am not at all surprised that people want to live there, now that the environment is more peaceful—although not peaceful enough—and with the economy doing well. Equally, I understand about living standards there. Other costs are lower, certainly than in the south-east of England, people's disposable income is higher and therefore their living standards are higher. That does not shock me at all.

The noble Lord referred to integrated education. He said that there were three different systems of schools and that he could not support them. First, every integrated school in Northern Ireland is full, and I understand that most are heavily oversubscribed. There is not a single integrated school in the history of Northern Ireland that has ever failed; they are incredibly successful and parents want them. I should have thought that it was right, in a democratic society, that when parents wanted the choice of a particular form of school for their children, that approach should be supported fully by the Government.

Some of us in the All-Party Group on Integrated Education in Northern Ireland had a meeting with an Education Minister recently and put those various points to him. Although there is progress on integrated education, it is not moving as quickly as some of us would wish. But I dissent from the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, when he talked about integrated schools being a burden. Indeed, they are not a burden but economically successful because they are full and over subscribed. If other schools are less popular, that is not an argument for denying parents the choice of an integrated school.

I must explain, because I believe that there has been a misunderstanding. I did not say that those schools were a burden; I said that the Government in Northern Ireland has to finance three systems of education there—the state system, the integrated system and the Roman Catholic system, whereas in England there is only the one system. I never used the word "burden". I am saying that we have to finance more than they have to in England, which is the simple explanation why education costs are so much higher in Northern Ireland than they are in England.

I understand what the noble Lord is saying, although I should have thought that the reason why education costs are higher in Northern Ireland could only very slightly be attributed to integrated education. If one considers the benefits of integrated education, on which we should not spend too much time in a debate on the budget, I would say that the benefit to the society of Northern Ireland was out of all proportion to the costs of integrated schools.

One further point about integrated education is that the Government are paying for teacher training. Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom in which teacher training is segregated on grounds of religion—not on a tripartite system, but with a Catholic teacher training establishment and a Protestant one.

That is not quite true. Teacher training in the University of Ulster, over which I have the honour to preside, is integrated.

That is welcome. However, with the exception of the example given by the noble Lord, most teacher-training in Northern Ireland is segregated. It seems contrary to the principles of higher education that there should be religious segregation—all the more so because some of those teachers will teach in integrated schools. Such a division seems wrong, and the Government fund it. All that I am saying is that, if the Government fund a system, they have a little leverage on the powers that be to make some progress. That is my plea.

My comments on the railways will be much more popular, as I agree very much with what was said. In Britain we are still suffering from the vandalism perpetrated by the Beeching cuts. There are many areas of the country where people would dearly wish to restore the railways, although they are not always able to, as some have disappeared altogether. They can be restored more economically than the old system that they replaced.

I would hate to see the lovely railway system along the north coast of Northern Ireland closed down and destroyed. It is an asset in terms of tourism, the economy and links between the two main cities in Northern Ireland. It would be most unfortunate if the Government did not feel able to continue that system. I only wish that they would say, "Yes, we will keep them and modernise them". The superb modernised system between Belfast and Dublin is one of the best railways not only in Ireland but also in Britain. If we can have a good system there, I do not see why we cannot have a decent, modern, effective and economic railway system linking the two main cities in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Government will reconsider their approach, as evidenced by the consultation documents, of thinking of closing it.

I had not intended to speak on this order, but some of the matters raised have encouraged me to do so. There has been debate on the extent to which education costs derive from the fact that we have three parallel systems. We accept that having three systems increases the cost of delivering education; we live with that.

The education system endeavours to cater for all children right across the board, which it does with considerable success. I declare an interest as a former primary school principal, but Northern Ireland compares favourably with the rest of the United Kingdom in its delivery of education. Despite that, we are now having the Costello report imposed on us. I do not have time to go into the detail of what it entails and its impact on the education system, nor is this the place for me to do so. But it is significant that when I asked what sort of infrastructure audit had been carried out of the current education provision, from which the Costello report would have to be implemented, I was told bluntly that there had been no infrastructural audit.

My reason for rising to my feet is that it is absolutely intolerable that we have the sort of disruption that Costello will bring to the education system in Northern Ireland. We are being told that there has been no infrastructure audit and no real thought has been given to how Costello can gel with what is currently a fairly successful system. If that is the basis on which educational planning is being carried forward by this Government, how can we have any hope of proper financial planning or use of the finite resources that are available? I shall be particularly interested to hear what the Minister has to say on that. My question derives from the statement to the effect that there has been no infrastructure audit of educational facilities in Northern Ireland. How can one make changes without having assessed one's starting point?

My one other point relates to the issue of autism, raised by my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Laird. There is a gap left where the Department of Education and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety between them fail autistic children. A great deal of emphasis has been placed on early intervention, and I have personal experience of how that can be successful. Early intervention is working fairly well within Northern Ireland. But there is a gap, because not all children are diagnosed—identified may be a better word—at an early age. With nine to 18 year-olds, to chose an arbitrary period, there is a huge gap.

Young people in the home, with parents who want to do the best for them, may have such behavioural problems that it is an exceedingly difficult task. There is no one for children at that age to whom the parents can turn. There are no properly trained nurses to go out to the homes to give on the spot advice on how those young people can be catered for. That is a very sad and trying situation for families who encounter that difficulty. Will the Minister indicate where, within the budgetary facilities that are being discussed here today, there is planning to provide resources to fill that gap for the nine to 18 year-old autistic young people who have been missed out in the past?

I must apologise for not being here at the beginning of the sitting. I am not going to speak about any particular subject. We come back here every year and say the same things or a variation on the same things, and, to be honest, I have not seen one single major benefit come out of our long discussions. That is not just because the Government do not listen. We inevitably get changes in Ministers and changes of emphasis, and we are always waiting for the next step forward—for September, when we either will or will not get an Assembly back.

There has been far too much inactivity through the Ministers, who are the only people who can action anything. I am not accusing them of being useless, or of anything like that. We have had some excellent Ministers; in fact, the more excellent they are, the quicker they are moved, which is also a problem. We seriously need somebody to get a grip on the infrastructure, as the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, was saying. That is not simple, but someone must get a grip on it, stop talking about it and stop looking at it as if it were something to be handed back next week or next month. I wish those issues could have been handed back so quickly, but we were talking about "next week or next month" in 1971 and 1972, and we are still talking about it.

The noble Lord, Lord Shutt, referred to the region being as big as Hampshire or Dorset—and there are other very big counties in England. The Committee should consider the number of health boards, education boards and cross-border groups—which I am not against; it should consider the number of cross-border organisations, such as Waterways Ireland, the Rivers Agency, the Loughs Agency and so on. I shall tell the Committee where the cost goes: it goes because nobody has settled down, got a grip on things and made a decision.

There have been numerous consultations about what to do with the health service, with regard to the boards, and what to do with the number of education and library boards. We even had one on the water system, considering the issue of fluoride. To be honest, the options have been there, and the governments of the day—and this happened with the Conservatives, too, so the issue is not about Labour—have simply sidelined the issues. While they continue to do that, we will be back next year with exactly the same problem.

With Waterways Ireland and the Rivers Agency, for example, things are in a complete muddle. I can tell Members of the Committee that, because there is an incidence of that confusion down on Lough Erne. People do not know where the dividing line is between the two bodies. I was not going to mention this matter, but now I shall: there is a jetty at the Share Centre for handicapped people, on public ground. It was put up about 20 years ago, and it is now too dangerous to use. I have been on to Waterways Ireland, which has £7 million that it did not spend, but it absolutely refuses to move on the matter. I know that that body will say that it is consulting, because it told me that, and I have goodness knows how many letters. I have been on to the Rivers Agency, which said that the matter was nothing to do with it.

That is bureaucracy of the highest order. With Waterways Ireland in Fermanagh in particular, I know a lot of people working in that region who say that the body is simply not allowed to produce policy within the system under their present leadership. That leadership has no interest whatever in being in Fermanagh—it was moved from Dublin.

I can promise the Committee that the expenditure that we are discussing today is controlled by bureaucracy because nobody will get a grip on things. The sooner that someone gets a grip on things, the sooner we can sort things out.

When I introduced the counties of Hampshire and Dorset, I had no idea whether they are well or badly run. I just put them forward as a population group which is virtually identical with the population of Northern Ireland. With Dorset and Hampshire, two bureaucracies would be involved, while there is one in Northern Ireland.

I used the example of education because it was easier to get hold of the figure. There is a £1,300 million spend on it in Northern Ireland. Yes, there may be ways in which to chip at the figure—to say that it includes this and that that is not being taken account of and that the comparative figure may be a bit more. But I do not believe that they would meet.

I am not saying that more is spent on education than ought to be spent. It may well be exactly as it ought to be. I am saying that the only advantage of noble Lords being here today is that many of us who live in England can say, "We are looking at this Northern Ireland order but what does it look like in England? How can we make some comparisons?".

I suggest that there is a comparator and that there may be areas of service in which it could be seen as a benchmark and questions asked. I suspect that the bureaucracy issue will be one of them.

I rise briefly to support the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, in his expression of optimism in relation to Northern Ireland. Prior to his speaking, I heard voices from the past, since the Northern Ireland state came into being. When the state came into being, there have been people in charge of affairs who always want to wear the mantle of victimhood. There was someone always against them.

I have sat in previous Northern Ireland parliaments and there was a time when the Catholic minority, the nationalist minority, felt that they were the victims. Now that that has been changed, to a large extent the Unionist Party feels that it is the victim. As I have listened today, I have felt like supporting the Government in what they decide to do in Northern Ireland. The state that exists there now has not been brought about by the British Government; it has been brought about by the Northern Ireland electorate, electing people they supported. For example, no one cast a vote to send all of us here today. Those who were politicians may have been voted for, but no one cast a vote to send us here. I know that in Northern Ireland, as in other parts of the United Kingdom, there is a revulsion at the very existence of this place.

The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, was right when a few weeks ago he put all the Northern Ireland orders he had received that morning on the Dispatch Box. I find it absolutely impossible to contend with all the paraphernalia that we receive from the Northern Ireland Office. No one, and particularly an individual such as myself, could possibly deal with every aspect of the legislation contained therein. It is different for the Unionist Party. Members of the Ulster Unionist Party here have secretarial assistance.

We criticise many aspects of what the Government are doing in relation to legislation in Northern Ireland; for example, these orders. We have a half-time Assembly in Northern Ireland. Before these orders were printed, did the Northern Ireland Office have discussions with the elected representatives to the Northern Ireland Assembly? Did it ask for their opinion? The representatives are on some sort of a wage and they can say that they were the latest people to have felt the support of the Northern Ireland electorate.

The orders have been drawn up possibly by civil servants. In the absence of an Assembly and the opinions of the Members, it must be left to civil servants. There is no other way of legislating for everyday happenings in Northern Ireland. By the way, I think that the Anti-social Behaviour Order and the Dangerous Wild Animals Order could be combined. However, I cannot see any part of Northern Ireland, particularly in West Belfast, which I know well, which could in any way implement the provisions of the Antisocial Behaviour Order in Northern Ireland. There is some talk of putting tags on people who have been involved in that behaviour. Can you imaging kids running around Ballymurphy or—

The noble Lord must speak to the order before us.

Yes, I know I have diverted. I was trying to illustrate that it is impossible for us to deal with the orders that we have coming in by every post. They should be dealt with in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Its members have been elected and have more authority than, for example, noble Lords in this House. They can say that they sought the opinions of the electors. The two main political parties in control of Northern Ireland are not represented here. One of them is represented in the other place but the other—Sinn Fein—is not represented at all. I wonder what sort of input they had in the discussions that have led to the promulgation of these orders?

Where do we go from here? I think that the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, was quite right when he talked about getting a grip on things. Now, to translate that into language that we understand, how does one get a grip on things? We have an Assembly in Northern Ireland that does not want to get a grip on anything. The members of the Assembly will be the people who should be taking decisions on these orders and will be, we hope, in September.

Again, I can hear voices from the past, particularly that of the noble Lord, Lord Laird. The political developments that have taken place in the wake of the Good Friday Agreement—the cross-border agreements—are not to the taste of everybody in Northern Ireland. Quite a lot of people in Northern Ireland see the cross-border agreements as being some form of concession to Sinn Fein, to the total exclusion of the Unionist majority in Northern Ireland.

So what should we concentrate on before we begin to unravel and understand most of this? I think we should concentrate on trying to get the Assembly in Northern Ireland re-established. The people to talk to are not us. We have no influence in the streets and byways of Northern Ireland. The groups who should be talked to, if we can talk to them, are Sinn Fein and the Democratic Unionist Party. They hold the key to political progress in Northern Ireland. Aside from all the talking that we do here and the well-intentioned remarks that we make, it is those two political parties.

By the way, did the Government talk to the SDLP or any other political party in Northern Ireland on these orders before they put them into print? If they did not, they should have. I do not believe that any criticism of the Northern Ireland Civil Service is justified. We have a civil service that has served the community in Northern Ireland well over many troublesome years. They are in this position now because there is no one else to accept the responsibility that they have to accept in relation to the promulgation of these orders. I can only advise the Leader of the House, in consultation with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, to use every endeavour to relieve this House and its individual Members of the burden of trying to go through these orders and to get the decisions taken where they should be taken, in the Northern Ireland Assembly.

The noble Lord referred to me in his speech. I wish to make the point that it is not that I, as an Ulster Unionist, am opposed to cross-border bodies, because it is quite something to have had a chairman of a cross-border body from the Ulster Unionist party. It is not that. It is that the cross-border bodies do not operate fairly, if they operated fairly, I would be totally in support of them. I am not a voice from the past. I am a great supporter and admirer of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and his acumen for explaining things. However, I wish to clarify my position for the Committee.

I could not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, more about relieving all of us of the burden of considering these orders in the detail that we must. I entirely agree with the sentiments that have been expressed in Grand Committee this afternoon and I share the regret that has been expressed by noble Lords that we have to consider these orders this afternoon.

Members of the Committee will be well aware that we have been focusing on trying to reach agreement. We have urged the party to maintain its engagement over the summer. The Committee will also be aware that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach have said that efforts need to be made to step up the dialogue and discussions so that we can try to come to a resolution.

I thank Members of the Committee for recognising that responding to today's debate will be something of a Herculean task. I shall do my best. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, asked questions about whether political parties had been consulted on the budget order. I can assure him that they were consulted.

I shall start by addressing some of the more general points that have been made before moving on to the specific points. I shall start with some of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, with respect to the Barnett formula and so forth, before going on to some of the issues about efficiency that were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and others.

The Barnett formula represents the mechanism for determining changes to the devolved budget. Thus, there is no difference between the resources that come through Barnett and other resources that are allocated to local ministries in order to address spending priorities in Northern Ireland. The noble Lord, Lord Shutt, raised some specific points about the detail of the estimates, particularly the additionality of EU funds. The allocation of EU funds is factored into the sums set out in the estimates. The additionality of funds is validated by the Treasury to ensure that the full draw down is achieved.

Regarding EU moneys more generally, it is important to appreciate that those estimates are a financial statement. The allocations made by various EU bodies are fully reported on in the various EU monitoring committee reports that are produced annually. Of course, that is a requirement by the European Commission auditors.

The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, spoke about efficiency duplication, the efficiency review and bureaucracy in some detail, but it was also raised by the noble Lords, Lord Smith of Clifton and Lord Molyneaux and others. On the efficiency review, we are committed to at least matching the efficiency targets. In numerical terms, that means achieving efficiency gains in excess of £500 million by 2007–08. In addition, administration costs will be held at the 2005–06 levels for 2006–07 and 2007–08.

Some initial work has been undertaken. Members of the Committee will be pleased to learn that the rationalisation of back-office functions, such as finance and personnel, is a key area where savings can be delivered. The ongoing review of public administration addresses the relative costs of running Northern Ireland, which is an issue raised particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, and the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough. The work includes benchmarking the costs of producing health and education with comparable areas in England and elsewhere.

The use of consultants exercises the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton. The recent audit office report into the employment of consultants by Northern Ireland departments of course identified some shortcomings in procedures and recording systems. But the report also acknowledged the significant pressures that exist with the introduction of devolution, the creation of the four new departments and the introduction of resource accounting and budgeting. As I think that I made clear to the noble Lord when this was raised on the Floor of the House in a Starred Question, we are of course looking at the recommendations in that report in order to put them into effect.

The noble Lord, Lord Shutt, raised the broader question of consultation and the quality of that consultation, and more general concerns were raised by Members of the Committee. We carry out consultation precisely because it is important that we find out and understand what communities want. But Members of the Committee also need to recognise that we have a statutory requirement, under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, to carry out consultation. So it is something that the Government think is important, but it is also a statutory requirement.

5.15 p.m.

The issue of public administration was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. The review was launched in 2002 and the noble Lord was concerned about where we have got to with it. It is the most far-reaching examination ever of how public services in Northern Ireland are organised and delivered and aims to deliver a more effective and efficient system of public administration to the people of Northern Ireland.

In consultation with the main political parties it is planned to publish a firm proposals paper for consultation in the autumn of this year. The scale of the proposed reform will inevitably require a lengthy implementation phase, which will allow sufficient time for a return to devolution and for the local executive to influence the final outcome. Yesterday, my honourable friend Ian Pearson announced his view that a reduction in the number of district councils and health bodies would be appropriate. That, of course, will be a key issue for the consultation process.

The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, also raised absenteeism. As a result of a recent PAC report, DFP has issued to all departments a new circular that puts in place a robust monitoring system which will address the problem at a much earlier stage through a trigger-point system. That will bring about a measurable improvement. The noble Lord also asked for the statistics relating to 2003–04. Those statistics are not yet available, but when they are I shall ensure that the noble Lord has a copy of them.

As regards the pay dispute, I recognise that the dispute is having an impact on particular key services and is causing not only inconvenience but also some hardship to the public. We are working hard to secure an early settlement in order to return public services to their usual high standard. Last week, the management side presented a number of proposals to the trade union in an effort to break the deadlock. For its part, the trade union also tabled some proposals, which are being considered by the management side.

However, talks between management of the Civil Service and representatives of the Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance were adjourned by the trade union at lunchtime last Friday. That was because the trade union indicated that it did not believe that it could reach a settlement of the dispute on the basis of the overall pay remit set by the Government for the negotiations. The trade union has now sought an early meeting with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to seek to have the pay remit figure increased for the Northern Ireland Civil Service. That request is now being considered and an early response will be sent to the trade union.

On the more specific point of the impact that that dispute is having on the payments of subsidies and grants, NIPSA called a strike for administrative staff in payments branch, Orchard House, Derry/Londonderry. While the strike started on 12 March, on 6 July more than half of the staff taking part in the industrial action returned to work. The return to work of those staff will help the departments concentrate on priority work areas and, in particular, those cases where payments have been delayed due to queries.

Despite the strike action, the Department for Agricultural and Rural Development has made many of the subsidy balance payments now due. The amount of subsidy processed since 12 May stands at £39.8 million. Around £20 million remains to be paid. That largely reflects query and penalty cases that have failed the automated cross-checks. Action is in hand to process those cases so that the majority of the still outstanding payments can be processed over the coming days.

The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, also raised concerns about what is happening to the health service in Northern Ireland. There is a regional programme of work being taken forward in 2004–05 to examine how pressures on hospitals can be eased.

A number of Members of the Committee raised questions about education. The noble Lords, Lord Glentoran, Lord Laird and Lord Maginnis, asked specific questions in relation to the review of post-primary education. I know that there are very strongly held and diverse views about academic selection in Northern Ireland. However, change is unavoidable. There are weaknesses in our current arrangements that must be addressed. The decline in pupil numbers cannot be ignored.

The Government's review of post-primary education will build on the strengths of the current system offering both choice and flexibility and will provide all pupils with education that they see as relevant to their needs. All schools, including grammar schools, can have a place under the new arrangements. But those offering a traditional academic emphasis must also offer people access to a guaranteed minimum number of vocational courses.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Does she not find it somewhat strange that at a time when this new Labour Government have abandoned the idea of turning grammar schools in Great Britain into comprehensive schools and have declared that they have no further ambition in that direction, they now seek to undermine the element within education in Northern Ireland that has been a huge success over so many years?

Is it not inappropriate that the Government have no idea of the number of teacher or pupil hours that would be involved in moving children or teachers from one school to another? They just have not bothered to find out the impact of the Costello report. That is the difficulty we have. We believe that our educational system can stand on its own feet because it is a good system, but it is being destroyed without any preplanning.

I do not agree with the noble Lord. He is not right when he talks about the Government abandoning plans in England and Wales where they have made absolutely clear that they want to achieve a balance between flexibility and choice, which is what they want to achieve in Northern Ireland as well.

That means nothing.

No, I do not agree with that. It does not mean nothing. It means that the Government are seeking to ensure that we have a system that puts excellence at the heart but which, at the same time, meets the needs of all pupils. To do that, we recognise that we must have a range of provisions. In my earlier comments, I made absolutely clear that all schools, including grammar schools, can have a place under the new arrangements. Those schools offering a traditional academic emphasis will also need to offer a guaranteed minimum number of vocational courses.

If the noble Lord has looked at the education system in England and Wales he will know that in seeking to encourage specialisation in city academies some 10 per cent of pupils are drawn through selection. That is part of the method to enhance excellence and to draw people in from a wider area while, at the same, encouraging excellence in a local school. That mix of choice, flexibility and excellence is precisely what we would also like to see in Northern Ireland.

As regards the Department for Education provision, the budget includes £3.2 million for the review of post-primary education in order to provide for ongoing groundwork to support implementation of revised arrangements. The questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, with respect to the knowledge that we have of what currently exists will be picked up through that review. But it will not he possible to estimate the total cost of those arrangements until decisions begin to emerge at a local level.

The issue of integrated education was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Hylton and Lord Kilclooney, and my noble friend Lord Dubs. The noble Baroness, Lady Blood, made her view of what is happening at a local level absolutely clear. Integrated education is accorded the highest priority, but long-term planning of schools infrastructure needs to consider factors, such as rapidly-falling birth rates. Such factors have significant influences on school building provision.

Regarding the specific question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Laird, about works for the schools estate, the order contains a specific provision of £26 million for minor works to improve the schools estate, including the removal of temporary classrooms and improved access for those with disabilities. That is in addition to the already substantial planned investment in the schools estate. On 27 April my honourable friend Barry Gardiner announced an investment programme covering 43 schools, including the funding of 12 schools through public/private partnership.

The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, asked about children with autistic spectrum disorder and the noble Lord, Lord Laird, mentioned a specific case which, of course, I cannot address here. I understand that there will be an additional £0.5 million allocated to develop diagnostic assessment and early support services in 2004–05. The establishment of multi-disciplinary diagnostic and assessment teams will reduce waiting times for diagnosis and provide initial support for parents.

DHSSPS is working closely with the Department for Education to implement the recommendations in the task group report on the education of children and young people with autistic spectrum disorder and on the establishment of a centre of excellence in autism at Middletown.

The noble Lord, Lord Laird, asked about the student numbers cap. Currently, the Department for Employment and Learning is carrying out a public consultation exercise on the Higher Education Bill. The Minister with responsibility for employment and learning will wish to consider the issue of removing any cap on student numbers as part of that consultation exercise.

The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, referred to planning. I fully appreciate the concerns raised by Members of the Committee on that issue. I would also point out that the planning service is now in its second year of a three-year programme to deliver fundamental reforms to the planning system. A number of key issues have already been addressed. Further significant progress will be achieved over the next six months.

I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. I only made the point in relation to the strike. Had I been making some points about the planning service, I would have had to have declared an interest: I have had an application in for two-and-a-half years. That is why I stayed away from that point.

I thank the noble Lord for that clarification. The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, raised some concerns about the underspend in certain programmes and the Strategic Investment Board. Of £220 million of departmental underspend, some £157 million relates to slippage in capital programmes. I know that raises some bigger questions about why there has been that degree of slippage in capital programmes, but all of us will recognise that it is very unusual for a capital programme not to experience slippage.

The Strategic Investment Board was established in April last year to facilitate the development of key infrastructure programmes. The focusing of high calibre expertise and advice has enabled us to take forward a number of significant infrastructure investment programmes in key areas, including water treatment, education and roads.

I turn to the railways, an issue which I know is of concern to many noble Lords. It was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Shutt, Lord Laird and Lord Kilclooney, and my noble friend Lord Dubs. Closure of the railways on the non-core lines is only one option which is still out for consultation. Ministers need to take on board all the options and consider the economic, social and environmental impact in the wider budgetary context. Noble Lords will recognise that we need to address a number of pressing issues. The consultation exercise follows a statutory requirement and will conclude on 23 July. We will of course have to ensure that we achieve maximum value for money.

5.30 p.m.

On the issue of investment in the roads, a matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, the funding allocated to the road service as part of the regional transportation strategy will see significant improvements on the major roads mentioned by the noble Lord.

Concerns were also expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Laird and Lord Kilclooney, about the cost of the civic forum. The provision in the order is for the full-year costs of the body. The figure quoted for previous years reflects actual costs during suspension, hence the apparent increase. We all hope that suspension will cease, so the approach we have taken in the budget is consistent with our wish for an early restoration of devolution. In the event that the resources are not needed by the civic forum, they will be reallocated to other priority areas. So I can reassure noble Lords that the money will not simply be allocated and then not spent. The noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, also spoke of the wider role of the civic forum. That will form part of the review and of the talks.

The noble Lord, Lord Laird, asked about funding for the North/South bodies. Indeed, the noble Lord has written to me on many occasions about this matter. All budgets for North/South bodies are agreed jointly by the government of both the North and the South. The 2004 budgets for each of the bodies have now been jointly agreed. Under current arrangements, North/South bodies are required to operate on a care and maintenance basis only and, in this context, budget proposals should not include any substantive development costs. I am well aware of the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Laird, about the level of the budget allocated for the Ulster Scots Agency in 2004. He has tabled a number of Written Questions on the matter.

When the noble Baroness says that the budgets have been "agreed", with whom have they been agreed? One of the planks of the current political process in Northern Ireland is consultation. I believe in consultation since I will talk to anyone about almost anything. But no discussion or agreement has taken place between the agency, the implementation bodies, the language body and both governments. That is the point I cannot understand.

As for care and maintenance, the language body seems to be the only one to suffer this business of care and maintenance. Waterways Ireland is to have a 40 per cent increase in its budget for the year 2004. It seems rather unfair that we should be the only body to suffer from care and maintenance. It is not a case of taking new territories. The Ulster Scots Agency was seeking to continue with a policy which it has now had to stop.

I think that the noble Lord and I will have to agree to disagree on this point. I have written to the noble Lord on a number of occasions setting out the consultation which has taken place and the fact that the relevant sponsoring departments have agreed this budget. I am aware that the noble Lord then requested the minutes of meetings which were held. I have explained to the noble Lord in the form of a Written Answer that under data protection legislation it is not possible to supply those minutes. Given that, I think that we will have to disagree. Although I have written to the noble Lord a number of times, it is clear that he does not accept the explanations I have given.

Perhaps I may repeat that the relevant sponsoring departments have agreed that the current budget allocation is an appropriate amount to meet the agency's basic care and maintenance needs for 2004.

Again, agreed with whom? As a former chairman of the body, not to get access to minutes to prove that there was consultation seems somewhat unusual. There was no consultation in the sense of a discussion about policy. There was a telephone call to tell the agency what would be its budget and what had been agreed with the Irish. In my opinion, that does not constitute consultation, discussion or agreement. I cannot understand why, when policies were working successfully last year, they were not allowed to continue. If there was a good reason for their not being allowed to continue, if someone had a better policy, we should have liked to have heard about it. But to do that without discussion, consultation or agreement is crass in the extreme.

Perhaps I can remind the noble Lord that no money was taken away from the Ulster-Scots Agency. The agency received a year-on-year increase. It was not as high as the agency wanted, but many organisations find themselves in that situation. When they receive a year-on-year increase, they make decisions about their priorities. That is all that I can tell the Committee at this point. I am happy to maintain my correspondence with the noble Lord on that point, but I must tell him that I can add nothing further to what I have already said.

On the issue of minutes, again I made clear to the noble Lord in a Written Answer on 23 April that, under Part 2, Paragraph 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, which covers internal discussion and advice, it would be inappropriate for the Government to disclose documentation relating to discussions on the budget for the language body.

Perhaps I am slow on the uptake, but I should like the Minister to explain in more detail because I genuinely fail to understand how access to minutes of a public body can come under the scope of data protection to the extent that the democratic process can be undermined so that public representatives in this and another place do not have access to the minutes relating to the functioning of a public body. I fail to understand.

Clearly, if a public body is holding an open meeting discussing its budget, that information is widely available. If there is an internal discussion between the body and its parent department—Members of the Committee who have operated in public bodies will understand this—that is a matter of internal discussion and advice, which then goes to Ministers and is not in the public domain. There is no problem here. There is no other body in which that is recognised as being a problem.

The noble Lord, Lord Laird, also raised the issue of the staff of the North-South Ministerial Council secretariat having contact with the Ulster Political Research Group. Staff from the secretariat, acting in their capacity as officials of the Irish Government and OFMDFM, have helped to facilitate meetings between members of the Ulster Political Research Group as part of the overall policy of community engagement endorsed by the British and Irish Governments. No other support or funding has been provided by the Government.

The noble Lord also raised the issue of funding for festivals. Review of funding for festivals has been undertaken to inform future strategy for government support of festivals. The report has been considered by Ministers and a policy and guidance framework based on the report's recommendations is being developed.

The noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, asked specifically about the removal of industrial derating. We have discussed the topic before in Grand Committee. I remind the noble Lord that firms will have had more than eight years from when the policy decision to remove industrial derating was first announced to prepare for the payment of full rates.

Finally, two other matters were raised. The first was the issue of economic inequalities between the north and the south, also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney. The Republic of Ireland economy has indeed grown dramatically during the past decade but it was starting from a very low base. It has also had fiscal and monetary autonomy, which Northern Ireland does not have, but the main economic indicators in both north and south are still heading in the same, favourable direction. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, raised the specific issue of working to help those who want to cease a life of violence. I shall have to write to him on that.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

I beg to move that the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the draft Anti-social Behaviour (Northern Ireland) Order 2004.

The proposals contained in the draft Anti-social Behaviour (Northern Ireland) Order 2004 represent measures to protect the public from behaviour which causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. The proposals focus on the introduction of anti-social behaviour orders. They form part of a wider range of measures, including restorative and rehabilitative responses, with the aim of ensuring that the justice system responds appropriately to behaviour which can blight communities and that people in Northern Ireland can enjoy a quality of life that is not ruined by fear of anti-social behaviour.

Anti-social behaviour is a matter of concern to the people of Northern Ireland. The 2001 Northern Ireland Crime Survey reported that more than half of those who responded felt that anti-social behaviour had increased in their area in the previous two years. Fear can have a very disabling effect, particularly for those who are older or more vulnerable, but it is important to note that in this survey younger respondents felt anti-social behaviour to be even more of a problem than those who were older.

The Government fully believe that we must now address the issue legislatively. That decision is informed by findings in Northern Ireland and evidence from practice elsewhere. In June last year, an anti-social behaviour count day in Northern Ireland recorded 3,150 incidents of anti-social behaviour.

In a study commissioned by the Scottish Executive to monitor the use of ASBOs, 62 per cent of local authorities who responded reported a perceived improvement in the behaviour of those given ASBOs. In Manchester, available evidence shows that 60 per cent of those who have ASBOs have not been prosecuted at all, either for breach or for any other offence.

Innovative ways of using ASBOs in England and Wales—for example, in dealing with the blight of illegal advertising—have been recognised in a recent survey by the environmental group, Tidy Northern Ireland, which identified areas where graffiti and illegal advertising were a significant problem.

Anti-social behaviour orders were introduced in England and Wales in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The provisions were added to by the Police Reform Act 2002, which gave criminal courts the power to issue an ASBO on conviction of a criminal offence and increased the number of bodies that could make application, and, most recently, by the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003. Among other things, it provided that on ASBOs made on conviction, evidence used does not have to have been admissible in the proceedings in which the offender was convicted.

In April 2002, a consultation paper was published by the then Secretary of State on community safety in Northern Ireland. Issues identified that needed to be addressed included street violence, low-level neighbourhood disorder and anti-social behaviour. The resultant Community Safety Strategy published in March 2003 identified that anti-social behaviour legislation in England and Wales needed to be examined to see if it was appropriate for Northern Ireland. In the context of the findings in Northern Ireland and evidence from elsewhere, this draft legislation is brought forward.

Most respondents supported what the Government aimed to do. There were concerns from organisations involved with children. The points that they made were considered very carefully, and, as a result of the consultations, the Government included in the draft order the provision for courts to have discretion with regard to reporting restrictions for young people. The wording of the legislation clarifies that, where reporting restrictions are applied, they cover the whole application from start to finish.

5.45 p.m.

The Government concluded that, in the interests of the protection of all in the community, it was necessary to bring forward this legislation for consideration. It is worth noting that an application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of the consultation and the process that the Government followed, brought by the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People, was refused. Indeed, the High Court found "no arguable case" for any of the arguments put before it.

It is essential in Northern Ireland that there is a partnership approach to dealing with anti-social behaviour. The draft order allows initially for three partners: the police, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and district councils. Partnership involving the Housing Executive allows the use of ASBOs without conviction to deal with anti-social behaviour in housing estates where the Housing Executive is the major landlord. Partnership involving district councils will allow anti-social behaviour relating to noise pollution, enforcement of byelaws and licensing laws to be targeted. It may be possible for other bodies to become partners in future, just as the range of partner bodies in England and Wales has expanded.

The draft order provides for the introduction of anti-social behaviour orders as a statutory measure in Northern Ireland. It provides that where there is no associated conviction, the police, the relevant district council or the Northern Ireland Housing Executive would be able to seek an ASBO on application to a magistrates' court in respect of anti-social behaviour. It also provides that ASBOs may be made on conviction in criminal proceedings where the court is satisfied that the convicted person has acted in an anti-social manner and that an ASBO is necessary to protect persons within Northern Ireland from further anti-social acts by him. It further provides that breach of an ASBO would be a criminal offence subject to a penalty of up to five years' imprisonment or a fine or both.

The proposals will form part of the wider range of tools to deal with this kind of behaviour and it is important to note that the Criminal Justice Review proposed a range of restorative and rehabilitative responses to low level crime which are being implemented, including youth conferencing and the police's youth diversion scheme, which involves restorative cautioning for young people under 17.

The measures proposed here do not aim to replace existing measures but to complement them. It is essential that the Government send a clear message that anti-social behaviour is not acceptable and that there are effective sanctions if people choose to act in this way. The Government's aim is to continue to build a safe and tolerant society for all the people of Northern Ireland. I commend the draft order to the Grand Committee.

Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Anti-social Behaviour (Northern Ireland) Order 2004.—(Baroness Amos.)

I thank the noble Baroness the Lord President of the Council for so clearly laying out the order. In passing, I thank her for her patience and clarity in responding to our previous debate.

Reading Hansard from another place, I noticed that David Trimble said that he was surprised that Northern Ireland had waited six years for ASBOs. First, I want to make it quite clear that my party welcomes ASBOs as another weapon in the judicial armoury. There are many areas and occasions in Northern Ireland when ASBOs will be of value.

However, I am concerned that it could take up to three months from application to the delivery an order. Given how I see ASBOs being used in Northern Ireland, with younger people and in relation to unruliness in accommodation, and so on, the need is pretty urgent when such situations arise. Indeed, a certain friend of mine was having a terrible time with the people above him in a Housing Executive apartment, with banging, thumping and crashing at night causing a huge amount of noise. He could not get anyone, including the Housing Executive, to do anything, and ultimately went to the paramilitaries. That was very successful; it only took a few weeks. That is rather like the cynical, sad story that on the Shankill and Falls roads at one time you could get a divorce for £250.

I hope that the efficiency of delivery of ASBOs will be better than three months from the time of request. I should also like reassurance from the noble Baroness that the order will bring Northern Ireland up to date and in line with the legislation in Great Britain: the Police Reform Act 2002 and the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003. I hope that the order incorporates the 1998, 2002 and 2003 Acts.

On a slightly more negative note—although I do not mean to be negative about ASBOs—I should like some information about what the attendant bureaucracy will cost in sterling, but more importantly in time, especially police time. I should not like to think that this is going to be another heavy bureaucratic load on the Police Service of Northern Ireland. I should be grateful if the noble Baroness could enlighten me a little on that, especially as I know that the Government are continually looking for reasons to reduce policing in Northern Ireland. We do not want to introduce another heavy bureaucratic load on the police service when we are talking about having to reduce the level of policing.

However, on the whole, my party welcomes ASBOs. We hope that the Northern Ireland system will allow them to be delivered and used far more effectively than, I understand, they have been in other parts of the United Kingdom.

I, too, thank the noble Baroness for setting out the parameters of ASBOs. We, too, accept that there is increasing cause for concern because of the fear that loutish behaviour can cause. I have seen a great improvement in the environment in Northern Ireland since I was last there five years ago. I am sure that that helps to counter the worst forms of anti-social behaviour. If people have a nice environment, they tend to behave better.

As we have heard, we have had legislation in England since the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and it has taken a long time for that to be initiated in Ireland. Groups in Northern Ireland have significant funds distributed to them of about £3.3 million to solve locally the problems of anti-social behaviour. Of course, there are ways of dealing with anti-social behaviour other than slapping on orders, and I shall refer to them in a moment. Indeed, the Criminal Justice Review talked of other measures, such as restorative justice, as a means of dealing more productively with low-level crime.

The preference on our Benches would be to implement acceptable behaviour contracts (ABCs) before dashing for an ASBO. They have been a success in places such as Islington. If the Committee will allow me, I shall give it an idea of how they have worked there. ABCs, as I shall call them, are voluntary agreements between young people, their parents or carer, and the agencies involved—perhaps landlords, the police, schools, social worker and so on—that certain behaviour is unacceptable and that the young person will stop it.

Their behaviour is monitored over six months and, if the ABC is breached, there are a number of possibilities, from moving to a notice seeking possession of the home, to an ASBO or extending the ABC to some other measure, such as referral to a youth offending team. They are highly effective, quick and cheap to implement, and they involve the community around the young people, supporting them to reform, rather than labelling them as bad.

The good points about ABCs as opposed to ASBOs are that they do not involve the courts, so they are a more practical option for local authorities that want to take quick, cost-effective action, and they are not a step on the criminal justice ladder for the young person involved. They require agencies to work together, which is essential in tackling the issues surrounding anti-social behaviour. As ABCs are voluntary and offender-centred, they require the young person to take responsibility for, and to tackle, their behaviour, and get them appropriate support. Different solutions are found in each case rather than taking a blanket approach—for example, curfews may not be the right answer if the problem is noise from within the home. As ABCs are voluntary, they need to be imposed, so no evidence chain is required. They can be used to nip trouble in the bud rather than waiting for the serious offending that requires an ASBO.

Part of the acceptable behaviour contract is monitoring by appropriate agencies, such as the police, landlords and schools, which can itself be the evidence-gathering necessary for an ASBO, should the ABC fail. Even if people favour ASBOs, they can use ABCs in the interim. Far from being a soft option on anti-social behaviour, the ABC initiative shows that the contracts work. They have been endorsed by the Home Office as a national model. I wonder whether this will be part of the proposals that the Government have in mind. Perhaps the Minister will consider extending the scheme to Northern Ireland.

The Minister has explained how ASBOs will be delivered in Northern Ireland. Will the police become involved only with orders in relation to formal criminal prosecutions? Will the Housing Executive become involved only in relation to activities within public housing estates? Will district councils become involved with ASBOs only in relation to their own property, such as parks, or as part of their jurisdiction on noise pollution?

The Liberal Democrats do not oppose ASBOs in principle, but we have some concerns about the circumstances in which they can be used and the level of seriousness of offence before an order is made.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this order. First, let me say that nobody in Northern Ireland is opposed to a measure that will bring some form of law and order to our Province. Lawlessness is rife in Northern Ireland; it must be looked at and attended to with great urgency. But I have some concerns with the order in its present form in Northern Ireland. I want to raise six points, on which I will be as brief as possible.

The noble Baroness has already referred to the judicial case involving the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People. That raises some concerns. The commissioner's office was approached by almost all the leading children's organisations in Northern Ireland. They expressed concerns about the speed with which the measures were introduced in Northern Ireland and the fact that there was inadequate consultation. To my mind, the issues raised by the commissioner's office have not been responded to satisfactorily by the Government. I received an e-mail yesterday from the Northern Ireland Rights Commission, which has received no response to date, about which it is very disappointed.

I have a major concern that the ability in Northern Ireland to "name and shame" children raises many issues. It makes them very vulnerable to paramilitary punishment beatings. As many noble Lords know, I have worked in this area for many years. I would be very concerned that a measure such as an ASBO would be used against a child, whose name would become public knowledge, with the result that they would be the victim of paramilitarism or displaced to another area.

As we have already discussed, public housing in Northern Ireland is mainly provided by one body: the Housing Executive. We all know that housing in Northern Ireland is split along sectarian lines. I travelled to America two years ago to look at how displacement was dealt with there. They had a displacement policy whereby if someone in a neighbourhood was bad, they were moved on to the next one. That is fine if there are more than 100 neighbourhoods. But in the area in which I live, there are six neighbourhoods. I would be very concerned if an order was made against a young person and he was moved on. I cannot see that working. I raised the matter with the Minister in the other place and he assured me that it would work. From my knowledge on the ground, I cannot see how it would work, because if a young person is named and shamed and has to move on, that would probably mean that his entire family would have to move on.

I am a member of a health and social services health board. We have had paramilitary people circulating the names of young people who have had to be taken into our facilities for safekeeping. I am really worried that this aspect of the ASBO legislation raises the issue of putting the names of children over the age of 10 into the public domain. That could mean the destruction of their education and of the whole family in the housing. I am talking mainly about Housing Executive estates.

One of my biggest concerns is the question of who will police this. We are continually told that the PSNI is stretched to capacity. I am inundated by people ringing me to say that they called the police to be told that there was no manpower and that no one was available, and who were asked whether they could wait. I have had pensioners ring me about burglaries where they have had to wait three days for a response. I wonder who will be the leading light who will come in and scoop up all these young people. There is a real problem with young people on the streets of some of the big cities in Northern Ireland who are causing major concerns. I am worried about who will police it.

In Northern Ireland, as in the United Kingdom, it is a criminal offence to drop litter. We have signs all over the place and yet we have a huge litter problem. I drove through the main parade area on 12 July and my car felt like a tank, it was pushing so much litter in front of it. Hundreds of tonnes of litter were dropped and I do not know of anyone who was charged. If one goes around Belfast one will see why it is getting a name as a dirty city. Litter is being dropped everywhere, even though we have huge signs saying that offenders can be prosecuted. But, to my knowledge, no one has ever been charged. Similarly, we have a byelaw in Northern Ireland saying that people cannot drink in certain public places. That law is flouted daily, sometimes within sight of the PSNI. I have seen it myself. But no charges have ever been made.

My main concern about this order is naming and shaming children and bringing their names into the public domain. In Northern Ireland that can be an extremely dangerous thing to do. We are doing a lot of work within our communities on restorative justice and are trying to bring children and young people in and give them a different outlook on life. I am worried that they will be criminalised by this.

My other big problem with this order is who is going to police it. We are told that the police are already stretched. Are we going to recruit some of the community police that we heard about yesterday? In the United Kingdom, 20,000 community police are to be recruited. If that is the case, it is grand. I am all for patrols going round my area taking up the people who are causing all the trouble.

While I understand the rules of Grand Committee, given the serious doubts that have been raised by all children's organisations in Northern Ireland, surely the Government should postpone the introduction of this legislation until its full impact has been assessed and a full and fair consultation process has been undertaken.

I associate myself with the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Blood. I made some facetious reference to this order earlier. On reading it today, I think that it will be very difficult to implement it in certain areas and estates in Northern Ireland. Let us take the example of a young boy who is creating mayhem in an estate such as Ballymurphy or Turf Lodge, defying the wishes of the people on that estate, and whose father is a member of a paramilitary organisation. Is there any way in which an order can be implemented against the wishes of his father?

Recently, the Northern Ireland papers were full of stories of the INLA, a paramilitary organisation, which had taken it upon itself to police Ardoyne. It was beating up young people in the area and accusing them of anti-social behaviour. Two or three of the young boys were so badly beaten up, terrified and harassed that they hanged themselves. The Northern Ireland papers were full of reports on the issue. The paramilitaries in those areas have taken it upon themselves to decide what types of activity will be permitted in the area.

The noble Baroness, Lady Blood, said that she feels that the legislation has come far too quickly given the situation in Northern Ireland. I wonder whether adequate discussion took place with the PSNI. Was it asked whether it was prepared to police this order and to deal with all its possible side effects? I cannot see members of the PSNI going into estates under the control of paramilitaries, some of which are loyalist and some of which are republican. It is a fact of life in Northern Ireland that the PSNI is totally excluded from those areas.

I noticed a detail about young boys harassing neighbours. The neighbours are at risk as well. If a young boy's mother complains to the local authority or the police, they can find themselves in extreme danger. The answer given to this is the same as all other times when we have discussed these matters: that there should be no "no go" areas in Northern Ireland. But we have to face the fact that there are "no go" areas in Northern Ireland. Young hooligans in them can get away with effective murder: seven young boys were beaten up by a paramilitary organisation, the INLA, in the Ardoyne area.

The noble Baroness asked for further discussion on the order before it is implemented. I support her expression of concern. I hope that it is possible to have further discussion that will make this order in any way acceptable in Northern Ireland.

I follow my noble friend Lady Blood. It would have been far better to have had a tailor-made order suited to the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland. For that reason, I agree with my noble friend that there would be much merit in postponing the implementation of the order until some of the detailed problems can be sorted out. There are three problems that I wish to mention.

The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, mentioned the time required to obtain an order. Perhaps there may be a solution to that in that I hope that an interim order can be obtained much more quickly than the full-blown one. Secondly, how will these orders relate to restorative justice? By that, I do not simply mean police cautioning. I am referring to matters such as voluntary agreements that have already been mentioned and the relationship between the person complained of and the youth offending team. Under the heading of restorative justice, it would be very good if some of those who have behaved in an anti-social way were involved in repairing the damage that they had done; for example, removing graffiti that they had put up. If they could also be brought to sufficient consideration of their behaviour, they would become willing to apologise to those who have suffered from it. Those are all forms of repairing and restoring the damage that individuals have caused.

Lastly, on matters relating to breaches of orders, I notice that these can involve imprisonment for up to six months. I question the effect of that in practice. It is a relatively short sentence and it is bound to disrupt the schooling of those who are still, in theory at least, attending school. What will be the impact on people aged 10 to 16? Will they be placed in youth custody centres? Have the Government thought through the question of the breach of orders?

I had prepared a question for the Minister about how ASBOs would be policed in paramilitary controlled areas. I did not put it because, while I am a great admirer of the noble Baroness, Lady Blood, and have taken her advice on a number of occasions and will continue to do so, the whole of Northern Ireland is not a paramilitary area. There are many urban areas of Northern Ireland where ASBOs could be a useful adjunct to the judicial system. Of course, all members of the Committee understand that ASBOs would be almost impossible to use in certain areas.

I welcome the draft Anti-social Behaviour Order. I firmly support the measures taken against anti-social behaviour to restore stability to communities. The Ulster Unionist Party supports the protection of the human rights of young people, families and elderly people in communities throughout Northern Ireland whose lives have been blighted by anti-social behaviour. The Government must be less complacent about the problem of anti-social behaviour in Northern Ireland than it has been in the past six years. They must keep the working of the ASBOs in constant view and make promptly any changes that are required.

Will any of the lessons learnt from best practice in England and Wales be applied to the introduction of this legislation in Northern Ireland? Will there be, for example, an anti-social behaviour unit at the NIO as there is at the Home Office? I welcome the draft order. I consider it a step in the right direction.

I thank the noble Lords who have spoken and welcome the positive comments that have been made about the need for anti-social behaviour orders, while recognising the concerns expressed.

The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, raised the issue of why this has taken so long. Members of the Committee will know that local authorities in England and Wales had powers in relation to housing, education, policing and other areas within their control that did not apply to district councils in Northern Ireland. It was therefore difficult to see how provisions in the 1998 order could map on to the Northern Ireland position. There was also a desire to see how these provisions operated in England and Wales. Picking up the point raised by the noble Lord. Lord Laird, we wanted to learn from the experience of England and Wales.

Changes have been made to the 1998 legislation by the Police Reform Act 2002 and, most recently, by the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003. In the light of these changes, the success of ASBOs in England and Wales and the fact that the community safety strategy that was published in March last year identified that the legislation in England and Wales needed to be examined to see whether it was appropriate for Northern Ireland, it was decided to bring forward legislation for Northern Ireland now to replicate the provisions for England and Wales in a form that reflects Northern Ireland's housing and local government structures.

6.15 p.m.

It is important to note that in England and Wales practioners' funding costs have gone down as they have gained experience in relation to anti-social behaviour orders. It is important to strike the right balance, avoiding unnecessary bureaucracy and having a robust process in place.

On the issues around the difficulty of implementing this order in Northern Ireland—the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and other Members of the Committee spoke about this—an anti-social behaviour order does not require the consent of a child's parent for an order to be made. If a child who is the subject of an ASBO breaches the order, he or she would be liable for prosecution anywhere in Northern Ireland. The police in Northern Ireland are fully engaged in this process and are involved in the planning. All three partners can enforce an anti-social behaviour order.

The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, asked about the use of police resources. Other Members of the Committee were also concerned about the impact of this on the PSNI. ASBOs can save police time, much of which is spent catching persistent offenders or, more particularly, dealing with the offences that they commit. Many offenders come to court with 100 appearances against their names. Taking those people out of their offending patterns, taking them out of the areas where they regularly commit offences, will enable the police to take action against them simply for being in an area or undertaking an activity from which they are barred. The police will not have to catch them committing an offence. That will save substantial amounts of police time and enable them to focus on driving down crime. In a recent survey, the PSNI found that 85 per cent of burglaries in south Belfast were carried out by 15 individuals. Dealing with those people and those patterns of behaviour will start to make a real change to the figures and to the crimes that add up to a host of human tragedies.

The noble Baroness, Lady Blood, was particularly concerned about the issue of enforcement, which was also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. It is not our view that we should not deal with anti-social behaviour because doing so would highlight the activities of youngsters who would gain unwelcome attention from paramilitaries. The argument that convictions highlight people's criminal activities could be made against the entire criminal code but it does not follow that we should abandon the criminal code. However, as a result of the consultation, we took on board the fact that, when appropriate, the court should be able to impose reporting restrictions in order to achieve an appropriate response to provide some degree of protection. I hope that that demonstrates that the consultation processes are valid.

On the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, about ABCs, they are written voluntary agreements between people involved in anti-social behaviour and authorities such as the police and housing departments. They were introduced in December 1999 in the Borough of Islington so they are a comparatively recent development. They are now widespread throughout police force areas in England and Wales. They are designed to complement ASBOs but have an attendant flexibility due to being voluntary. They do not require legislation. We hope that they will be taken on board with ASBOs rather than it being a matter of there being one or the other.

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. The point is that if ABCs are used in the first instance one does not have to put an ASBO on a bit later. I would prefer the encouragement of those being implemented rather than going the full stretch to an ASBO.

I recognise the point being made by the noble Baroness. It may be that in the case of the 15 individuals who I mentioned earlier, who are persistent offenders, ABCs are not appropriate. However, as a degree of prevention before young people get to the point where one has to use an ASBO, an ABC is appropriate. The point is that there are a number of tools in the armoury. There is a degree of flexibility, and a certain judgment is required about which is most appropriate.

I remind the Committee that these are civil orders, not criminal orders, although a breach of the order is a criminal offence. On the specific questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, the Housing Executive will be able to use the orders against tenants and against private owners in areas where it is the chief landlord. District councils will be able to use them where there is anti-social behaviour in their areas.

The noble Baroness, Lady Harris, also asked whether councils would only get orders regarding their own properties. A council can apply if a property of an adjoining council is a problem. An ASBO can apply throughout the whole of Northern Ireland. In seeking an ASBO, identification will be made at that point about where it will apply. It can apply to the whole of Northern Ireland.

The noble Baroness, Lady Blood, raised a series of very important questions. Indeed, would like to thank her for recognising that it is not an easy environment in which to work. That is why a number of noble Lords have welcomed what is being proposed here, despite the concerns that are being expressed. On the issue of the Human Rights Commission, I understand that it has had a meeting with officials on this issue.

On the specific points raised by the noble Baroness, first, in relation to the challenge made by the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People, I am, of course, aware that he sought leave to apply for judicial review of the Minister's decision to put this draft order before Parliament for approval. Both the applicant and the Government presented arguments. The commissioner failed to persuade Mr Justice Girvan that there was an arguable case in any of the issues raised in support of the application for leave. This included the issues raised in relation to consultation. The issues raised were fully dealt with by Mr Justice Girvan in his judgment in the application for leave to apply for judicial review. In relation to consultation, he said:

"A decision by the Minister to consult in the way in which he did could not be considered irrational or unlawful".

On the issue of civil procedure, with its lesser safeguards, this is not the case. In a case, Clingham and McCann, the House of Lords accepted the justification and good sense of ASBOs, which are intended to protect the fundamental rights of the community that suffers from anti-social behaviour. ASBO procedures are subject to due process in court and the anti-social behaviour must be proven to the criminal standard, which was held by the House of Lords in McCann. Any proceedings for breach of an ASBO will be criminal proceedings.

In relation to possible imprisonment in Northern Ireland, if a child breaches an ASBO and goes to court, he or she will be offered a youth conference. Youth conferencing was introduced as part of the Criminal Justice Review and involves the child and its family and the victim, if the victim wishes it. The aim is that a plan will be drawn up and taken through, which can involve reparation and restitution.

On the issue of the naming and shaming, about which the noble Baroness is clearly very concerned, the order gives the court discretion to impose reporting restrictions when making an ASBO against a child, as I have already mentioned. The wording of the legislation is clear that the whole of the proceedings is covered. The restrictions cover television and radio broadcasts as well as newspaper reports, which goes beyond the position in England and Wales. Courts will not act carelessly and will be in a position to make a decision on a case-by-case basis. The Government are providing a statutory measure with all of the safeguards in law so that people do not turn to those who would mete out paramilitary-style justice.

On the provision of public housing and the sectarian split, an ASBO can be used to stop someone being in an area where he has been acting in an anti-social way and the court decides that an order is necessary for the protection of persons from further anti-social behaviour. However, the sanctions must be reasonable and proportionate, and the court, as a public body, must interpret the order in a way that is human rights compliant.

On the issue of whether an ASBO might result in homelessness, it is not inconceivable but highly unlikely that a court applying the proportionality test would conclude that a person should be excluded from their home, though if alternative accommodation was available that might be appropriate.

I believe that I have dealt with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blood, in relation to the Police Service of Northern Ireland being stretched. But I underline the fact that the approach is multi-agency and that the applying partner will have the power to enforce an ASBO.

The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, raised the issue of interim ASBOs, which will enable a court to order an immediate stop to anti-social behaviour. That protects the public more quickly and reduces the scope for witness intimidation, sending a clear message to the community that anti-social behaviour will not be tolerated. It removes the opportunity for the behaviour to continue while the application is being processed.

On the issue of the order being tailor-made, I made it clear that this was a matter of learning from what has happened in England and Wales. The measures have been consulted on, and they do not set aside restorative justice orders. I repeat—measures must be reasonable and proportionate.

I have answered the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Laird, on lesson learning. As for the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, about whether we shall have more young people going to prison, I hope that that will not be the case. It is important to emphasise that in Northern Ireland, if a child breaches an ASBO and goes to court, he or she will be given the option of a youth conference—as I said, in relation to the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blood. If it becomes a matter of custody, the place of custody would be a juvenile centre for 10 to 17 year-olds. But I should like Members of the Committee to remember the availability of the youth conference, which was one of the recommendations of the criminal justice review.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

I beg to move that the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the draft Criminal Justice (No.2) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004.

The draft order makes proposals for new legislation in two areas of concern—"hate crime" and "car crime". Hate crime deals with crimes motivated or aggravated by hatred of race, religion, disability or sexual orientation. Car crime deals with the specific and often misnamed area of "joyriding". Hate crime has seen worrying increases in Northern Ireland in recent times—a quadrupling of numbers in the last five years—and joyriding has frequently been a plague on the lives of some communities.

Racist attacks have increased from 93 in 1998–99 to 453 in 2003–04. Alongside what has become regular reportage of racist incidents in Northern Ireland is the fact that the rate of racial incidents per head of the minority ethnic population is estimated as being almost double that in England and Wales. There have also been worrying increases in attacks against the gay community. A recent attack in Northern Ireland ended in the horrific murder of a completely innocent man, Mr Ian Flanagan, for which the perpetrators quite rightly received life sentences. The disabled have also been increasingly victimised. Attacks based on religion will also be covered by our proposals.

On car crime, the offence of taking a motor vehicle without the owner's consent, the nearest current approximation to the offence we are now targeting, has been between 2,000 and 3,000 over the past two years. Dangerous driving offences have increased by 44 per cent in the past year.

Hate crime and car crime are areas of pressing concern for Northern Ireland. Incidents have been seen across Northern Ireland. They are issues which cross boundaries and are faced by all communities. The time is right to legislate.

On "hate crime", the draft order will provide courts with powers to impose heavier sentences when an offence is aggravated by hostility based on the victim's actual or presumed religion, race, disability or sexual orientation. When there has been such aggravation, the proposals will require sentencers to state that in court and to treat this as an aggravating factor in sentencing.

The maximum penalties which can be imposed in what are, by and large, crimes of violence are being increased across the board. For example, sentences for grievous bodily harm, actual bodily harm and putting someone in fear of violence will increase from five to seven years, common assault from one year to two years' imprisonment, harassment from six months to two years' imprisonment, and criminal damage from 10 to 14 years' imprisonment. The draft order also adds sexual orientation and disability to the list of groups currently protected under public order legislation. In many respects, the "hate crime" provisions are bringing Northern Ireland's laws up to the same level as is already the case in England and Wales.

The draft order creates an offence of aggravated vehicle taking based on the taking of a vehicle without consent, and it then being driven dangerously, or causing an accident which results in injury, damage to property, or damage to the vehicle. The maximum penalty will be up to five years' imprisonment. The draft order also creates an offence of causing death or grievous bodily injury when committed as part of the new offence of aggravated vehicle taking. The maximum penalty will be up to 14 years' imprisonment. The draft order also increases the maximum penalty for dangerous driving from two to five years' imprisonment. Again, the creation of these offences brings Northern Ireland into line with England and Wales.

The form in which the draft proposals are presented to the Grand Committee today have been influenced by public consultation. The Government undertook three consultation exercises in developing this legislation. Two separate policy consultations were held on race and sectarian crime legislation in Northern Ireland, and one on road traffic offences and penalties. These were then brought together into a single piece of draft legislation, which was consulted upon between February and April of this year.

As part of the consultations, the proposals were extended to include protections based on sexual orientation and disability. As part of its inquiry into hate crime in Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee was particularly influential in the decision to include disability. In relation to our initial road traffic proposals, we listened to some of the representations made and increased our proposed penalties for dangerous driving and aggravated vehicle taking. These have been increased from two to five years.

The police and the justice system as a whole must be able to respond to criminal behaviour firmly and appropriately. It is essential that the police, the prosecutors and courts have the tools available to them to deal with such behaviour. Our aim is to continue to build a safe and tolerant society for all in Northern Ireland.

I commend the order to the Committee.

Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the draft Criminal Justice (No.2) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004.— (Baroness Amos.)

I thank the Minister for presenting the order so clearly. Really, I can only support it. I believe that I am right in saying that the Attorney-General has already in recent times appealed a sentence relating to joyriding given by a judge in Northern Ireland as being too light, and won the appeal, some time in the past 12 months.

My concern about the order derives from the prison population in Northern Ireland and the effect that it might have on it. I do not suppose that we know any specific numbers, and I am not up to date with the present situation, but prisons are fairly crowded in Northern Ireland. I am concerned that the two separate offences in the order, if they do not act as a deterrent, could lead to severe pressure on the Northern Ireland prison system. However, in principle we support the order.

My contribution will be a little more lengthy than that of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. However. I want to say at the outset how much we welcome the order. We are very pleased to see that the Government have included crimes against disabled people in particular. The Minister will recall that we called for that a long time ago. Indeed, the Liberal Democrats tabled an amendment to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 asking the Government to do what they are proposing in this order. So we are pleased to see it included on this occasion, even though the Government objected to the amendment at the time. I am tempted to complain at length about the time taken to accept what we proposed, but I shall resist the urge to do so. This is too important and serious a measure on which to score trivial political points.

Since 1996 the police have been keeping statistics on racially motivated crimes. It was seen as enough of a problem at the time for the police to act to tackle hate crimes, and I shall leave it at that. The legislation is welcome, but I believe it is essential that the police are given proper resources to implement their powers. A few weeks ago I visited the Police Service of Northern Ireland. At this point I should like to record my congratulations to the Chief Constable and his staff, and in particular the DCUs, on their strenuous efforts to engage with members of the ethnic minority communities.

An example of that is in Dungannon, where an interpreter facilitates communication between the police and Portuguese residents. Another example is in Foyle, where crime prevention leaflets are now being printed in Chinese. I am sure that there are many other excellent examples of good practice. I am also sure that the police could make even deeper inroads into combating these pernicious crimes if they had the resources to do so.

I was delighted to see the Opportunity India campaign recently launched in Belfast, to which senior executives from around 60 companies contributed. The campaign was held to promote trade and investment links between India and Northern Ireland. It was organised by Invest Northern Ireland and facilitated by the noble Lord, Lord Rana. It was indicated that,

"he would make it a priority to develop university links between Northern Ireland and India, which he saw as a key element in the development of both economies. 'I want to play a major role in furthering education and business links between Northern Ireland and India', Lord Rana said. 'We will work towards developing trade between India and Northern Ireland and we have a wonderful opportunity to attract students from India to come (to Northern Ireland) to study'".

This legislation will encourage and enable the people of Northern Ireland to welcome the trade and investment coming their way as the economy continues to thrive.

The Royal National Institute for the Blind has asked me to raise some particular issues with the Minister, which I shall do with pleasure. I ask her to consider a number of other measures, including the collection of statistics on disability hate crimes and voice identity parades, in order to maximise the benefit of this order.

The introduction of a requirement for the courts to treat disability hatred as an aggravating factor when sentencing is welcome. While statistics are not collected on disability hate crimes, a number of cases have been reported, of which I shall give one example. One guide dog owner was consistently taunted for being blind and then had firecrackers thrown over the garden wall at her guard dog. In a survey carried out by the Northern Ireland Deaf Youth Association, 36 per cent of young deaf people reported that personal safety was an issue. The same proportion of respondents identified bullying as a concern.

A survey produced by Dr Sean Kelly from the University of Ulster School of Nursing on the abuse of people with long-term mental illness in Northern Ireland found that 60 per cent of those surveyed had been subject to serious victimisation or harassment. Mencap's research has found that almost nine in 10 people with learning difficulties have experienced bullying or harassment.

It would help if the fact that people were disabled, together with their access needs, was included in the data when a person's details are entered on to the police computer as a victim or perpetrator. I wonder whether the Minister would look at that issue.

On voice identity parades. we need to see a strong focus on crimes based on prejudice since these types of hate crime are particularly pernicious and damaging to society. The requirement to demonstrate hostility during the committing of a crime or immediately before or after in Section 146 of the Criminal Justice Act, which is being carried over into the draft order, makes a clear distinction. Other tactics such as the use of voice identity parades can and should be employed to deal with crimes based on perceived vulnerability.

The evidence suggests that this is possible. The first ever conviction for murder based on a voice identity parade was secured at the Old Bailey in December 2002. A linguistics expert from Cambridge university was used to make sure that the process was sound, and the detective in the case was commended by the judge for his work. Indeed, the Home Secretary said:

"I am firmly of the view that voice recognition is feasible and I have asked my officials and scientific advisers to reconsider this area urgently to see what steps we can take to further encourage the use of voice recognition by police and criminal justice agencies".

The Home Secretary has gone on to issue Home Office Circular 57/2003 to police forces on the use of voice identity parades. Will a similar circular be issued by the Northern Ireland Office adopting the results of the Home Office research? If so, that would be extremely helpful.

I want to quote from a BBC news bulletin issued today which discussed homophobic attacks, in particular those in Derry, which are becoming increasingly vicious. Sean Morrin from the Rainbow Project was speaking after a gay man was attacked and bitten in the face outside a chip shop in the Waterside area on Sunday evening. He was taken to hospital where he received five stitches to his face. Over a period of seven weeks during April and May there were eight homophobic attacks in the Foyle area, while there have been 17 homophobic incidents this year. A police spokesman said that the latter figure equalled the total number of attacks for the previous year. Clearly this is something that needs to be taken seriously.

All members of society have a duty to tackle bigotry in whatever form it raises its head. The integrated education movement in Northern Ireland has led the way in this respect. Its ethos is to bring all members of society together and the schools to teach their pupils the value of everyone as an individual and not as a member of any particular group. That, too, is our responsibility. By passing this order we shall go some way towards realising our goal of stamping out the evil of racially motivated crime.

Noble Lords know only too well, over many years, the tensions between our two communities in Northern Ireland that unfortunately arise under the name of religion. Perhaps this has disguised a latent or hidden hostility towards our ethnic minority groups in Northern Ireland, groups that I warmly welcome to our Province. Hostility towards ethnic minority groups has become more evident over the past two to three years. Only recently I mentioned in particular the attacks on Filipino nurses in Craigavon.

Equally, several parts of Northern Ireland, in particular certain areas of West Belfast, have for years been plagued by so-called "joyriding". As the Minister pointed out, that crime is wrongly named. Perhaps it should be called "car crime" or "car hijacking".

I broadly welcome the order because it contains many of the recommendations that my party has put to Her Majesty's Government over the years. Hate crime, crimes based on hostility towards race, sectarianism and sexual orientation and directed towards any group is totally abhorrent in a civilised society.

As I have mentioned, crime motivated by race is a growing problem in Northern Ireland. The Government's own figures show that the rate of racial incidents in Northern Ireland in 2001–02 was 12.9 per 1,000 of the minority ethnic population compared with 6.7 per 1,000 in England and Wales. The PSNI statistics show that the number of racist and homophobic incidents recorded has more than doubled from 226 and 35 respectively in 2002–03 to 453 and 71 in 2003–04. Those figures, shocking enough in themselves, are undoubtedly modest. They do not reflect the high number of these crimes that go unreported every day. Even more worrying is the low prosecution rate. In 2002–03 there were only seven prosecutions arising from the 226 racial incidents recorded by the PSNI.

I also welcome the introduction of the new offence of aggravated vehicle taking. Joyriding, or car hijacking as I prefer to call it, is a major problem in Northern Ireland. During the Report stage of the Criminal Justice Bill in another place, my right honourable friend and colleague David Trimble asked the Home Secretary to extend that part of the legislation which dealt with car crime/joyriding to Northern Ireland. It has taken over a year to impress the importance of such a move upon the Northern Ireland Office. For over a year now we have been sending out the wrong message to our young people who are tempted to take cars in this manner.

Car hijacking is simply not tolerated in England and Wales, but apparently it is in Northern Ireland. I therefore welcome this provision, which will bring us into line with the rest of the United Kingdom.

I thank all noble Lords for welcoming the order and for the recognition that we all want to see hate crime stamped out.

The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, asked specifically about the impact on the prison population. We think that we will see some increase in the length of sentences since we are giving the courts extra powers, but we do not envisage the prison population soaring. However, sentencing is a matter for the courts.

On the issue of police resourcing, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris—I should say first that I thank her for her positive comments about the Police Service of Northern Ireland following her visit, and in the spirit of Northern Ireland business debated in Grand Committee I thank her for not scoring political points today—we are fully committed to ensuring that the Chief Constable is sufficiently resourced to deliver an efficient and effective policing service. As the noble Baroness is aware, in the current financial year some £726.3 million has been made available to maintain the day-to-day policing service in Northern Ireland. While the level of resources available is crucial to effective policing, so too is ensuring that the best use is made of those resources.

The Police Service of Northern Ireland workforce plan, launched in 2002, is currently under review. It addresses a number of key issues where changes and improvements are making a significant contribution to better policing. The police were involved in the consultation on this and did not indicate that they thought that additional resources would be required.

I turn to the issues raised by the noble Baroness in respect of disability. As the noble Baroness is aware, racial and homophobic incidents are already being monitored. Attacks on the disabled and those motivated by religious hatred will be recorded in line with the commencement of the legislation in September.

The recording of hate crime involving hostility towards victims because of their disability will follow the guidelines that came out of the review as a result of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry, so crimes will be recorded as disability hate crimes if they are perceived as such by victims or by any other person. The victim's disability will also be recorded.

Voice recognition can already form part of evidence which can be used to secure convictions. The Police Service of Northern Ireland will consider a range of measures when implementing hate crime legislation. The police are supportive of practices and initiatives that help and protect vulnerable people.

The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, questioned the number of prosecutions. The Chief Constable has increased patrols in relevant areas and has taken steps to ensure that victims are more ready and able to come forward. That high visibility patrolling is aimed at both reducing incidents and improving contact with local communities. That is because the police need community support if they are to be able to address crime in all its forms. The Government have already introduced special direction measures, including live video links, by way of the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 to protect vulnerable or intimidated witnesses.

On the timing of the introduction of these provisions, this is our first appropriate legislative opportunity after the consultation. We are going further than in England and Wales by proposing penalties of five years' imprisonment for aggravated vehicle taking and dangerous driving, which is in direct response to our public consultation. I hope that I have addressed all the points that have been raised.

I beg to move that the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the draft Dangerous Wild Animals (Northern Ireland) Order 2004.

This order would introduce provisions broadly in line with those already in force in Great Britain by the enactment of the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976, as modified by the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 (Modification) Order 1984. The main purpose of the order is to address public safety and animal welfare concerns through the introduction of a licensing, inspection and enforcement scheme to regulate the keeping of dangerous wild animals by private individuals. The scheme will be centrally administered by the Department of the Environment.

The main provisions of the order will require any person wishing to keep a dangerous wild animal as defined in the schedule to the order to obtain a licence from the department prior to taking ownership of the animal. A licence will be valid for a period of 12 months or such longer period as the department shall determine. The keeping of a dangerous wild animal without a licence will be an offence and persons under 18 years of age will not be able to apply for a licence.

It will require the department to perform a range of checks on all applications. These checks will relate to the applicant, the accommodation and the conditions in which the animal will be kept. In addition, the department will also he required to receive a report from a veterinary surgeon or other person deemed suitably competent by it.

It will require the department to set a number of mandatory conditions for any licence it may grant. These will relate to matters such as the welfare of the animal, the person or persons entitled to keep the animal, the number or type of animal that can be kept and the place where the animal is to be kept. The department will also be free to apply other conditions as it sees fit.

The order provides applicants with a right of appeal to a magistrates' court against any decision by the department to refuse a licence or against any conditions imposed on the grant of a licence. It will create an offence where the requirements of a licence are not complied with. It will also give the department powers of entry and inspection for the purposes of assessing an application or determining if the requirements of the legislation or of an existing licence are being complied with.

The order will give the department powers to seize any animal where the requirements of the legislation or of a licence are not being complied with. The department will also be given powers to destroy a seized animal, under veterinary supervision, or otherwise dispose of it. It will give owners the right of appeal within 21 days to a magistrates' court against seizure and prohibit the department destroying or otherwise disposing of a seized animal before the appeal has been determined. It establishes penalties for any person found guilty of not complying with the requirements of the legislation. Courts will be given power to cancel existing licences or disqualify any such person from keeping dangerous wild animals.

It will provide transitional arrangements for existing owners to make arrangements to apply for a licence. It will also provide for the legislation to come into operation by way of a commencement order so that all supporting administrative arrangements are in place to ensure public safety. It will give the department the power to modify the schedule that defines dangerous wild animals.

Following strong representations from key respondents during the consultation process, two provisions not included in the original draft order have now been added. These additional provisions are set out in Article 8, which makes it an offence to give or sell a dangerous wild animal to any person who has not produced a valid licence to keep the animal in question, and paragraphs (4) to (15) of Article 9, which provide for a transitional voluntary surrender scheme for existing animals for a period of three months after the coming into operation of the main provisions of the order.

This draft order fills an important gap in the Northern Ireland statute book in relation to both public safety and the welfare of dangerous wild animals in private collections. It will provide a robust licensing and enforcement regime to control the keeping of these animals. It will also bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom while including other provisions which reflect the particular needs and circumstances of Northern Ireland.

Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the draft Dangerous Wild Animals (Northern Ireland) Order 2004.—(Baroness Amos.)

My Lords, we have nothing inherently against this order. However, it is a detailed and heavy-duty order that encompasses a lot of restrictions and rules. I wonder, therefore, and challenge gently the proof of the need for this legislation—other than in zoos and so forth, which I think I am right in saying already have their own licensing and regulatory regimes. I am concerned that we are perhaps legislating for the sake of legislating. I accept the need to protect the public and the necessity to protect animals of any type, let alone wild and dangerous ones, so I find it strange that at this particular juncture in time someone has thought that we need this legislation.

I have only two questions. I imagine that if someone wants a licence to look after a dangerous wild animal, they will have to pay something for it. Has that been considered and what might be the cost of such a licence? Do the Government anticipate making a profit? Against that, I wonder what will be the cost of administering the order. Is it possible that the Government will find themselves landed with considerable extra costs?

Aside from those queries, I have no particular feelings about this order.

As we have heard, there have been controls on the keeping of wild animals in all parts of the UK except Northern Ireland since 1976. I understand that at the time it was felt that such legislation was not needed in Northern Ireland. But, with the passage of time, it appears that it might now be necessary. I understand that large cats have been sighted and that they have affected livestock, so perhaps it is now necessary to introduce legislation for Northern Ireland.

I too have only a few brief questions. The order will require the department to perform a range of checks on all those who apply for a licence. Will a vet undertake those checks? What is meant in Article 3(5)(a) by "other person authorised"? Also, are the Government satisfied that the age of 18 is appropriate, given that we are considering reducing the age of consent in many areas? The age of 16 would appear to be more appropriate. I wonder why the age of 18 was chosen. Finally, can the Government be more specific about the cost of the licence?

Other than those queries, we think that the order is acceptable and we are happy to support it.

I welcome the order. When I was a Member in the other place, in my constituency of Strangford we had a gentleman who took a lion out for a walk every evening at five o'clock. It certainly was not the appropriate time to go canvassing because everyone cleared off the streets. I had many complaints from constituents that on this matter Northern Ireland was out of line with the rest of the UK. It is ridiculous that you can keep a pet corgi and must have a £5 licence, but you can have a lion and need not pay a licence fee whatever.

I have one question. What happens to these wild animals when they are seized? Are they put down? Does the USPCA keep them until they die naturally? Are they handed over to the zoos for proper care and attention?

I, too, welcome the order. It has been a long time coming. Criminal legislation for Great Britain has been in place since 1976. The Northern Ireland Assembly was consulting on the matter when it was suspended in the autumn of 2002.

I have one question. The schedule names pure breeds, but what about cross breeding? I am reminded that a few years ago someone bred a wolf and an Alsatian. One of them killed many sheep in County Fermanagh, including some on the estate of my noble friend Lord Brookeborough. There was also great fear for humans in the county.

People who mistreat animals or release exotic pets into the wild need to be made culpable under the law and the order is therefore greatly welcomed by us.

I am grateful that the Minister has found time to allow us to debate this matter. I did not think that I would get back from a visit to the Farnborough air show in time. I was invited to examine this and another order. When I looked at the explanatory memorandum to this order I was startled to find on page 1, paragraph 5, the statement,

"a continuing trend for keeping DWAs as pets".

That may be.

I then looked in the schedule. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, will be equally sad to discover that under Article 2 the Department of the Environment is responsible. I am sure that the Minister will know that during my time and that of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, animal health was one of the prime concerns of the so-called Department of Agriculture.

I looked at the animals listed in the schedule. The noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, mentioned a lion and I thought of cats and other domestic creatures. The Minister will not necessarily have scanned pages 12 to 15, but when reading them one or two things came to my mind.

Pages 14 and 15 list reptiles. Mole vipers and certain venomous snakes are mentioned. We then see listed Elapidae and Viperidae, including certain front-fanged venomous snakes, including cobras, adders, fer-de-lance, rattlesnakes and vipers. I suppose that one has to be comprehensive with such legislation, but I was astounded that such a list appears in the schedule.

One thing concerns me; that although such animals might be kept in a pet shop under adequate conditions, suppose that they get out. If there is a problem, what will be the result? Suppose that someone is bitten?

I was glancing at the exemptions and see that Article 7(3)(b) states that Article 3(1) shall not apply to a dangerous wild animal,

"which is kept for the production of food, wool, skin, hair or feathers or for such other purpose as the Department may by order prescribe".

I also saw in Article 5(12) various measures which might relate to one of the lovely creatures listed on page 15. If one of them escaped, would someone he able to retain it and extract serum—anti-snake-bite serum? I hope that the order will allow whichever department is responsible to get hold of these lovely creatures and extract the serum so that treatment can be available in a hospital. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, wondered what happened to these happy creatures if the department finds them—including some of the Sydney funnel-web spiders or their close relatives? Are they destroyed or what?

I commend the noble Baroness on the thoroughness of the order, but I am astounded by the vast array of creatures. I hope that it is replicated in Great Britain.

Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, that I have read all the pages in the schedule, which make very interesting reading. When I read them, I was glad that I did not recognise most of the species listed.

I also say to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, with respect to his getting here on time, he is obviously not a regular in the consideration of Northern Ireland business. We are extremely thorough in our consideration of Northern Ireland business, which is why we are still here.

The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, asked why the legislation is required. In the absence of regulation, the department cannot be certain about the number and species of animals presently being kept by private individuals. The absence of this baseline information makes it difficult to respond to reports of sightings; for example, by checking for escapees.

Reports of incidents or nuisance caused by dangerous wild animals continues to be rare, although there have been a number of recent reported sightings, plus reports of injuries to livestock. However, each reported incident, no matter how minor, tends to attract significant public concern about the potential risk to public safety and the draft order addresses this concern by introducing a suitable regulatory regime.

On the cost, the draft order provides for the department to recoup the full costs of administering the scheme by charging licence fees. Fees will be set to recover all direct and indirect costs incurred as a result of a licence application and not with the intention of deterring ownership of dangerous wild animals or as a means of raising revenue. So at this point in time it is not possible to say how much each licence will cost, but once that is determined I am happy to write to Members of the Committee.

I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. We need an undertaking that the cost of the licence is highly unlikely to become a deterrent to those wishing to keep certain species. They may be unable to afford the licence.

I repeat that we will he setting fees to recover all direct and indirect costs, but not with the intention of deterring ownership of dangerous wild animals and certainly not as a means of raising revenue. I can assure the Committee on that.

The department may also incur costs in accommodating and caring for animals voluntarily surrendered. The extent of these costs will depend on the number of animals involved and rare species.

The cost of a licence will be broken down in four elements: the department's administrative costs in processing applications; the costs for inspection by a suitably competent person; the costs of obtaining suitable insurance against liability for any damage which may be caused by an animal; and any costs associated with upgrading accommodation to comply with all the licence requirements.

On the specific point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady. Harris, on the departmental discretion to appoint a suitably qualified person, we are thinking of those with experience of zoos. It may not be a vet, but a person who has extensive experience having worked in a zoo.

The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, asked specifically about hybrids, in particular wolf hybrids. They are an increasing source of concern to the public and some respondents to consultation in the draft order have recommended that wolf hybrids should be included in the schedule of animals which will come within the remit of the legislation. However, the definition is complex both from a scientific and administrative viewpoint. It is generally recognised that there are no scientifically proven methods which will withstand legal challenge to differentiate wolf hybrids from other canines. This inability scientifically to isolate wolf hybrids makes breed specification difficult, if not impossible, to administer effectively and equitably. It is an issue that many other countries also face.

The Defra consultation paper on changes to the 1976 Act proposes to define hybrids in the schedule as animals which have 8 per cent or more of the pure listed animal DNA. Should this definition be adopted in Great Britain, we intend to amend the schedules to the draft order accordingly. This can be done by subordinate legislation.

The noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, asked what happens to seized animals. The animal will be passed to a designated person or body to keep on behalf of the department. The department has the power to dispose of or destroy the animals 21 days after the seizure date or until the outcome of an appeal.

The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, asked which department would be responsible. I note his views about it being environment or agriculture, but the most important point is that the regulatory regime should be effective.

As regards serum and snake bites, even with regulation, venomous snakes can still pose a risk, not least to their owners. There has been at least one such incident in Northern Ireland. The Royal Victoria Hospital Belfast has procedures in place for dealing with snake bites, including measures to minimise venom absorption, and the availability of expert advice on the need for anti-venom administration and access to anti-venom stocks which are held in Liverpool and in London.

I recognise that the recent review in Great Britain raised concerns about the effective control over venomous snakes and I also recognise the dangers posed by these animals which, by their very nature, are easily transported and concealed. But I believe that the proposals in the draft order will provide an effective regulatory regime for venomous snakes, as for other dangerous wild animals. I hope I have addressed the points.

I am grateful to the Minister. I hope that she is convinced that Liverpool, let alone London, is near enough for the rush that might be necessary. I thought of an accidental bite from the Minister's pet cobra or rattle snake. I have flown from Belfast to Liverpool and the Isle of Man, with unfavourable climactic conditions and I am sure that the noble Baroness has taken all the necessary steps. Her word will reassure those who have a trillion-to-one chance of being bitten by one of these snakes that Liverpool will deliver what the Royal Victoria Hospital needs.

Of course, the Royal Victoria Hospital Belfast is the first stop.

I beg to move that the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the draft Vehicle Testing (Temporary Exemptions) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004.

The order would enable the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland to make regulations to provide for the issue of certificates for temporary exemption, exempting private cars and motor cycles from the requirements of normal testing for a specified temporary period and to permit such certificates to be acceptable documentary evidence for the purpose of obtaining vehicle excise licences.

Certificates of temporary exemption will be issued as an alternative to vehicle test certificates in exceptional circumstances. "Exceptional circumstances" means a failure in the supply of essential services or other unexpected happenings such as a fire, accident or industrial action.

The power to issue certificates already exists for goods vehicles, but no such contingency arrangements are available for private cars and motorcycles. The order will regularise that position. The order will alleviate some of the pressures created as a result of the industrial action which is currently having an impact on the capacity of the Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency in Northern Ireland to deliver normal vehicle testing services. This has resulted in many drivers being unable to use their vehicles legally on the roads or to get vehicle excise licences. It is also impacting adversely on the Northern Ireland Assembly.

The issue of certificates of temporary exemption would temporarily remove some vehicles from the testing cycle. This would free up capacity to allow the Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency to focus on other vehicles such as buses, taxis and goods vehicles used on international journeys. It would also enable the agency to manage the backlog of work that will still remain when the industrial action ends. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the draft Vehicle Testing (Temporary Exemptions) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004.—(Baroness Amos.)

I thank the noble Baroness for bringing this order before us at the end of a long series. It is good for us to spend a whole day on Northern Ireland matters. particularly in such detail, because we are refreshed on what is happening on the ground.

We talked earlier today about the problems of the strike, so I will not mention it again. Obviously, I support the order, understanding the reason for its being brought to your Lordships' House. I am concerned about the adequacy of the length of time the order will be in place. One does not want to be too pessimistic, but as we have had a lengthy stoppage and the strike continues, there will be a serious backlog. That will affect our hauliers in Europe, and some European countries will not necessarily at first accept the fact that some of the vehicles were not tested on time.

However, I am more concerned that the hauliers will be expected to maintain the level of inspection of their vehicles were the MoT system in place. I do not know, but I suspect that the hauliers' depots are not equipped to the same extent for vehicle inspection as are the MoT centres. Funnily enough. I have never had an MoT test in Northern Ireland or in England, I only had them in Spain. However, the set-up in an MoT centre for heavy goods vehicles and for motor cars requires a certain amount of specialist equipment to ensure that all the settings comply with EU rules and regulations.

I am concerned that Northern Ireland hauliers will not be equipped to carry out the necessary checks on their vehicles, which by now might be a month or so overdue, and that they will let them run on for a while. I suppose that we could be talking of checks on heavy goods vehicles being delayed for up to six months.

I am also concerned about the effect on the insurance policies of hauliers and private vehicle owners. While I was doing some homework on this subject, I read that many insurance policies depend on MoTs being up to date. I wonder what Her Majesty's Government have done in talking to the insurance industry. The longer it lasts the bigger the problem will become.

It is all very well to say that there will be an extension in time, but an insurance company may say that its policy states that the MoT has to be done on a given date and that if it is not done and a driver has an accident or something goes wrong the driver is not insured. That is an area on which I should like some encouragement.

Lastly, as regards hauliers, it seems that if there is a significant backlog—such as six months—and the haulage industry has to incur increased costs, we should look to the Government and the department to cover at least a part of those costs. With those riders, I support the order.

I, too, thank the noble Baroness the Lord President of the Council for the very full, clear and gracious responses that she has made today to the points raised on the orders. As we have heard, this order is the result of industrial action by civil servants in Northern Ireland, which is impacting on the ability of the Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency to grant vehicle excise licences or MoTs.

The Government have known about this difficulty for a long time. Why have they taken so long to do anything about it? I understand that the exemption applies only within the UK. What happens if someone wants to take a car abroad from Northern Ireland? How can we be assured that cars coming over from Northern Ireland are safe on the roads of the rest of the UK? What happens if a car is involved in a road accident? That is a real concern, particularly for people who are going abroad.

It is difficult for us to oppose this order because law-abiding citizens will do their best to get their vehicles covered and in good order. But I have considerable concern supporting something that appears to condone the driving of unroadworthy vehicles. I am sure that most of the people of Northern Ireland are sensible enough not to want to drive cars that are in had condition, but it is a dilemma. We can only hope that it will be resolved quickly for the safety of all the road users in Northern Ireland. We support the order.

I suppose that it would be unwise of me to be controversial at this hour of the evening. Hence, I shall content myself by saying that of all the Orders in Council that I have seen brought before Parliament, this surely must be one of the most irresponsible that I have seen for a long time. In bringing forward this order, the Government have abdicated their responsibility.

My figures may be wrong, but can the Minister tell me whether at present there is somewhere in the region of 87,000 vehicles overdue for MoT testing? Is it the case that normally at the stage when vehicles go for an MoT test—after the owners have taken the trouble to try to get them up to standard—on average 22 per cent are turned down at the first time of testing? If that is so and my mathematics are right, there are something like 19,140 vehicles currently on the road that are unroadworthy, plus those vehicles that are currently unroadworthy but which, if they were tested, would be brought up to standard. Surely, that is a huge problem for people in Northern Ireland. We must find out the truth behind what is happening in this sector. I notice that in another place the Minister, Angela Smith, said that she would like to dispel the myth that the order was just a response to industrial action. But if it is not just, or not mainly, a response to industrial action, why is there such a backlog?

Is it not the fact that something like £17 million has been spent in updating the testing centres in Northern Ireland? It would be interesting to see a breakdown of that figure and to know how much of that figure involved the updating of equipment and how much was involved in provision of software. Is it because of the arrangement, whereby that £17 million was spent and the Government have a contract with the people who provided the equipment and software, that they cannot do what should be done in any sensible situation—to contract out to our main agents, the garages in Northern Ireland, the responsibility for doing MoTs.

I know that at the moment, as Minister Smith indicated, the MoT fee in Northern Ireland is £28, whereas in GB it is £40.75. However, I and most of us know that major garages in Northern Ireland actually buy a package to send vehicles over to Scotland— a package that costs £90 for transport and testing in Scotland—after which they bring them back again to turn them over as second-hand vehicles. Why, then, are ordinary car drivers not allowed to avail themselves of the equipment that most major garages have, which they could use very quickly and efficiently to bring vehicles up to the standard?

We are creating this permission to drive unfit vehicles on the road, while the Government cannot afford to privatise the system. Perhaps the Minister could tell us whether the efficiency of those involved in MoT testing up until recently has been as efficient as it should be, given the new equipment that is available. I am told that the testing of vehicles is taking around three times as long as it should. But if, for whatever financial reason, we are unable to privatise the system, surely there should be an interim measure to secure roadworthy vehicles in Northern Ireland. We might even have had pilot programmes to see whether such a move would work; here was an opportunity to see whether private garages could provide the service more efficiently than is being done presently. But no—that opportunity has been lost.

Minister Smith said that car drivers will still be required to keep the car in a roadworthy condition at all times. What an opportunity that is for them! Do we really believe that all people will keep their cars in good condition, unless there is legislation being enforced? If that is the case, we do not need MoT testing in the first place.

The point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, on insurance certificates was even more important. The Minister in another place said that most insurance certificates do not say that the driver must have an MoT certificate. Of course they do not, but they insist that drivers keep their car in a roadworthy condition. In other words, they must ensure that the tyres, brakes and steering are in good order. With this exemption we can be sure that there will be vehicles on the road that are not in good order in those respects.

If that is the case, what happens not when someone has a bang resulting in a £500 or even £5,000 claim, but when someone is seriously disabled for life and there is a claim for tens of thousands of pounds? Will the insurance companies say, "We have an arrangement with government; they will make up the deficit?". I am certain that the insurance companies will not pay. Have government an arrangement with the insurance companies to fulfil any shortfall for which the companies would under other circumstances be liable?

This Order in Council is a death sentence on people in Northern Ireland. I hope that I am not given to exaggeration, but currently there are 19,000 vehicles on the road that should he MoT tested but are not. In addition, there will be all the other vehicles coming on stream plus those that would have been brought up to standard. It strikes me that there is a carelessness regarding the welfare of car drivers and other road users in Northern Ireland.

MoT testing in Northern Ireland is now in disarray; that is why this order has been brought before the Committee. We all recognise that it is in disarray mainly because of the strike; therefore the Government are right to bring forward the order. I am only sorry that it was not brought forward earlier.

My one question relates to the term "temporary exemptions". How long does a temporary exemption last—one month, one year? That has not been spelt out.

I can never understand why Northern Ireland has a different MoT testing system from the one in the rest of the United Kingdom. Obviously, it should be in private hands. The Government should consider giving those currently employed in MoT centres the opportunity to buy out the system so that it is privatised from here on, leaving us in the same position as England, Scotland and Wales.

Since there is disarray in MoT testing with the result that we need temporary exemptions, now that there is to be a planning services strike, can we get temporary exemptions from obtaining planning permission?

The Minister in another place mentioned that 90,000—the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, referred to 87,000—cases were waiting, as reported at column 12 of Hansard. Can the noble Baroness indicate what proportion it is of all annual testing, should it be going on, and how long will it take to clear the backlog? My noble friend Lord Glentoran thought that it would take approximately six months.

Earlier in her speech in another place the Minister said that 5,700 driving tests had been cancelled. I presume that they were cancelled because of this dispute, although it is probably not relevant to the order.

I agree with what many Members of the Committee said concerning drivers being stopped. Whether or not they have had an accident, it could be difficult if they do not have the relevant certificate or piece of paper—even if the insurance and so forth is in order. When drivers come to Great Britain, I suspect that they will generally be all right, but it could be extremely difficult if they go abroad.

That said, this seems to be the best and quickest way to ensure that Northern Ireland motorists drive safely and are able to keep death off the road. However, it is interesting that on average 22 per cent of vehicles fail the MoT; so there are approximately 20,000 people still on the road who perhaps should not be. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her patience.

I shall try to address the points raised in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, asked when we propose to stop issuing certificates of temporary exemption. In the current climate of industrial action, the period of time during which certificates will be issued will depend on how long the dispute continues. They are seen as a tool for enabling the department to manage the workload when the strike comes to an end. We intend to continue using temporary exemptions until the waiting time has returned to an acceptable level. In future, they will be a useful tool for dealing with emergency situations such as fire or a failure in the supply of essential services. A temporary exemption can last for any period up to a maximum of six months.

As regards hauliers maintaining their vehicles to the same standard, there will be no change to the arrangements for maintaining vehicles. The exemptions affect only testing. That applies also to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, with whom I do not agree. The majority of us who have a car that requires an MoT do not wait until after the MoT to determine whether our vehicle needs work on it, but will have a regular maintenance regime with a garage to ensure that the vehicle is kept roadworthy. We see that as an individual responsibility.

Of course, there is the annual testing regime for an MoT, but it is important to recognise that roadworthiness is the responsibility of the individual. It is not the responsibility of the state. I accept that having to get an MoT concentrates the mind, but I do not agree with the noble Lord that the majority of people would not keep their cars in good condition. I think that the opposite is true. A car is an investment. It is in the individual's interests to keep it in a roadworthy condition.

My experience of going through an MoT test annually in Spain is that there are specific regulations for which specific equipment is needed. For example, a gauge can be obtained that will indicate when a tyre is illegal. As regards the steering wheel an inch's play or whatever is allowed, but, again, there is a specific piece of measuring equipment that will indicate whether it is legal. It is the same for the light settings, handbrake, and so forth.

The average driver will not be aware of that sort of detail. Although I have spent my life with vehicles and was in charge of a great number at one time, I have still taken a vehicle for an MoT and been told that one of my tyres needs changing. That sort of detail will not be available. People will be driving "illegally".

I take that point, but I also recognise that most individuals have some kind of service regime for their cars. The majority of garages are able to give that kind of information. I am not saying that there is not an issue here that needs to be addressed. All I am saying is that there is a degree of responsibility that rests with individuals with respect to roadworthiness that we need to accept.

With the greatest respect, the Minister must live in a different world from the one in which I live. The majority of people who service their vehicles regularly are those who have vehicles that are less than three years old—people who have new vehicles and want to keep them in good order. The older the vehicle is, the less it is serviced, for the simple reason that it becomes a very costly operation.

In Northern Ireland—and I am sure that it is the same in other places—we see vehicles driven until they literally fall apart on the side of the road and are abandoned there. Young people then pick them up and use them as runabouts. It would be interesting for Members of the Committee to know the number of accidents caused by uninsured, unlicensed drivers running about with those broken-down abandoned cars. That is the sequence of my experience of motor cars in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Minister takes my point seriously.

The noble Lord has entirely made my point for me. He referred to uninsured, unlicensed drivers; even with an MoT regime, they do not go and get their cars MoTed, because they are driving without insurance, licences and MoTs. That is a completely different group of people to the one that I hope we are talking about—the majority of individuals, who want to operate within the law. We have a specific problem that we need to address in relation to the strike, so I believe that the noble Lord. Lord Maginnis, has just made my point for me.

I go back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, who was concerned about the possibility of increased costs for hauling. The proposed order would not impose additional costs on the haulage industry. On the issue of insurance, which many Members of the Committee mentioned, we have advised motorists to check with their insurance provider that having a temporary exemption rather than a vehicle test certificate does not invalidate their insurance policy. The practice varies between insurance companies. The insurance policies require vehicles to be roadworthy, and some companies use the test certificate as a guarantee of that. But they do not all do that, so it is important for motorists to check with individual companies—and the Police Service of Northern Ireland has an awareness-raising campaign in that regard.

I take the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, that the temporary exemptions appear to fly in the face of what we are trying to do about road safety. I cannot pretend that temporary exemptions are an adequate replacement for the normal regime of vehicle testing and roadside enforcement. But I remind the noble Baroness and the rest of the Committee that temporary exemptions are meant to be a short-term measure, as the name implies, designed to meet the exigencies of a particularly difficult situation that is adversely affecting businesses and ordinary motorists. In order to maintain the focus on road safety and ensure that motorists are fully aware of their responsibilities, we are stepping up publicity in that regard. In issuing the temporary exemptions, we shall try to ensure that those who must go abroad or have a particular need are given a degree of priority when the tests restart. A temporary exemption order will allow a vehicle to be driven legally on the road and to be registered and taxed. They do not remove the requirement for motorists to keep their vehicles in a roadworthy condition.

On the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, of whether the process might be contracted out, that has been considered many times. Each time it has been considered, the conclusion has been that the existing system best meets the needs of the people of Northern Ireland. Of course, the approach in Great Britain has much to commend it, but there is an issue of consistency. Many garages in England and Wales do only six MoT tests a week, and concerns have been raised that the way in which the tests are carried out by individual garages means that a degree of inconsistency is creeping into the system. On the other hand, in Northern Ireland, which has been widely regarded as a model of best practice, the fact that the tests are concentrated means that independence, consistency and objectivity are at the heart of the system. The proposals advanced by the noble Lord have been considered on many occasions.

Temporary exemptions represent a helpful contingency for the long term but obviously the strike is creating a particularly difficult situation, which is why the backlog is at such a high level.

The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, mentioned the efficiency of vehicle testing with the new equipment. I understand that tests now take roughly the same amount of time as they did before, but we hope that, as a result of the introduction of the new equipment and the upgrading, the new system will be more efficient in the longer term. Indeed, as the noble Lord indicated, tests are much cheaper in Northern Ireland than in England and Wales. The department carries out about 500,000 tests a year. The length of time that it will take to clear the backlog will depend on how soon the strike comes to an end.