Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs Fourth Report


Introduction



1. This report reviews the work of the committee, and the recently established Northern Ireland Affairs Sub-committee, since the publication of our last annual report, The Committee's work in 2003.[1] Our progress is discussed under headings which reflect the 'core tasks' for select committees issued by the Liaison Committee in 2002.

2. This year witnessed a strong effort by the governments of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, and others, to enable the resumption of devolved government in Northern Ireland.[2] While final success has proved elusive so far, we are heartened by the continuing commitment of those involved in the talks to achieve a settlement. Agreement must be reached if political and social development in Northern Ireland is to continue and the promise of peace is to be fulfilled. Those involved must continue their efforts to achieve a sustainable agreement which will enable the speedy resumption of devolution.

3. In 2004 this committee has sought to meet the challenge of the continued suspension of devolved government by deepening and broadening the scope of its work, as described in the following paragraphs. The pace of our activity has increased, as has the public profile of the committee. The examples of our work set out below are intended to illustrate the diverse approaches we have taken to our scrutiny role and the way in which we have sought to make a positive contribution to key aspects of policy and administration in Northern Ireland.

Sub-committee—better scrutiny of devolved matters

4. The committee has had the additional responsibility of scrutinising the work of the Departments of the Northern Ireland Executive since the Northern Ireland Assembly's suspension in October 2002. Much of this work in 2003 (though not all) was conducted by correspondence with departments which, while useful, lacked the impact of full select committee scrutiny.[3] Consequently, in January 2004, we appointed a Sub-committee under the chairmanship of Mr Tony Clarke, Member for Northampton South, to consider matters that had fallen previously within the remit of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Sub-committee comprises all members of the main committee.[4]

5. The Sub-committee has lost no time in getting to work, and its efforts have already borne fruit in the publication in October 2004 of a major report on Social Housing Provision in Northern Ireland which, building on scrutiny work undertaken previously by the Northern Ireland Assembly, warns of an impending crisis in social housing if urgent action is not taken to redress the imbalance in housing supply and demand.[5] The Sub-committee's major report into Social Housing Provision in Northern Ireland is an example of the way in which we are seeking, where appropriate, to take account of the priorities of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and its committees, in carrying forward our own scrutiny work of devolved areas of government. The Sub-committee is working currently on two policy inquiries, Waste Management Strategy in Northern Ireland, and Air Transport Services in Northern Ireland.

6. The Sub-committee also conducted two short but penetrating examinations of Northern Ireland Departments. In the first, Department of Education officials were examined on the Future post-primary education arrangements in Northern Ireland.[6]

7. In the second, the Permanent Secretaries of the Departments of Finance and Personnel, and Social Development, were required to account for significant failures in the 2002-03 resource accounts of these departments noted in a recent report by the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland.[7] The Sub-committee confirmed levels of fraud and error totalling £120.9 million in the benefit programmes administered by the Department of Social Development (£112.3 million in 2003-04); the loss of potential savings amounting to £2 million in purchasing consultancy services throughout Northern Ireland Departments; and serious flaws in the Child Support Agency's computer systems. The committee was sufficiently alarmed to report to the House of Commons in January 2005 on Northern Ireland Departments' 2002-03 Resource Accounts recommending urgent remedial action.[8] Building on the work of the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland, the Sub-committee's inquiry into the resource accounts of Northern Ireland Departments has highlighted serious flaws in the financial administration of Departments' resource accounts which must be corrected.

8. The appointment of a Northern Ireland Affairs Sub-committee has enabled us to scrutinise devolved government in Northern Ireland more effectively than before. We consider that the results achieved by it in systematic and targeted scrutiny of Northern Ireland Departments has justified the decision to set it up. As we pointed out last year, the scale of our effort on devolved matters cannot match the resources of the Northern Ireland Assembly,.[9] but we hope that the scrutiny of devolved matters conducted by the Sub-committee will provide a sound basis for the work of the Assembly when it resumes.[10]

Inquiries

9. In the past twelve months we have worked on fourteen inquiries, of which eight have been completed, a higher work rate than in 2002 and 2003.[11] Northern Ireland Office Ministers have given oral and/or written evidence to all enquiries. The classification of these inquiries, in accordance with the core tasks, is set out in the table below (Sub-committee enquiries are marked with an asterisk):
Implementation of legislation/major policy initiatives Follow-up to previous inquiries Pre-legislative scrutiny Scrutiny of associated public bodies Administration and Accounts of Northern Ireland Executive
The separation of paramilitary prisoners at HMP Maghaberry

Report published February 2004

Introduction of the Aggregates Levy in Northern Ireland: one year on

Report published March 2004

The Compensation Agency

Report published May 2004

'Hate Crime': the Draft Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2004

Report Published May 2004

'Hate Crime' in Northern Ireland
Social Housing Provision in Northern Ireland*

Report published October 2004

Electoral Registration in Northern Ireland

Report published December 2004

The Parades Commission and the Public Processions (Northern Ireland)

Report published January 2005

Northern Ireland Departments' 2002-03 Resource Accounts*

Report published January 2005

The Functions of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland
The Functions of the Northern Ireland Policing Board
Waste Management Strategy in Northern Ireland*
Air Transport Services in Northern Ireland*
'Reconciliation': ways of dealing with Northern Ireland's past

VALUE OF FOLLOW UP—'AGGREGATES'

10. In our first report of the current Parliament, Introduction of the aggregates levy in Northern Ireland,[12] we pointed out that this environmental tax, intended to discourage quarrying and encourage aggregate recycling, was unlikely to operate satisfactorily in Northern Ireland because of the availability of a levy-free source of aggregates in the Republic of Ireland. This meant that the straightforward choice to consumers elsewhere in the UK of paying the levy or tax free recycling would be undermined in Northern Ireland. While the Government agreed to phase in the tax in Northern Ireland over five years in an effort to meet these concerns, it quickly became apparent that the predictions in our report were being borne out.

11. When we reopened the inquiry in the summer of 2003, Mr John Healey, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, admitted that the tax was unlikely to meet its environmental objectives in Northern Ireland,[13] and in his pre-Budget statement on 10 December 2003 the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced details of a proposed new scheme which would require State Aid approval from the European Commission in which the relief would be extended from processed to virgin aggregates and frozen at 80% for ten years.[14] Approval from the European Commission was sought by the Government in January 2004, and in our report Introduction of the Aggregates Levy in Northern Ireland: one year on in March 2004, we urged the European Commission to consider the Government's case as a matter of urgency so that there should be no break in the level of relief available on 1 April when the current level of relief was due to drop from 80% to 60%.[15] We were able to press this matter with officials from the Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union, during a visit to the European Commission a few days later in March. The European Commission notified the Government on 7 May 2004 of its substantive agreement to the latter's proposal for an extension of the present arrangements to 31 March 2011 and backdated to 1 April 2004.

12. In its response to the Committee's report on Aggregates, the Government acknowledged that "the Committee's helpful support and encouragement [had] been an important spur to the development and implementation of a new [aggregates levy relief] scheme" for Northern Ireland,[16] and in correspondence with us the Economic Secretary to the Treasury stressed that the committee's support had been "very helpful in securing this successful outcome".[17] We are pleased that our sustained interest in this important subject over a number of years, together with raising the matter directly with officials of the European Commission at the point of decision, has contributed to a successful outcome for Northern Ireland.

VALUE OF FOLLOW UP—'PEACE II'

13. PEACE II, on which we reported last year,[18] is a European structural fund programme for Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland designed to channel support to community groups and reconciliation initiatives promoting economic and social development in disadvantaged areas, and which was due to finish in 2004. It has been worth £366 million (with UK government matched funding) to Northern Ireland over that period.[19] Our inquiry uncovered a number of serious flaws in the administration of the programme including: overly complex application forms; the lack of support to applicant local groups; the length of time taken to process funding applications, multiple audits; and the poor uptake of available financial resources. In addition, any measures to continue support after the scheduled close of the programme in 2004 had yet to be agreed by the government and the European Union.

14. In following up progress on the initiatives for administrative improvements set out in the government's response to our report,[20] we held informal discussions with Mr Ian Pearson, Parliamentary Under-Secretary and Minister responsible for Europe, the Special European Union Programmes Body (SEUPB) which manages PEACE II, and community representatives in February 2004. The SEUPB told us that administrative improvements had been made; the funding application form shortened and the language made more transparent; the small grants application form had been shortened; delivery standards had been established; appropriate monitoring had had been maintained but made less onerous; and, with the help of the programme implementing bodies, the uptake of available funding had improved. The Minister spoke encouragingly about support for a Peace programme after the cessation of PEACE II in 2004. While acknowledging the administrative improvements, the community representatives considered that further improvements could be made. A major concern remained the scheduled closure of the programme in 2004 which threatened the future of many valuable community projects.

15. The future of the PEACE programme continued to remain unclear in early 2004, and we met M. Michel Barnier, European Commissioner for Regional Policy, and senior officials, in Brussels in March 2004 in order to lay out our concerns. The Commissioner adopted an optimistic approach to the future of PEACE II in response to our points, and this was reflected fully in the announcement in October that the European Commission had adopted proposals to extend the PEACE programme in 2005 and 2006.[21] As we agree this report, we understand that the European Parliament will be invited to give final approval to this extension of the PEACE programme, and the sum available from the European Union for the programme in 2005 and 2006 is likely to be EUR 108 million.[22] We wish to take this opportunity to thank M. Barnier and his officials for receiving us warmly and for taking note of our views.

16. We consider that our report on the PEACE II programme of structural funds, taken with our sustained efforts to follow up the administrative shortcomings in the programme and uncertainties about its future with the government, SEUPB, and community groups, and in Brussels directly with the European Commissioner responsible for Regional Policy, contributed materially to securing a more effective uptake of PEACE II funding, much needed administrative improvements, and European Commission support for an extension to the programme in 2005 and 2006.[23]

SEEKING A FASTER POLICY RESPONSE FROM GOVERNMENT—'PARADES'

17. In 2001 the government appointed Sir George Quigley to conduct a review of the Parades Commission and its underpinning legislation, the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998. His report issued for public consultation in 2002 and recommended significant changes to the present arrangements for parades in Northern Ireland.[24] Our report on parades concludes that the Parades Commission has shown some success in reducing the level of contentious parades under extremely difficult circumstances, but that while specific improvements in the operation of the Commission are necessary, we consider that radical change now may place further steady progress at hazard.[25]

18. We launched our inquiry into the Parades Commission in September 2003 partly out of concern that there had been no government response to Sir George Quigley's report. Indeed, more than two years have passed since it was issued for consultation and, despite the Minister indicating to us in evidence in April 2004 that the government intended to issue a response for consultation in the Autumn,[26] none has been forthcoming. While we understand that the Northern Ireland Office would now wish to take account of our inquiry, our work was begun nine months after the issue of the Quigley report, sufficient time for the government to have responded.

19. We understand fully the sensitivity of the parades' issue in Northern Ireland, and the competing pressures on Ministers and officials, particularly in pursuing a resolution to the currently stalled devolution process. We also appreciate the importance of avoiding any rush to judgement on this sensitive subject. However, the failure of the government to engage in a timely fashion with so important an issue has given the impression of a lack of leadership and has been disappointing. We hope that this uncharacteristic delay will not be repeated, and that the government will now respond to the important issues raised in Sir George Quigley's report on parades.

UNCOVERING THE CHALLENGES OF DIVERSITY—'HATE CRIME'

20. It is all too easy to see Northern Ireland solely in terms of the 'Troubles' and their aftermath. While the problems associated with Northern Ireland's difficult past remain, the social fabric of Northern Ireland is constantly changing and throwing up new, if related, challenges. Ethnic and sexual diversity is an important feature of Northern Ireland society, and the needs of people with disabilities must not be overlooked.

21. In response to a reported increase in crimes and incidents motivated by hatred within and between communities we announced a major inquiry into 'Hate Crime' in Northern Ireland in February 2004. As our inquiry has proceeded, the extent of the problem of hatred associated with the challenges of a diverse society has become clearer. We have taken evidence from a wide range of organisations representing ethnically, sexually, and religiously discrete groups whose representatives have left us in no doubt about the barriers to integration and the sense of isolation and alienation frequently experienced by members of their communities. In addition to the more conventional means of obtaining evidence, we asked the Hansard Society to organise a consultation for us 'on-line', and this has enabled us to gather some interesting contributions.

22. We have yet to report on the substance of our inquiry into 'Hate Crime' in Northern Ireland, but it is already evident that the actual extent of such crime has to a considerable extent been masked, and that it requires to be restated in terms which reflect the diversity of Northern Ireland's society in the 21st century. While much of the evidence we have listened to in the course of this inquiry has been profoundly shocking, we are pleased that our work has helped to raise the profile of this issue, and to have been able to afford some of those who have suffered grievous abuse an opportunity to express their hurt. Building a positive and integrated society in Northern Ireland presents a major, continuing challenge to the government, and to all members of civil society.

PRE-LEGISLATIVE SCRUTINY—'HATE CRIME'

23. Immediately prior to the announcement of our inquiry into 'Hate Crime' in Northern Ireland, the government published its proposal for a draft Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order containing proposals to "deal with crimes based on hostility of race, sectarianism, and sexual orientation'.[27] While welcoming the thrust of the government's proposal, we decided to subject it to detailed scrutiny. [28] We took evidence on 14 May and reported quickly on 21 May 2004.[29]

24. People with disabilities were not covered in the proposed 'Hate Crime' draft Order, but in the course of our inquiry we received powerful formal evidence that they are a major focus of precisely this form of discrimination. We also received a memorable presentation in Northern Ireland hosted by Disability Action, and attended by the representatives of many disabled support groups who spoke movingly of the wide variety of attacks on their members. We were not impressed with the government's original reasons for exclusion which were based on a view that crime against those with disabilities was opportunistic.[30] We also noted that the position adopted in the proposed Order for Northern Ireland was at variance with the protection afforded to people with disabilities in England and Wales, which carried the perception that people with disabilities in Northern Ireland were less deserving of specific protection than those on the mainland.

25. The government accepted our recommendation that the proposed draft Order to deal with 'Hate Crime' should be amended to afford the same protection to people with disabilities as for crimes based on hostility of race, sectarianism and sexual orientation.[31] The Committee's scrutiny of this important draft legislation has ensured that a highly vulnerable group received appropriate legal protection. We were also able to give this task appropriate priority, in order to keep in step with the government's legislative timetable, as acknowledged by the government in its response to our report.[32] This is the second consecutive year in which our intervention has secured improvements to proposed legislation.[33] In both cases the government has sought to provide us with adequate time in which to conduct a scrutiny exercise and we acknowledge this co-operation.

OPERATION OF THE NORTHERN IRELAND ACTS 1998 AND 2000

26. Our report on the committee's work in 2003 set out in detail our unease that, during the suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly, the government has chosen to process Orders in Council on 'reserved matters'[34] using the provisions of the Northern Ireland Act 2000, thereby avoiding the normal statutory two month consultation period before such Orders are laid as provided for by Section 85 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.[35] The 'Hate Crime' Order discussed in the preceding paragraphs was made under the provisions of the 2000 Act, despite falling within the 'reserved' area of criminal justice. It is the government's view that Section 85 of the 1998 Act applies only when the Assembly is "up and running", and that while Section 85 could be made to work during the suspension of the Assembly by disapplying those subsections which refer to the Assembly, it would be inappropriate to use it in this way "when an alternative is available on the form of the 2000 Act".[36] However, it remains our view that the 2000 Act procedures do not offer a valid alternative precisely because it contains no statutory consultation period for draft legislative proposals covering 'reserved matters'.

27. We welcome the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland's commitment to provide twelve weeks for consultation of draft Orders in Council, though we note that commitment is less than absolute, and we recognise the effort he has made in practice to provide time for pre-legislative scrutiny.[37] But this is not an adequate substitute for applying the statutory right of scrutiny to 'reserved matters' provided for in section 85 of the 1998 Act. Draft Orders in Council for Northern Ireland, in substance the equivalent of English and Scottish primary legislation, are treated procedurally as secondary legislation and therefore already receive less scrutiny than legislation proposed for England and Wales. The government's practice of processing Orders on 'reserved matters' under the 2000 Act - which enables the government, if it so chooses, to put Northern Ireland legislation through the UK Parliament without consultation in draft, or the opportunity to amend a draft Order once formally laid- represents an unwelcome weakening of the opportunity for Parliamentary scrutiny. We continue to believe that, particularly while the devolved institutions remain suspended, the present position is unsatisfactory and that the administrative convenience of the Northern Ireland Office is taking precedence over procedural propriety. If there are minor flaws in the Northern Ireland Acts 1998 and 2000 which appear to prevent the full operation of Parliamentary scrutiny as intended, these should be corrected with no further delay.

POST-LEGISLATIVE SCRUTINY—'ELECTORAL REGISTRATION'

28. The Committee began a new inquiry in 2003 into Electoral Registration in Northern Ireland to follow up its previous report into Electoral malpractice, and the subsequent introduction of the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002.[38] Our inquiry was focused in particular upon the electoral registration process and the effectiveness of the anti -fraud measures brought in by the 2002 Act before and after the Assembly elections scheduled for May 2003. In the event, these elections were postponed and took place on 26 November 2003 and we resumed our work in 2004.[39] We concluded that the 2002 Act appeared to be working well in reducing levels of electoral fraud but that one major initiative which had contributed to this reduction (the abolition of the so-called 'carry-forward' mechanism by which the names on the electoral register remain on it automatically for one year) had had the unintended effect of contributing to the steep and progressive decline in the numbers of voters appearing on the register over recent years.[40] We considered that, unless checked quickly, this decline would to threaten the integrity of the electoral system in Northern Ireland.[41]

29. Just prior to the publication of our report, Mr John Spellar, Minister of State at the Northern Ireland Office, issued a written statement in the House of Commons in which he highlighted the problem of the decline in the Northern Ireland electoral register and indicated that the government intended to introduce legislation "if parliamentary time allows" to permit the chief electoral officer to reinstitute 'carry forward' as a temporary measure.[42] The government has yet to respond to our report on electoral registration, and if 'carry forward' is reintroduced we shall look with interest to see what effect it may have on the levels of electoral fraud. The electoral system is a complex but crucial aspect of the democratic process. It is fundamental to the normalisation of life in Northern Ireland that electors have complete confidence in the integrity of that system. Our report on Electoral registration in Northern Ireland is intended to contribute to the process of ensuring that there is an electoral system of excellence operating in Northern Ireland. More generally, the report demonstrates the usefulness of targeted and timely post-legislative scrutiny.

INQUIRIES INTO ASSOCIATED PUBLIC BODIES OF THE NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE

30. This year we have made a particular effort to scrutinise two relatively new bodies which are a crucial parts of the new policing arrangements for Northern Ireland, the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Policing Board, and shall be to reporting on both shortly. These bodies are operationally independent of the Northern Ireland Office but receive funding from it.[43] We paid informal preliminary visits to both prior to taking formal evidence, and we wish to thank Mrs Nuala O'Loan, the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, and Professor Sir Desmond Rea, Chairman of the Northern Ireland Policing Board, for helping to make our visits worthwhile. The Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Policing Board are important parts of the new policing architecture which has been put in place for Northern Ireland, and which is designed to ensure the delivery of an excellent, modern police service to the people of Northern Ireland. Our inquiries into these bodies are separate. However, by scrutinising them at broadly the same time, we hope to capture a more complete picture of progress in important aspects of policing than would otherwise have been possible.

31. In May 2004 we published a report into The Compensation Agency which was set up in 1992 to administer compensation schemes for the victims of terrorism and other violent crimes, and those who suffer loss as a result of action under the emergency provisions legislation.[44] The possible loss to public funds of £5 million as a result of the abuse of the Terrorism Act compensation schemes was amongst the problems we uncovered. However, the Agency is taking steps to tighten procedures, and this is welcome. We are highly conscious of the acute suffering of the victims of terrorism over the past 30 years in Northern Ireland. It is through the work of The Compensation Agency that the pain and suffering of victims may receive some tangible recognition. It is vital that the Agency's procedures are as flawless as possible. We intend to follow up this inquiry to ensure that the Agency continues its programme of improvements.[45]

LOOKING FORWARD—'RECONCILIATION'

32. We announced our inquiry, Reconciliation: ways of dealing with Northern Ireland's past, in November 2004. This was, in part, a continuation of our determination to ensure that the needs of the victims of terrorism in Northern Ireland are neither forgotten nor overlooked. It was also a response to the Prime Minister's call earlier in 2004 to seek "ways of dealing with the past which recognise the pain, grief and anger connected with it but which also enables it to build a better future for the next generation."[46] The government has welcomed our inquiry warmly. The response we have had to date from individuals and organisations in Northern Ireland and elsewhere has been substantial, with contributions being received at approximately three times the rate for previous inquiries. We have extended the original deadline for the receipt of memoranda.

33. The complexity of an inquiry into 'reconciliation' in Northern Ireland requires a distinct approach. We envisage this as a process in which key areas are considered and reported upon separately, rather than a single, all-encompassing inquiry. We have therefore decided to hear first from victims and victims' groups. We hope that this work will provide the opportunity for all those who wish to engage with us to contribute positively to strengthening the process of peace in Northern Ireland.

Departmental administration and expenditure

34. As last year, we have carried out our examination of the Departmental Annual Report 2004 by correspondence. Our detailed questions to the Northern Ireland Office, and the Department's responses, are reproduced at Appendix 1. We wish to highlight the following points:

Departmental Report format

  • We had occasion last year to criticise strongly the standard of proof reading which had led to a substantial level of error and confusion in the Departmental Annual Report 2003.[47] In his response to our report the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland undertook to ensure that "Careful proof-reading will be a priority for the office in the production of the 2004 Departmental Report."[48] We are pleased to report that, while not flawless,[49] the standard of proof reading in the Annual Report for 2004 is much higher than in 2003.
  • Last year we commented adversely on the variation in quality and quantity of the information provided by the NIO's offices, agencies and NDPBs for insertion in the Departmental Report, and noted that "it should be possible to agree a basic template requiring these organisations to report a brief summary of their role, their objectives, their actual performance against key targets and the financial outturns.[50] The Department stated in 2003 that it was "providing the NDPBs and Agencies with a template to standardise the format of the Report".[51] However, we are concerned that the scope of information in the Departmental Report 2004 on certain of the Department's associated bodies appears to have been reduced in 2004. This is reflected in the length of certain entries. For example, the Compensation Agency entry has reduced from three pages in the Departmental Report 2003 to one in the 2004 Report; and the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland's entry has reduced from eight paragraphs to two, comprising only the most basic information. The reader of the Departmental Report 2004 will receive relatively little information about the effectiveness of certain of the Department's key associated bodies. This continues to be a flaw in the Report format. We recognise the complexity of the annual reporting exercise, but to be worthwhile the result must be a document setting out clearly what has been achieved by all these key bodies.

Targets for service standards - Ministerial correspondence

  • It is disappointing that the Northern Ireland Office has missed its target of replying to Ministerial correspondence for the third year in succession and lies thirteenth out of seventeen Whitehall departments reporting on this target (68.79% of replies within target time in 2003).[52] We note that the NIO's deadline for replies is 10 days which is more demanding than many departments. It is not clear to us why there should be a variation in the targets across departments, and exactly why the NIO is failing consistently to meet its target. The Department has improved its performance recently in meeting its target for answering Ministerial correspondence, but over 30% of replies fail currently to issue within the deadline set and further improvement is required.

Forensic Science Northern Ireland

  • The UK Accreditation Service withdrew accreditation from the Forensic Science Northern Ireland (FSNI) in May 2003. We note that the re-accreditation assessments covering key aspects of FSNI work including, DNA, Firearms, and Specialised Fingerprint Unit, were due in December 2004; and that remaining areas of work are to be brought "into re-accreditation" in 2005. We hope that re-accreditation was achieved in the assessments scheduled for December 2004, and to see Forensic Science Northern Ireland achieve full re-accreditation in 2005.

NIO Efficiency target

  • The Treasury's Spending review 2004 calls for savings of at least 2.5% annually from government departments. The NIO has agreed to achieve savings of £90 million by 2007-08, and has told us that it has "embarked on an ambitions efficiency programme".[53] However, it appears that the Department's gross administrative costs are set to increase by 9% on the previous year in both 2004-05 and 2005-06. Against those projections, we shall look with interest at the progress which the Department makes in achieving its efficiency target.
  • We initiated in 2002 a system for the Department to update the committee about its activities at regular intervals.[54] This has proved an extremely useful aid to scrutiny by alerting us, in advance, to a wide range of work in progress across all parts of the NIO and the Northern Ireland Departments. We acknowledge the co-operation of officials of the NIO and the Northern Ireland Departments in providing these reports to us to time, and for responding promptly to a number of ad hoc requests throughout the year.
  • In general, the timeliness of the government's responses to our reports has been satisfactory. Two responses were received over one week late.[55]

Review of recommendations

35. In our review of the Government's performance on our past recommendations, we this year decided to seek updates on seven key reports published since Session 2000-01 covering, Relocation Following Paramilitary Intimidation, Forensic Science Northern Ireland, The Illegal Drugs Trade and Drug Culture in Northern Ireland: Interim Report on Cannabis, The Illegal Drugs Trade and Drug Culture in Northern Ireland, Peace II, The separation of paramilitary prisoners at HMP Maghaberry, and The Compensation Agency.[56] The government's memorandum is printed as Appendix 2.

36. We sought updates from the government on a number of recommendations in past reports. We shall be considering these in detail in due course, but are pleased to note the evidence of considerable recent policy activity across all the areas on which we reported, in particular: proposed legislation giving the police powers to require motorists suspected of committing offences while under the influence of drugs is proposed for 2005; the prospect of a proportion of criminal assets seized in Northern Ireland being used there; and, that PEACE II expenditure targets (N+2) for 2003 and 2004 have been met.

Other

VISITS

37. Reference has already been made to the value of our visit to Brussels in March 2004 in enabling us to follow up our work on the aggregates relief scheme and the PEACE II programme.[57] We paid a valuable visit to the charity Children for Peace based at the Peace Centre, Warrington in connection with our work on 'Hate Crime'. We wish to take this opportunity to thank Colin and Wendy Parry, and the staff of the centre, for their detailed presentation on the valuable work for peace which the Centre is undertaking with young people.

38. We consider it very important to conduct as much of our business as possible in Northern Ireland. This is particularly so in the case of the Sub-committee whose remit covers devolved matters. Our visits to Northern Ireland usually last two days during which we are able to conduct a broader range of work than would be possible at Westminster.[58] For example, during our visit on 13 and 14 September 2004, we held three formal evidence sessions of several hours on our major inquiry into 'Hate Crime' in Northern Ireland during which we heard from 33 witnesses, and also held three informal briefings on separate subjects. The Sub-committee has made a point of meeting outside the greater Belfast area, and has taken evidence in relation to all three of its major policy inquiries in Londonderry. In 2004 more than a quarter of the meetings of the committee and Sub-committee took place in Northern Ireland. We consider it important that a substantial proportion of our meetings are held in Northern Ireland on the grounds of efficiency and effectiveness.

DEBATES

39. Racially Motivated Attacks[59] was debated by the Northern Ireland Grand Committee on 9 December 2004 when our report, 'Hate Crime': the Draft Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2004,[60] was made available to Members attending the Committee. We shall be seeking time in the immediate future for a Westminster Hall debate on the Sub-committee's report into Social Housing Provision in Northern Ireland.[61]

INFORMAL MEETINGS

40. We have conducted a number of private and informal meetings in addition to our formal evidence sessions. As in past years, we have found that such meetings frequently provide a forum for more wide-ranging and sustained probing than is possible in formal evidence sessions. In addition to the productive exchanges with Commissioner Barnier and European Union officials in connection with Peace II already mentioned, in March 2004 we met officials from the Directorate-General for Justice and Home Affairs to discuss the fight against organised crime, terrorism and the drugs trade, all matters on which we have reported. We visited the Office of the Northern Ireland Executive in Brussels and were briefed on its work. We followed up our briefing from the top management of the Assets Recovery Agency in 2003 with a further meeting designed to keep us abreast of the development of the Agency and its important work targeting criminal assets in Northern Ireland. In the course of the year we have met organisations supporting victims of the 'Troubles', disability groups, and have benefited greatly from briefings from the Northern Ireland Community Relations Council, the Probation Service of Northern Ireland, and the Committee on the Administration of Justice. We held a most useful meeting with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The broad range of informal meetings we have held in 2004 has deepened our understanding of the current problems facing Northern Ireland. We wish to express our thanks to all those who took the trouble to talk to us.

APPOINTMENTS

41. One of the tasks set by the Liaison Committee is to carry out 'appointment' hearings for major public appointments. We have not considered it appropriate to carry out such a hearing formally in public but, as in 2003, we have made it our practice, where possible, to meet individuals appointed to key positions privately. We were able to meet the Oversight Commissioner in September 2004 to discuss his view of the current progress in implementing the changes to policing in Northern Ireland resulting from the Patten Report.[62] We are grateful to him for making time available to meet us at what was an exceptionally busy time for his Office.


1   Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, First Report of Session 2003-04, The Work of the Committee 2003, HC146 Back

2   Proposals by the British and Irish Governments for a Comprehensive Agreement. The full text may be found on the website of the Northern Ireland Office at http://www.nio.gov.uk/media-detail.htm?newsID=10614 Back

3   HC 146, para 21 Back

4   Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, Minutes of Proceedings 2003-04, HC1311. The day to day work of the Sub-committee has been administered by a Northern Ireland Assembly clerk attached to our clerking secretariat  Back

5   Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, Sixth Report of 2003-04, Social Housing Provision in Northern Ireland, HC493, para4 Back

6   Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, Future post-primary education arrangements in Northern Ireland, Minutes of Evidence and Appendix, HC 616-i Back

7   Northern Ireland Audit Office, Financial Auditing and reporting: 2002-2003, General Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland, June 2004, HC 673 Back

8   Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, Third Report of 2004-05, Northern Ireland Departments' 2002-03 Resource Accounts, HC 173 Back

9   HC 146, para 22 Back

10   We acknowledge the assistance of the House of Commons Committee Office Scrutiny Unit and the Northern Ireland Assembly Research and Library Service in our work. The appointment of a Committee Specialist was made to the committee's Clerking Secretariat for the first time in January 2004. We have benefited from advice on media matters from our Select Committee Media Officer  Back

11   2003: inquiries started, eight, reports of inquiries published, four; 2002: inquiries started five, reports of inquiries published, two. HC 146, para 2, and Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, Second Report of Session 2002-03, Annual Report 2002, HC 271, para 2. The total of fourteen does not take account of the single session of evidence taken on the Future post-primary education arrangements in Northern Ireland, see para 6 above  Back

12   Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, First Report 2001-02, Introduction of the aggregates levy in Northern Ireland, HC 337 Back

13   HC 146, para 9 Back

14   HM Treasury, Pre-Budget Report, December 2003, Cm 6042, page163 Back

15   Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, Third Report of Session 2003-04, Introduction of the Aggregates Levy in Northern Ireland: one year on, HC 395 Back

16   Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, Fourth Special Report of Session 2003-04, Introduction of the Aggregates Levy in Northern Ireland: one year on - The Government's Response, HC 666, page 1 Back

17   Letter of 7 May 2004 Back

18   Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, Seventh Report of Session 2002-03, Peace II, HC653-I  Back

19   HC 653-I, para 1 Back

20   Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, Seventh Special Report of Session 2002-03, Government Response to the Committee's Seventh Report on Peace II, HC 1077, para 10 Back

21   European Union, Regional Policy Newsletter No 128, November 2004, 'Northern Ireland/Ireland: Peace 2005-06'  Back

22   £76 million at exchange rate of 1 GBP = EUR 1.419. The European Community contribution attracts UK matching funding of 25% Back

23   See Appendix 2 Back

24   Sir George Quigley, Review of the Parades Commission and Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 Back

25   Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, Second Report of Session 2004-05, The Parades Commission and the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998, HC 172 Back

26   HC 172, para 23 Back

27   Explanatory Memorandum, Proposal For A Draft Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2004, Northern Ireland Office, 9 February 2004, Part 1 Back

28   Explanatory Memorandum, Proposal For A Draft Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2004, Northern Ireland Office, 9 February 2004, Part 1 Back

29   Northern Ireland Affairs Committee Fifth Report of Session 2003-04, 'Hate Crime': the Draft Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2004, HC 615 Back

30   HC615, para13 Back

31   Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, Fifth Special Report of Session 2003-04, 'Hate Crime': The Draft Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2004 - Government Response, HC 954. The Criminal Justice (No 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004 (2004 No.1991 (N.I.15) was made on 24th July 2004 and came into operation on 28 September 2004 Back

32   HC954, page2 Back

33   The proposed draft Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order, HC 146, para10 Back

34   "'Reserved matters' under the Northern Ireland Act 1998 are policy areas which are currently retained by the government for handling at Westminster but which it expects to devolve to the Assembly at a future date; they include criminal justice and policing.", HC 146, para 12  Back

35   HC 271, paras 5-11 and HC146, paras 11-20 Back

36   Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, Second Special Report of Session 2003-04, Work of the Committee in 2003 - Government's Response, HC 510, page 2 Back

37   HC 510, page 1 Back

38   Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, Second Report of Session 1997-98, Electoral Malpractice in Northern Ireland, HC 316 Back

39   We published the minutes of evidence from our initial hearing in 2003 as HC 619-i Back

40   Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, First Report 2004-05, Electoral Registration in Northern Ireland, HC131, para 43  Back

41   HC 131, para19 Back

42   HC Deb, 30 November 2004, col 28WS Back

43   Both bodies are classed as non-departmental public bodies, Northern Ireland Office, Departmental Report 2004, Cm6229, April 2004, page3 Back

44   Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, Fourth Report of Session 2003-04, The Compensation Agency, HC 271. The Compensation Agency is an Executive Agency of the Northern Ireland Office, Departmental Report 2004, page 3 Back

45   See Appendix 2 Back

46   Secretary of State for Northern Ireland's statement to the House of Commons on 27 May 2004. HC Deb, 27 May 2004, Col 91WS Back

47   HC 146, para 23 Back

48   HC 510, page 1 Back

49   The Department has clarified that the key to Chart 14.2 on page 88 of Departmental Annual Report 2004 is incorrect in showing that the Police Service of Northern Ireland made up only 3% of the files received by the Director of Public Prosecutions. The figure should have been 69% Back

50   HC 146, para 23 Back

51   HC 510, page 3 Back

52   Departmental Report 2004, page 18. The percentages for 2001 and 2002 were 49% and 59% respectively, Northern Ireland Office 2002 Departmental Report, Cm 5432, June 2002, page31; Northern Ireland Office 2003 Departmental Report, Cm 5929, May 2003, page 29 Back

53   Appendix 1. HM Treasury, Spending Review 2004, Cm 6237, page 16; ibid, Table 2.1, page 16 Back

54   HC 271, para19 Back

55   Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, Third Special Report of Session 2003-04, The Separation of Paramilitary Prisoners at HMP Maghaberry: Government's Response to the Committee's Second Report of Session 2003-04, HC 583; and Introduction of the Aggregates Levy in Northern Ireland: one year on The Government's Response, HC 666 Back

56   Third Report of Session 2000-01, Relocation Following Paramilitary Activity, HC 59; Fifth Report of Session 2002-03, Forensic Science Northern Ireland, HC 204; Sixth Report of Session 2002-03, The Illegal Drugs Trade and Drug Culture in Northern Ireland: Interim Report on Cannabis, HC 353; Eighth Report of Session 2002-03, The Illegal Drugs Trade and Drug Culture in Northern Ireland, HC 1217;Seventh Report of Session 2002-03, Peace II, HC 653, Second Report of Session 2003-04, The separation of paramilitary prisoners at HMP Maghaberry, HC 302; Fourth Report of Session 2003-04, The Compensation Agency, HC 271. Back

57   See paras 10-16 above Back

58   HC1311 Back

59   Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, Racially Motivated Attacks, 9 December 2004 Back

60   HC615 Back

61   HC493 Back

62   The Office of the Oversight Commissioner was established as a result of recommendations 172-175 of The Report of the Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland (the Patten Report). Statutory provisions regarding the Commissioner are laid down in The Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, Sections 67 and 68 and Schedule 4  Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2005
Prepared 27 January 2005