Northern Ireland

HC Deb 01 December 1981 vol 14 cc156-200

Mr. Speaker

Before entering on the main debate, I remind hon. Members that the Estimates before the House are Supplementary Estimates and do not extend over the whole field of Northern Ireland administration. Matters that are not covered by them cannot, of course, be debated at all. It follows from this that security matters in Northern Ireland cannot and will not be discussed under these Estimates today. Of those matters that are so covered, the scale of the financial provision that is sought is sufficient to allow a wide debate on agricultural support, loans to industrial undertakings and industrial grant, and, in the context of non-contributory supplementary benefits, a reasonably wide debate on the question of unemployment.

4.33 pm

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. John Patten)

I beg to move, That the draft Appropriation (No. 3) (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 17th November, be approved. The order, like its predecessors, is being made under paragraph 1 of schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974. The purpose of the draft order is to appropriate the 1981–82 Autumn Supplementary Estimates of Northern Ireland Departments, which amount in total to £33 million. The 1981–82 Main Estimates, approved in July last, amounted to £2,311 million. The purposes of the supplementary provisions are described in the schedule to the draft order.

Before I touch on the main features of the Estimates, I should mention that, as is usual, more detailed information can be found in the Estimates volume, copies of which have been placed in the Vote Office, and in the explanatory memorandum, which has been sent to hon. Members who participated in the last Appropriation order debate. Additional copies of this have also been placed in the Vote Office.

The most important aspects of this draft order are those concerned with agriculture, industry and social security. I shall deal with each in turn.

I turn to the first of the main components of the Autumn Supplementary Estimates. Hon. Members will see that additional provision of some £7.3 million is being sought under Class I, Votes 1 and 2, by the Department of Agriculture. My right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland announced on 27 March 1981 that up to £10 million of special aid was to be provided for Northern Ireland agriculture, and in the Northern Ireland Appropriation debate that took place on 17 July 1981 my hon. Friend the then Minister of State asked the House to note that Supplementary Estimates would be presented in due course for measures to be borne on Northern Ireland Votes as part of this special package of assistance for agriculture in the Province. This was in recognition of the serious problems facing the agriculture industry following two years of rapidly falling incomes, and the intention was that the extra aid would be allocated through various schemes to different sectors of the industry.

It is important for the House to appreciate that some £2.3 million of the available assistance relates to the existing suckler cow subsidy, which is borne on a United Kingdom Vote rather than on a Northern Ireland Vote and is therefore outside the scope of this draft order. A further £7.23 million is likely to be taken up, and these Supplementary Estimates include provision for measures to develop beef cattle production, in particular, mainly through reductions in charges under the Department's artificial insemination service and its beef recording and performance testing scheme; and to aid silage production and the liming of grassland.

In addition, provision is also sought for a liquid milk subsidy that will benefit milk producers by enabling the Milk Marketing Board for Northern Ireland to fix a higher wholesale price for milk going for liquid consumption without Northern Ireland consumers having to pay a higher price. There is also provision for aid to the intensive pig and poultry industries which will take the form of payments to operators of pig and poultry meat processing plants and egg packing stations. It is designed to prevent a rundown in pig, egg and poultry industries of the Province, which could have serious consequences for employment.

Pending the approval of Parliament, the expenditure on the liquid milk, lime and silage subsidies and on the aid for the intensive livestock sector is being met by advances from the Northern Ireland Civil Contingencies Fund and a proportion of this supplementary provision under scrutiny now will be required to repay advances from that fund.

Secondly, passing on to the industrial development programme of the Department of Commerce, the net additional requirement of £6.2 million under Class II, Vote 2—General Support to Industry—brings total provision on this Vote to £187 million. This reflects the Government's commitment to sustaining a vigorous industrial development drive in the Province through the provision of financial assistance aimed at encouraging the establishment, development and the competitiveness of industrial undertakings in the Province. That is the thrust of the Government's policy. The Government believe that everything possible must continue to be done to maintain and to enhance the Province's industrial base. This is the only long-term answer to the serious unemployment problem that the Province faces.

I should like to go through the major items in the Supplementary Estimates. First, there is the additional provision of £2.9 million required under sub-head A1 to provide industrial development loans to assist Lear Fan, an American company engaged in Northern Ireland in the manufacture of a new fuel-efficient executive aircraft based on the application of carbon fibre technology.

An additional £2.4 million is required under sub-head A3 for industrial development grants, which are the major element in this Government's selective and job-related financial assistance programme. This programme, I think, is without doubt the most generous of any region in the United Kingdom. It reflects the determination of the Government to do everything possible to attract overseas development and overseas investment to the Province and also, equally importantly, to encourage local companies to expand and to maintain their employment.

We must depend both on investment coming from abroad and on the maintenance and expansion of the indigenous industrial base that exists in the Province. It is worth pointing out again that one Brussels-based consultancy has concluded that Northern Ireland has the best package of investment incentives in the whole of Western Europe. That is not to say that the Government are complacent about the situation. We shall constantly keep the incentives that are available under review to ensure their continuing competitiveness and cost effectiveness.

Under sub-head D1, the same amount of £2.4 million that is needed under sub-head A3 is required for capital grants. These grants are broadly comparable to those available in Great Britain under the regional development grant scheme and, like them, are aimed at encouraging manufacturing investment.

Mr. Stephen Ross (Isle of Wight)

The hon. Gentleman has mentioned an interesting series of grants and loans available to industry. Is he satisfied that enough is being done to encourage local co-operatives, for which there is a demand in Northern Ireland, that is not perhaps fully met by the schemes that he has outlined?

Mr. Patten

The whole House is aware of the hon. Gentleman's interest in locally based co-operatives. The Government are taking action, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, through the business opportunities programme and other schemes brought forward under the aegis of the Secretary of State for Industry, to enable locally based cooperatives to be successful in the Province, as many are now beginning to be successful on this side of the water. What is available in the Province would make any dispassionate and objective observer of the economic scene, familiar with the concept of the enterprise zone, think that the economic help already available for the Province makes up the skeleton and some of the flesh of a full-blown enterprise region. This is not widely enough appreciated, particularly abroad.

Hon. Members will recognise, I hope, the priority for industrial development that underlies the provision which is now sought under the general support for industry Vote. I hope that the Opposition shares my sentiment when I say that there can be no hope of making significant inroads into reducing Northern Ireland's chronic unemployment problems unless we search everywhere for new employment opportunities, whether generated by indigenous companies or coming from abroad.

In spite of the adverse effect of the continuing world recession and the damaging image presented of the Province overseas, we shall continue to seek to create conditions that are conducive to attracting foreign investors. There is no point in beating about the bush concerning the importance of the image of Northern Ireland abroad and of the inhibitions that this image can sometimes put on people who might otherwise consider inward investment in the Province. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has returned recently from an industrial promotion tour of the United States and Japan, during which he has devoted a substantial amount of time, with his characteristic vigour, to trying to correct the misconceptions of Northern Ireland as a place in which to live and work for those who were considering investing in the Province.

We are taking as many steps as possible to refine and sharpen the overseas promotional effort by concentrating those efforts overseas on sectors selected for their growth potential and suitable to Northern Ireland location. There are many of them. My hon. Friend will doubtless draw attention to them later.

The Government have been accused in the past, I think wrongly, of concentrating their industrial development effort too much on attracting large, glamorous overseas investment projects and of overlooking the indigenous employment potential and the internal industrial vigour of the Province. I believe that such an accusation is false. We are equally concerned to maximise the employment potential of home-grown industry whether large, medium-sized or small.

Hon. Members may be aware of the recently published "Framework for Action" document that spelt out our commitment to local industry. The purpose of the document was to provide a statement of all the initiatives and schemes that the Government are undertaking in the industrial development sphere and to attempt to pull them altogether to demonstrate the coherence of the Government's strategy. Expenditure on this Vote is also aimed at maintaining as much as possible of the indigenous industrial and manufacturing base of the Province to provide a springboard from which we can take full advantage of an economic upturn.

I move now to social security. Under Class X, Vote 1, an additional sum of £5.6 million is sought in respect of the supplement to the Northern Ireland national insurance fund from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund. The supplement is calculated by the Government Actuary and the increased provision now sought follows the Government Actuary's latest assessment of the amount that is payable in the present financial year. Among the benefits paid from the Northern Ireland national insurance fund, as is the case with the national insurance fund on this side of the water, are retirement pensions and invalidity, unemployment, sickness and widows' benefits. Total outgoings from the fund in 1981–82 will be in the region of £489 million. I welcome the opportunity at this stage of welcoming the Social Democratic Party spokesman, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson) who has doubtless been detained elsewhere at local celebrations. More than half the sum of £489 million that I have mentioned will be in respect of retirement pensions.

Under Class X, Vote 2, the sum of £14.2 million is being sought in respect of non-contributory benefits. Some £14 million of this relates to supplementary benefits. The rest relates to other payments such as non-contributory invalidity benefits and others. The requirement of £14 million for supplementary benefits has arisen largely as a result of the increasing numbers of unemployed who have been out of work for periods in excess of a year and who have thus exhausted their entitlement to unemployment benefit.

It is a matter of deep regret to the Government, as I am sure it is to the House, that it is necessary to come to the House with a Supplementary Estimate that reflects the rising cost of unemployment-related social security benefits. It is difficult to find the right words that are not hackneyed through too much use on previous occasions. The words that I shall use are that the figures for unemployment in Northern Ireland represent a tragic human and economic picture. There are no other words to use.

I have already referred to the vigorous efforts that are being made by the Government in industrial promotion. We recognise, of course, that those efforts need to be complemented by shorter-term measures. They have to complement each other. It is our intention to present to the House a Spring Supplementary Estimate to provide for a package of employment measures similar to that introduced in the rest of the United Kingdom. In the meantime, most hon. Members—from the Province, at least—will know that the Northern Ireland youth opportunities programme is being expanded from 7,000 to 12,000 places during the current financial year. Further improvements are under active consideration, and in the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland they are regarded as having special priority.

Finally, I want to mention the report of the Select Committee on Procedure (Supply), as it relates to our considerations this afternoon. I understand that it is to be debated in the House in due course. While the Select Committee made no recommendations whatsoever relating specifically to Northern Ireland Supply arrangements, we shall carefully consider any changes introduced in Great Britain arrangements to see whether they can be usefully adapted to Northern Ireland Supply procedures, which have been a matter of concern in the past.

I have tried to refer in adequate detail to what I believe are the major aspects of the draft order. However, I know that right hon. and hon. Members will raise other matters. Perhaps we shall hear the voice of the newcomer to the Opposition Front Bench, the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley), whom we welcome to these debates. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, who is present, will attempt to answer as many questions as possible. As usual, those that remain unanswered—some always remain unanswered, purely through lack of time—will be answered later in correspondence, as is our practice. With that promise, I commend the draft order to the House.

4.52 pm

Mr. J. D. Concannon (Mansfield)

I gather from the Minister's speech that this is a narrow Appropriation order. I thank the Department and the Minister for the explanatory memorandum.

I pay tribute to my ex-colleague on the Northern Ireland Opposition team. He was a Government Minister for some time and had been on the Opposition Front Bench for some time, always giving me great help. I refer, of course, to my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), who is a great friend of Northern Ireland. As the Minister said, I have a new colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley), who will be introduced to the intricacies of Northern Ireland and the debating procedures as we go along.

However, we shall miss the presence of Robert Bradford, who was so foully murdered. He attended every Appropriation debate in which I took part, representing his constituents and doing what he could, both for his constituency and for Northern Ireland. We shall have a debate on security before Christmas, so we can leave that matter until then.

The Minister's speech reminded me of the same speech that I made in 1978, with the odd figures up-dated. Basically, it was the same as the speeches that I made in 1975, 1976, 1977 and 1978. It was none the worse for that. No one knows better than I and the Ministers who came after me the difficulty of selling Northern Ireland overseas. We know the completely false picture that is painted of industrial life and life as a whole in the Province. I accept the strictures of keeping closely to the Appropriation (No. 3) (Northern Ireland) Order, and I have no doubt that if I wander from it I shall be brought to order.

Class I, Vote 2, authorises a further £6.4 million for agricultural support. The agriculture industry in Northern Ireland has declined with frightening rapidity since the Government came to power. Farm incomes plummeted from £33.5 million in 1979 to £9 million in 1980, and it is already anticipated that the 1981 incomes will drop even further. At the same time, the Government have systematically squeezed the fanning sector by reducing funds from Government for a whole range of grants, subsidies and support services. The net effect has been to depress the industry and push Northern Ireland farming towards a low-output, subsistence type of agriculture.

Last March, the then Secretary of State publicly recognised the plight of farmers and promised increased aid. Today's Vote is of marginal help. We find it especially ironic that the Government are to give £3.7 million for an extra-statutory milk subsidy to enable a higher price to be paid for wholesale liquid milk—less than two years after they abolished milk aid. It is a cruel deception to take away assistance in 1980 only to give it back on a smaller, more temporary scale in 1981, as though a great favour were being granted to the farming community in Northern Ireland. Even with that assistance, dairy farmers in the Province still receive 1p per litre less than do their counterparts in England and Wales.

The agriculture industry in the Province desperately needs a co-ordinated and reliable policy from the Government if the present decline is to be arrested. Looking at the content of this Vote, we see no prospect other than continued piecemeal attempts to hold the industry back from the brink of disaster. We sincerely hope that the Government will adopt a more rational approach to Northern Ireland's agriculture in next year's financial allocation, but we see little sign of that.

Class II, Vote 2, is for £6.2 million. It is referred to as general support for industry, and I know that it is a supplementary Vote. However, this Vote represents a miserable addition to support for industry in Northern Ireland. At a time when the official register shows that there are 19 per cent. of the working population out of a job—there are probably many more unregistered unemployed—all that the Government offer is a paltry sum of £6 million, which will hardly make any impression on the industrial scene in Northern Ireland.

We are deeply concerned about the economic depression in the Province. Over the past two and a half years redundancies have far outstripped job creations, and factory closures are now commonplace. The dedication and hard work of the last Administration have been squandered for the sake of an unproven and unworkable economic theory. What has been easily destroyed will take many years to rebuild at vastly more expense than if factories had been kept open. It would have been better if factories had been kept open by subsidy or any type of Government help rather than allowing some of them to disappear and hoping that at some time or other they could be bought back.

In desperation, we look at what the Government have done to arrest the economic decline in the Province. The "sit back and let things happen" attitude has had disastrous consequences. That attitude showed itself in the closure of the Belfast-Liverpool ferry. Jobs and tourist possibilities have been lost, and Ministers appear to sit back despite the vehement opposition of Labour Members, trade unionists and the vast majority of those in Northern Ireland. I hesitate to say it, but such indifference appears symbolic of the Government's entire attitude to the economic problems of the Province. Over the past few months we have seen little of consequence from the Government to lead us to believe that they have any genuine concern for the unemployed, either in Britain or in Northern Ireland. A glossy paper landed on my desk in September, entitled "A Framework for Action". My copy has all of my scribbled comments on the front. I doubt whether it would be in order for me to read them.

Mr. James Kilfedder (Down, North)

Read them anyway.

Mr. Concannon

I shall probably come to the substance of them. The well-meaning document was initially impressive, but in our opinion it missed the whole point about the problems of economic recovery in Northern Ireland. Private investment alone will never bring jobs to the Province. Even when investors and speculators decide to place their money in the Province, they often set up peripheral factories, which are the first to go when there is a financial pinch.

We firmly believe—the 1976 Quigley report supported this view and this document is virtually a rehash of Quigley—that only a strong and coherent regional policy, with public enterprises and planning agreements, will go any way towards helping the apparently unstoppable stream of factory closures and redundancies. One has only to look at the success of the De Lorean car factory to see a good example of how public money, in tune with private finance and expertise, can bring stable jobs to Northern Ireland.

At the end of October the company was making 400 cars a week and directly employed 2,507 workers in its Dunmurry factory. I understand that over 2,000 companies in the United Kingdom supply materials, components and services to De Lorean, in particular, British Steel in Sheffield, the Goodyear Tyre and Rubber Company in Wolverhampton, General Motors in Milton Keynes, International Paints of London and Lucas Girling of Birmingham.

If we take the average payment made to an unemployed claimant in Northern Ireland and multiply it by the number of workers at De Lorean, it is possible to see how much it would have cost to keep those people out of work. By my calculations, it would cost almost £6 million a year and that figure does not take into consideration the loss of national insurance and tax contributions made by the employers and the extra spending power it produces within Northern Ireland. I am sure that shopkeepers and everyone else in Northern Ireland will confirm that. It is also important to bear in mind the effect of unemployment on jobs in those other 2,000 companies, which I am reliably informed can match at least, one for one, the jobs provided by De Lorean. If those jobs were not there or had to go, the cost to the Exchequer of keeping those people on unemployment and other benefits would be over £12 million a year, without taking into consideration national insurance, tax and other factors.

Our experience', and the De Lorean example, leads us to the conclusion that only State-led and State-directed investment can bring jobs to Northern Ireland on a large scale. It is evident, or should be evident—it is certainly evident to those who have been involved in Northern Ireland—that such action had a good effect on the political life and the security of the Province.

The problem in the Province is now so serious that it requires radical and imaginative action. Such action is sadly lacking in the present Administration. Every step that they take serves to compound the evil of economic stagnation and unemployment. There have been several other cosmetic alterations in the last few months. While we welcome the decision to set up a single industrial development board for Northern Ireland, we stress that mere administrative rearrangements will not in themselves solve anything. The board must be able to act independently and be given at least as many powers as the Northern Ireland Development Agency had under the Labour Administration to take investment initiatives. Above all, it must be backed by sound and reliable financial resources and the political will to spearhead an economic improvement in the Province.

We look forward to the industrial development board's proposals in the new year. I hope that there will be a full opportunity to debate them before they become unalterable provisions of a statutory instrument. The Secretary of State has announced that he intends to call all Northern Ireland Members of Parliament to an economic advisory forum soon. I sincerely hope that it will not be just another talking shop. I am sure that those who represent Northern Ireland constituencies will concur when I say that they have made no secret of their views on the economic situation at home during our many debates in the House. I urge the Secretary of State to prepare a positive agenda for the meeting. The most sensible starting point would be to accept that Northern Ireland needs—indeed demands—a co-ordinated regional economic strategy, to discuss precisely what that strategy should be and how best to implement it.

I need hardly remind the Government that they have presided over a period of unemployment that is unprecedent in the history of Northern Ireland. From an unsatisfactory—it was always unsatisfactory to me—but stable rate of unemployment, at 11 per cent. in 1978–79, the rate now stands at 19 per cent. The underlying trend is upwards and all forecasts suggest a total unemployment rate of between 22 per cent. and 25 per cent. by the middle of next year. I thought that things were unsatisfactory when unemployment stood at 11 per cent. in 1978–79. However, the one thing that I can look back on with some pride is that at the end of that period more people were in employment in Northern Ireland than ever before.

More than 52,000 people have joined the unemployment register since May 1979. At least 67,000 workers have been affected by short-time working in that period. We should not forget that the official figures do not tell the entire story. A recent survey, carried out by Queen's university, suggested that about 20,000 recently employed women have not registered as unemployed because they do not qualify for any benefits. That thoroughly shameful record has been compounded by a lack of political will to do anything to solve the problem.

The Appropriation (No. 3) (Northern Ireland) Order gives the clearest evidence of the Government's approach to unemployment. Almost £20 million of the £33 million that we are voting will pay for benefits for the sick, poor, elderly and unemployed. I do not begrudge the money. Indeed, far more money should be made available. There would have been more money if the Government had not held back on increases to meet inflation. I marvel at the indifference. The sentence in the explanatory memorandum which was sent last week sums it up. It states: Most of the extra provision in this vote is for supplementary benefits for which an additional £14 million is required largely as a result of an increase in the unemployment register and the duration of unemployment". That makes it sound as if the scale of unemployment is quite outside the Government's responsibility. It makes it sound as if it is a problem merely to be provided for, but not tackled. We need only look at the measures designed to cope with unemployment in Northern Ireland to see that the Government's philosophy is just that.

Last August, the Minister with responsibility for employment in the Province announced special measures to ease the problems of unemployment. One of those measures is a grant-aid scheme to help voluntary organisations to recruit unemployed people for voluntary work in the health and social services of Northern Ireland. There is no training or pay. Unemployed youngsters are simply required to work for nothing. At the same time there is a continuing lack of commitment to Enterprise Ulster, a well established direct labour organisation that is designed to provide a bridge between unemployment or school and employment. The Government have placed impossible cost per job restrictions on that body if it is to be considered favourably in the next financial round.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Butler)

Which scheme is the right hon. Gentleman referring to that is aided by Government and for which people work without any pay or other recompense?

Mr. Concannon

The grant-aid scheme to help voluntary organisations was mentioned in our last Appropriation order debate. I think that I am right in what I have said, and no doubt the Minister will explain what has happened since that time.

Mr. Adam Butler

The right hon. Gentleman cannot lay this at the door of the Government. If people wish to work voluntarily, by definition that means that they do not wish to work for pay. This sensible sum of money was provided to help voluntary organisations in small ways—perhaps to meet administrative and other costs—and to allow volunteers to work voluntarily.

Mr. Concannon

So be it. I was trying to put this into the context of Northern Ireland as a whole and the Government's shabby treatment of some of the established forums of work for Northern Ireland's unemployed youth.

In addition, there has been the Government's disgraceful treatment of Enterprise Ulster. That is well established in Northern Ireland, but its slow strangulation has resulted in considerable redundancies, which is incomprehensible bearing in mind the type of community projects undertaken by Enterprise Ulster. We should also bear in mind that 25 per cent. of its work force is under the age of 19.

That is the kind of thing that I am trying to put into perspective. It seems that the Government are prepared to grant small sums of money while at the same time looking for odd jobs that people can do voluntarily. That makes it impossible for the Enterprise Ulster scheme to continue. I strongly urge the Government to look again at the role and contribution of Enterprise Ulster to see whether it can be expanded rather than undermined.

In my experience, Enterprise Ulster has played an important role in helping the unemployed. While help for that organisation may be only a drop in the ocean, it would be welcomed much more than voluntary work or piecemeal experiments such as "Action for Community Employment".

I need hardly remind the Government that there is a direct connection between the economic situation and the political problems of Northern Ireland. While the political and security situation provides an unstable environment for new factories and job opportunities, lack of jobs and unemployment fuel political discontent and contribute towards violent behaviour.

The Secretary of State acknowledged that self-evident truth when he addressed the RUC Superintendents Association in September. He said that unemployment was one of the complex factors leading to violence, and added that he attached the highest importance to tackling it. He continued: Lack of work is not, of course, an excuse for criminal behaviour but we must all recognise the part it plays in creating an environment in which disorder can grow". That is not bad for a pre-Scarman Tory view of the connection between unemployment and criminal activity.

Soon afterwards, at the Conservative Party conference, the Secretary of State spoke on the same theme. He said: Peace and stability must be a pre-requisite for progress in any nation. In Northern Ireland above all, political advance and economic recovery must go hand in hand. Poverty, lack of work, a sense of despair borne out of setbacks and tiredness all combine to increase the bitterness to feed the prejudices". I am sure that Ministers do not need me to tell them what one of their colleagues is saying. I quote from those speeches merely to pose a simple question. If they recognise the problem, as they clearly do, and if they see the connection between social deprivation, unemployment and political alienation, why are they not taking immediate and drastic action? Why is there no regional policy for Northern Ireland? Where is the will to reduce unemployment? What possible explanation can there be for such Government indifference?

There have been renewed calls in recent weeks for tougher security measures in Northern Ireland, but merely increasing the number of soldiers and cancelling police leave will never solve the underlying cause of violence in the Province. Real security primarily lies in political action and in the will of parties in the North to move towards a mutual trust. It also lies in jobs, housing and good social services.

If the Government continue to preside over the destruction of Northern Ireland's scant social fabric, they must be prepared to accept the inevitable consequences of increased dissatisfaction with the instruments of direct rule.

Mr. John Patten

As the social and economic need of the Province is so great, does the right hon. Gentleman recognise, as we do, that, despite what he said, public expenditure per head in the Province is far higher than in any other part of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Concannon

I recognise that fact, but I also recognise the need for it. When I first went to Northern Ireland, it was like stepping back 30 years. I am the first to admit that I was shocked at the housing conditions, the road network and the state of industry. It was just like stepping backwards 30 years to my youth. I recognised straight away the difficult task that I faced.

Northern Ireland needs more Government finance. We should not be ashamed to admit that we are trying to bring Northern Ireland up to the same standard as the rest of the United Kingdom. All I am saying is that the Northern Ireland people will respond to fair, direct-rule government if it is seen to be trying to provide policies to alleviate their economic problems.

The year 1977 is a fair example of how the people of Northern Ireland can reject extremism. The "Better Life for All Campaign" for jobs received far more support than the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) had then. The economic situation is now far worse than at any time during our Administration. That is all the more reason why it is urgent for the Secretary of State to understand that Northern Ireland's economy is different and requires policies other than the policy of equal misery. It is no good trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted. I suspect that the problem for the Secretary of State is that he has recognised that the stable collapsed some time ago.

I shall not advise my hon. Friends to vote against the order, because that would only pile on the misery. I trust that in their contributions to the debate they will refer to the damage done to the economy over the last two-and-a-half years and demand an end to the disastrous policies that have played right into the hands of political extremists on both sides.

5.17 pm

Mr. James Molyneaux (Antrim, South)

One factor common to Classes I, II and X is the principle of parity—both of taxation and services—with the rest of the United Kingdom. That inevitably means that the United Kingdom Exchequer meets the cost of social services, security, measures to compensate for natural disadvantages and lack of natural resources. It is, therefore, true to say that the Exchequer subsidises Northern Ireland, just as it subsidises Scotland, Wales and regions of England.

This order, together with others debated earlier this year, makes it possible to illustrate the extent to which the Treasury is subsidising Northern Ireland, but there is no comparable procedure that enables Parliament or the press to identify the amount of subsidy for other parts of the United Kingdom.

It so happens that we have obtained from official sources figures that show that the differentials are nothing like as great as Northern Ireland critics would have us believe or as the Minister, perhaps inadvertently, tried to lead us to believe a few minutes ago.

In 1979–80, each Ulster citizen was subsidised to the tune of £1,637. In the same year, an Englishman was subsidised to the tune of £1,107, a Welshman by £1,302 and a Scotsman by £1,366. Presumably, the glib commentators want to get rid of Ulster on the ground that, for a temporary period at least, an Ulsterman is costing the Treasury £271 more than a Scotsman.

One could go further and assert that if the Treasury could get rid of England it could reduce public expenditure by over £50 billion. That would work wonders for the public sector borrowing requirement. The Minister might think it useful to convey that suggestion to his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer who this afternoon will be playing about with his matchsticks in preparation for his statement tomorrow.

The House is accustomed to special pleas but the reality is that agriculture in Northern Ireland has never attained parity with the rest of the United Kingdom. The Quigley interdepartmental report said of Northern Ireland agriculture: It is clear that since 1972/73 the stimulus to agricultural production in Northern Ireland has been much less than that in Great Britain, and as a result, the Northern Ireland industry has been unable to maintain as many people in viable employment on the farms and in the processing plants as would have been the case if spendable net income had grown at the same rate as in Great Britain. Unless special measures are taken, a further loss of jobs seems inevitable. Some farmers exist on bank borrowing, which in 1980 increased to more than £38 million. Unless there is a speedy change in the profitability and prospects of agriculture, farmers will be forced to change from their present vigorous programme of operations to low investment, low risk, low output subsistence farming. That is not much like parity and does not sould like a special case.

Against that background we must view the disaster of the drop in net farm income from £53 million in 1973 to a mere £9 million in 1980. The consequence is that farming families are being maintained on money which should be set aside for investment.

Those who have large farms can make a living of sorts, but medium and small farms will go out of business. That will result in still further unemployment both in farming and the ancillary industries. If this were to happen, as seems likely, there could be real and permanent damage to the structure of agriculture and its enormous potential contribution to the economy would be forfeited.

There is always a veil of mystery over what part the EEC should play in coping with agriculture problems in Northern Ireland. Those who predicted that Britain's entry would be detrimental to agriculture, and Northern Ireland agriculture in particular, have unfortunately been proved correct. However, the damage inherent in membership is made much worse by the confusion, dithering and in some cases downright deceit which farmers and housewives alike have come to associate with the Common Market.

There is no shortage of pious platitudes from the Community. For example the Committee on Social Affairs and Employment considers that the special situation of Northern Ireland, and the particular difficulties with which the region has had to struggle throughout the years, justify special support and action by the community. That is excellent stuff, but meaningless unless translated into action by the EEC, which is very short on action. That is one reason why United Kingdom citizens are turning away in their thousands from the EEC and questioning the so-called advantages of membership.

The Ulster Farmers Union was not hostile to British entry to the EEC but it now says: The EEC must be fully briefed on the unique problems in Northern Ireland and the need, therefore, for acceptance by the Community of special measures for Northern Ireland. The union recognises that it has a responsibility to assist in that briefing. I hope that the Secretary of State and other members of the Government recognise that they have a duty to influence the Community in the right direction.

Ulster farmers, and the people of Northern Ireland generally, should ensure that the Province's three members of the European Assembly can represent them full-time. We should not expect our three representatives to dance attendance endlessly on enthusiasts for all-party functions, most of which have no relevance to the European Assembly.

In the EEC elections in 1979, it was understood and agreed that elected Members of the Assembly were committing themselves to a task which would require their undivided attention. We, the people of Northern Ireland, would render them ineffective and completely destroy their influence if we unreasonably expected them to be in two places at once. As long as the EEC retains its stranglehold on the industrial and agricultural life of Ulster, we must strive to ensure that our money is returned to us and used to best advantage. We can do that only if we ensure that our Ulster representatives are breathing down the necks of the Brussels bureaucrats who make the decisions.

The Ulster Farmers Union sums up its case by stating: The immediate concern of the Union is that the Government recognises the desperate need to restore confidence to farmers and vigour to the industry, and makes a firm decision to alter its priorities in public spending so that agriculture may be given the opportunity to make its full contribution to the economy and employment which the Province so desperately needs. My colleagues and I share that concern and support that plea to the Government.

On Class II of the order, the management and unions of Short Brothers have been pressing the Secretary of State and the Minister responsible for commerce on the need for an early decision on the plans submitted several months ago. The company's SD360 airliner has a two-year start on rival designs. It would be a tragedy if that advantage were lost because of indecision by the Government. Indecision has been the company's experience on many occasions under successive Governments. I urge the Secretary of State and the Minister to act now to prevent that great asset to the national economy from slipping through their fingers.

The De Lorean project has come in for much unfair criticism in the House and outside. Whatever the initial reservations, my plea is that we should give every encouragement to the company, its management and work force. We should congratulate them on their achievements in raising production to its present level and on the provision of jobs at a critical time for Northern Ireland.

Some weeks ago, I visited the De Lorean factory, which is in my constituency, not in that of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). I was agreeably surprised by the obvious determination of all to prove their critics to be wrong. There was a keenness and a willingness to get on with the job. I had the clear impression that relations in the factory were extremely good between management and the shop floor and between people of different backgrounds. That was particularly gratifying.

On the other side of Belfast is an equally successful but less criticised undertaking, the Lear Fan aircraft company. I am delighted that the Government are giving the necessary support. The company is well ahead of schedule in production and employment targets. I welcome its practice of phasing out American experts once local indigenous work people have been trained. Already it is expanding its activities to Aldergrove airport and it has absorbed many skilled workers made redundant by the closure of the 23 Royal Air Force maintenance unit by the previous Labour Government.

I have no reason to believe that the Lear Fan company stands in any need of special assistance, but I should like to be assured that that outstanding American company can count on the full co-operation of the Government should it encounter any obstacles against development or expansion either at Carnmoney, or, perhaps more likely, at Aldergrove.

We may assume that the final words in Class II in the order, "certain administration expenses", provides for the structural changes that have been foreshadowed and announced by the Department of Commerce. The Minister touched on some of them in his speech. Last week the Secretary of State was reported to be toying with various forms of an economic forum. I regret that we have not been greatly impressed by those suggestions. I hope that the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) will find common cause with me on that matter.

I have already conveyed to the Secretary of State our view that there is no need for another economic forum. We already have the Northern Ireland Committee in the House in which economic policies and statements can be responsibly debated on the record. The Secretary of State and the Ministers will be conversant with the activities of the Northern Ireland Economic Council, chaired by Sir Charles Carter. That is an excellent body that does not labour under the handicap of being party political. It has produced a series of valuable reports contained in that collection. It is a shame and a scandal that the mechanisms provided by Parliament have not got around to making fuller use of that material and debating it at length. It covers practically every aspect of economic life in Northern Ireland. It is to that object that we should direct our attention.

There is a case for taking all that is contained in those volumes much more seriously. I hope that Ministers and their right hon. Friend the Leader of the House can be persuaded and assured that we will give our support to any moves to debate those matters in the Northern Ireland Committee. In that Committee Northern Ireland Members and hon. Members representing other parts of the United Kingdom can play their part in advising and assisting the Secretary of State and his colleagues in what we hope will be a determined drive by the Government to bring prosperity to all the people of Ulster.

5.34 pm

Mr. James Kilfedder (Down, North)

Naturally I very much regret that the House is not able to debate security within the confines of the Appropriation order. However, on the basis that that will be debated shortly, we must leave it for the moment.

I also deeply regret that the Appropriation order is so limited that I cannot raise the important question of the proposed hospital reorganisation in my constituency of Down, North. The proposal by the Eastern Health and Social Services Board, if implemented, would further damage the medical facilities of Down, North. There will be a protest meeting in my constituency this evening. I hope to get to it.

I echo the remarks by the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon). The Appropriation order will make little impression on the grim industrial scene in Northern Ireland. The Government seem to be almost totally indifferent, despite their words, to the deterioration in the Ulster economy, and unaware of the feelings of the Ulster people.

Naturally I condemn the Government for their callous attitude towards the people of Northern Ireland. I watched the Under-Secretary who opened the debate exude smugness and complacency, yet the Government are presiding over policies that have encouraged an upsurge in the Provisional IRA campaign of violence. With bland confidence, the Northern Ireland Ministers are presiding over policies that have brought about record unemployment and have quickened the decline of the major industrial enterprises in Northern Ireland.

I do not know whether Bertie Wooster could have done worse. I recollect from reading P. G. Wodehouse that he and his excellent colleagues belonged to a club called the Drones club. The Northern Ireland Ministers, with their superior and languid air, could equally be said to have created a Drones club at Stormont Castle with the English civil servants there. They seem to be totally supercilious and unable to come down to earth to the same level as the people of Northern [reland.

One of the difficulties is that the Ministers, no matter what they may say, have no real commitment to Ulster and its people. They do not live in Northern Ireland and have no conception of how the average man or woman lives in the Province. Often when I ask to see a Minister I am told by his civil servants who must look after him that he is in the Province for only a couple of days a week. Working in the warm security of an office in Whitehall or Westminster will not teach Ministers much about the lives and difficulties of the people whom they govern in Northern Ireland. No wonder the Government are contemplating another swingeing increase in Housing Executive rents. If the Ministers lived in the Province and had to pay ever-increasing rates and spiralling fuel and food bills, they would understand the complaints. The Government have the unenviable record of having brought unemployment to an unprecedented level of 19 per cent. after only two years in office. That is a record of which they should not be proud.

In the Minister's speech and the Appropriation order, I would have expected a remedy to be provided for the industrial crisis in the Province. All that we have is the modest statement that the Government have added £6.2 million to the general support of industry. That figure is the equivalent to unemployment benefit for 7,000 people for 30 weeks. Harland and Wolff employs that number of workers now. Those first-class workers will all be thrown on the dole in a few months' time unless the Government take immediate and positive steps to avoid such a calamity.

The Minister gave the impression that, bad as the situation in the Province is, it is not too bad. He gave no hint that the shipyard was in such dire straits. I warn him that the closure of the Belfast shipyard will have repercussions far beyond the island. The whole area of East Belfast and part of my constituency of Down, North are heavily dependent on the wages of those who work in that shipyard. Many small businesses are indirectly dependent on the shipyard. Against the need of that great enterprise, the Government's petty sums in the Appropriation order for industrial development are ludicrous. They completely ignore the parlous state of the yard.

Nowhere in the Class II Vote can I see any evidence that the Government have begun to understand what is required. I met the shipyard works committee yesterday. It is the first to acknowledge the vast amount of money that has been put into the yard over the years. However, similar sums have been put into other yards in England and Wales and into what is now British Shipbuilders.

The Belfast yard, in particular, is the victim of circumstances outside the control of the work force. It looks with envious eyes, for instance, at the £800 million worth of orders secured by British Shipbuilders, and naturally wonders why the yard has not received some part of the Prime Minister's package that she successfully worked out with a South American country. Will the Minister tell us whether he will save the yard? I do not want to hear some carefully chosen meaningless words. Does he intend to save the yard? Will he obtain orders for it, because that is the only way in which it will be saved?

I recognise that defence spending has been reduced, but the order for the refitting and modernisation of fleet auxiliary ships must go somewhere. Only one ship, involving 21 days work, has been directed to the Belfast yard in the last few years. Surely, with the yard in such a state of crisis, the Northern Ireland Office should be hammering at the doors of the Ministry of Defence and ordering it to send some of the auxiliary fleet ships to be refurbished in the Belfast shipyard. I do not believe that the Government mind how many people become unemployed. They are just statistics in Ministers' minds. That is the feeling that I get from the lack of positive action by the Government. There will be serious unemployment consequences if the Government fail in directing work to the Belfast shipyard.

The works committee told me that an immediate order for a bulk carrier from British Steel of 170,000 tonnes is required. The yard has plans for such a carrier and its order would help the steel industry while providing the yard with work for about nine months and, unlike unemployment benefit for nine months, the country would have something to show for its money at the end of the day. Moreover, the expertise of the shipyard and its apprentice training scheme would be preserved to provide the necessary skills when the recession ends and the long awaited industrial upsurge occurs.

One other outstanding training centre for apprentices in Northern Ireland is Short Brothers. The Government have not yet accepted the crisis in that firm. They have completely underestimated the investment grants and credit facilities that must be made available to the aerospace industry in Belfast. Yesterday, I met trade union officials and shop stewards representing Short Brothers. It is clear from what they told me that the areas selected for extra funding by the Government under this order will have no effect whatever on the crisis in the aircraft industry. The position is compounded by different factors. There is unfair competition from American and other aircraft manufacturers, who have access to credit facilities that they can offer to potential customers. No such facilities are available to Short Brothers. I appeal to the Government to make sure that those facilties are available to the company so that it can sell the SD360 aircraft, in large numbers.

The Appropriation order provides £2.9 million to Lear Fan, which produces small aircraft. I congratulate the company on its success. I think that everyone is pleased with the way that it has been progressing. However, there is no financial recognition in the order of the greater financial investment that is immediately required by Short Brothers—approximately £20 million to enable the SD360 to go into profitable production. Firms such as Lear Fan have reaped the advantage of being able to recruit high grade technical staff, who received their initial training in the highly successful training school attached to Short Brothers. Sadly it has been reduced to an intake of 35 apprentices this year and 100 apprentices have been laid off but are still attending technical colleges. It would be extremely short-sighted of the Government to allow that centre of high technology training, which provides for so many essential skills, to fall by the wayside. I want to hear a clear assurance from the Government today that they intend to provide the financial assistance that Short Brothers needs to compete with foreign firms and to maintain employment at this important factory in Belfast.

The Government can help in other ways. If the Ministry of Defence would direct a number of Canberra aircraft—rather than just one at a time—to Short Brothers for refurbishing that would ease some of the problems at present. The missile unit at Short Brothers is highly succesful and the Ministry of Defence should restore the original order that it placed with that firm each year.

There are two sides of the unemployment equation in the order. There is an additional £14 million for supplementary benefits, largely due to the increase in unemployment to 19 per cent.—or over 109,000 people out of work—in the Province. There is also the extra cost of measures to boost the Northen Ireland economy. The order provides for £150,000 to meet expenditure on developing beef cattle production. The local Northern Ireland abattoir in my constituency, which has never operated at anywhere near its full capacity, is now limping along at around 30 per cent. of capacity.

Farmers in Northern Ireland are not pleased with the actions taken by the Government to help them. The Ulster farmers are not receiving a fair deal and they are far less well off than their counterparts in England, Wales and Scotland. The Government should, therefore, provide proper assistance to make sure that they get a decent income. Of course, the £3.7 million subsidy will help in regard to the wholesale price for liquid milk, but the need is greater than that and, as the right hon. Member for Mansfield pointed out, it is less than should be provided and it is a very temporary measure.

I know many dairy farmers. They are hard-working men with families, whose return for a year's hard work is little more than the rate of unemployment benefit for a man and his wife—about £2,000 a year. I hope that the Government will now recognise the needs of the Ulster farmer and make sure that he has a decent income, because agriculture is essential to Northern Ireland.

Many business men in Northern Ireland have been saying for years that the medium sized and small businesses should receive greater financial assistance. It is galling for the small business man, hemmed in with restrictions, VAT, high income tax, high rates, planning restrictions, slow bureaucratic procedures and the petty pinpricks of officialdom, to see the enormous sums that are given to firms such as De Lorean. Industrial and development loans are given to small business men only after the most searching inquiry, numerous visits by officials and a great amount of correspondence, disappointments and delays. Is it any wonder that they read with astonishment of the vast amounts given to the great international corporations?

The order brings the total expenditure for the year to £2,344 million, which means that this year the total payment to Northern Ireland from central Government funds is around £1,300 million. In other words, more than half of Northern Ireland's budget comes from outside the Province. Faced with those facts, how can any person advocate political independence? It is beyond my comprehension. Perhaps it is symptomatic of the sheer desperation that Ulster people feel as a result of having been left as sitting targets for Irish terrorists for 13 years.

How the Irish Republic could cope with an extra annual bill of £1,300 million is another unanswerable conundrum in the IRA's campaign to subjugate Ulster into an all-Ireland theocratic and confessional Republic. The truth is that there is no viable alternative for Ulster but union with Great Britain, except at the cost of a great downward shift in standards and Government services.

5.50 pm

Mr. Neville Sandelson (Hayes and Harlington)

First, I thank the Minister for his kind reference to me when I entered the Chamber. I apologise to him for having missed his opening remarks. As he rightly observed, this is a rather special day for the Social Democratic Party, both at Westminster and in the country. On behalf of my party, I express its anger and sorrow at the wicked murder of Robert Bradford, which has resulted in a great loss to the House and to our debates.

As the economic and social problems in Northern Ireland grow apace with the increasing violence and the deteriorating political situation, the Government should be giving much more profound consideration to the long-term consequences if the crisis continues without the possibility of either abatement or solution. Normal investment has been undermined and business confidence demoralised.

The Government are entitled to claim some credit for their financial incentive schemes and the encouragement that they have given to small and new firms to set up in the Province. Any hope for the future can come only from a concentration of high growth and high technology sectors, which are obviously the most likely to create new jobs in the industrial wasteland that we have in Northern Ireland, and make possible a genuine return on the massive subsidies that are going into those sectors.

To that extent there is perhaps a glimmer of hope on an otherwise bleak landscape. Certainly there is a marginally improved sales outlook for some companies—those are really the major ones—with the recent depreciation of the exchange rate. The Government can take no credit for that. One wonders for how much longer the Government will continue their inflexible policy of maintaining an artificial pound to the continuing despair of British exporters and productive manufacturing industry throughout the United Kingdom.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Down, South)

The hon. Gentleman, if I heard aright, criticised the Government for maintaining an artificial rate. Is it the policy of his party, if it has one on the subject, that the exchange rate should find its own level without being influenced?

Mr. Sandelson

No, but we believe that the present high rate of the pound is acting as a major deterrent to British export performance both here and in the Province and that the Government are showing an inflexible disregard for the position in which British manufacturing industry and exporters are finding themselves.

Every week brings its increasing sorry toll of more and more good companies under excellent management going out of business under the grindstone of the Government's economic policies. The consequence for Northern Ireland with its already decayed traditional industries is ever-increasing unemployment and dereliction, which no amount of Government-sponsored new enterprise can offset.

Let us consider the stark realities in Northern Ireland. I make no apology for restating them briefly. Unemployment is about 20 per cent. and rising. It is twice as high as the EEC average and the rural areas of the Province are the worst affected. Earnings for those with jobs are lower than anywhere else in the United Kingdom and welfare payments are correspondingly higher. High energy and transport costs add greatly to prices and produce, with the other factors, one of the lowest standards of living in Western Europe.

What could be more depressing than a recent survey that revealed that literally half the houses in Belfast, the main centre of population, were insanitary and that many of them were statutorily unfit for human habitation? Emigration figures have shown some reduction over the past five years but that is because of recession elsewhere in the world. Emigration still continues at a high level and every year Ulster loses thousands of young and skilled people.

We are dealing with what is virtually a vanishing economy. I received recently a letter from the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions in Belfast, which expressed eloquently the despair of its members. The Government seem to forget that companies such as Short Brothers and Harland and Wolff have been the hub of the economy and have provided skills and technology for other firms that have been prepared to start new enterprises in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Minister will say what assistance the Government are prepared to give to Harland and Wolff to obtain new orders for its empty yards. The Government have shown a strange and cynical indifference to the fate of the yards over a long period.

The real cost of subsidies to the Province will be £1½ billion this year. That sum will inevitably increase year by year. About half of it goes in the enormous grant-in-aid to cover the gap between internal revenues and public service expenditure. Several hundred million pounds are spent on law and order and protective services but that expenditure does not include the huge cost of keeping troops in Ulster. The overall cost of trying to keep peace and maintaining law and order is about £6 a week for everyone living in the Province compared with less than £1 a week for each person in the rest of the United Kingdom. The parity payments increase annually as the unemployment queues lengthen and when those payments are taken into account we arrive at the stupendous subsidy of about £20 a week per head of the population in Ulster.

At a time of serious economic recession and crisis in the United Kingdom, with low growth and rising unemployment, and when our own infrastructure and public services are in need of massive injections of public expenditure we must not shirk asking ourselves whether this great burden is sustainable by Britain on its own and whether, before long, the burden will become unacceptable to the British people. We give firm support to the strategy that is implicit in the all-important London-Dublin bilateral talks, but a political settlement is still a distant prospect and would not in itself resolve the economic situation in Northern Ireland. Should we not be studying that issue more realistically for the future rather than pursuing immediate and expensive palliatives, with no long-term assessment apparent on the part of the Government? It is therefore my view that Britain—

Mr. John Patten

Surely the logic of the hon. Gentleman's remarks is that, if there is any part of the United Kingdom to which there is a net transfer of funds, from the richer to the poorer part, he would wish to reconsider the position of that part of the United Kingdom within the Kingdom.

Mr. Sandelson

It is certainly my view that Britain must, in all circumstances, accept a high share of responsibility in regard to the position in Northern Iraland. However, I will try to answer the question put to me by the Minister. Britain on her own is no longer in a position to bring about a solution to the political issues or the deteriorating economic problems of the Province. The United Kingdom and the Republic must have a continuing role to play in all these matters—political and possibly economic—in the future. We shall certainly have a major role to play in the Northern Ireland economy—

Mr. Molyneaux

rose—

Mr. Sandelson

For a long time ahead, Britain will have to shoulder the primary burden. However, I believe that in both areas—the political and economic—we should introduce a wider international dimension.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson) may not have had the benefit of hearing Mr. Speaker's ruling at the beginning of the debate. I submit that the hon. Member is now going far beyond the limits that were laid down by the Chair, and that that is unfair to other hon. Members who, if there were a debate on the subjects that the hon. Member is raising, would wish to participate.

Mr. Sandelson

I take the point made by the right hon. Gentleman about—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine)

Order. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) is correct. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson) has, from time to time, got himself a little off the track, but he has brought himself back to it. Perhaps he will try to remain on course.

Mr. Sandelson

I am most obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I am now back on course, I shall conclude with a statement of some importance concerning the enunciation of the basic principles of Britain's future relationship with the Province. Dealing with the industry and the economy of the area—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. That is not what we are debating tonight.

Mr. Molyneaux

Does the hon. Member realise that the figure of £20 that he has quoted tallies exactly with my estimate of the subsidy being paid by the Treasury to the average Englishman? If that is so, is he taking up my suggestion that the Treasury ought to get rid of England?

Mr. Sandelson

I shall not take up that point. It is a point of much wider debate and economic consideration. I shall stick to what I believe to be the important theme that I have tried to make in the debate. If I have overstepped the appropriateness of the occasion, I apologise to the House. Nevertheless, it is important that I conclude my remarks by maintaining the theme that I have been putting forward. I shall omit further reference, on your direction Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the matters I spoke about earlier.

A matter that arose early in the debate concerned the European Community and its regional policy. We know that the Community is now engaged in a restructuring of its regional policy, giving a greater role to regional authorities in the drafting of Community regional policy and the selection of projects and programmes for Community fund assistance. Will the Minister tell us how this will work when it comes into being? In the absence of devolved government or any form of representative economic council presently in Ulster, there is an anomalous situation. I hope that the Minister will say how the Government propose to meet the new EEC regional plan and its requirements. For example, how is the proposed economic forum to be constituted? What will be its powers and the scope of its responsibilities?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is now completely off course. He must relate his argument to the three matters under discussion.

Mr. Sandelson

Perhaps the debate has not been the appropriate occasion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the kind of statement I have made. However, I believe it to be an important statement, and perhaps nothing has been lost.

In conclusion, my contention is that Britain alone cannot resolve the problems that are the subject of tonight's debate, or the problems of the the wider area. Britain's duty to the Ulster people lies in creating a wider and more powerful international framework within which solutions may ultimately be achieved.

6.7 pm

Mr. Peter Robinson (Belfast, East)

I trust that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson) will not be offended if I do not directly follow the line that he took. His remarks were as wide from the order being debated as they were from reality. That may be explained by a recent visit that he had, not to the SDP but to the SDLP, in Northern Ireland and he is now parroting some of its fallacies.

I shall concentrate on the part of the order that deals with industry in the Province, and particularly with the two main employers in Northern Ireland, which are both in my constituency—Short Brothers, a company which deals with aircraft, and Harland and Wolff, which builds ships. They have made an important contribution to the Northern Ireland economy. While we accept that there have been many difficulties in recent years, we must recognise that it would cost the taxpayer and the Government much more to try to close down such ventures than to try to continue their operations.

I was encouraged to hear from many parts of the House words of sympathy for the situation in which Shorts has found itself. There are roughly three sections within it. One deals with aircraft construction, another with aircraft components, and another with missiles. The aircraft construction section largely entails the Skyvan, the SD330 and the new SD360. There are great hopes and expectations in Short Brothers that its new venture will be most successful and profitable. The SD360 is 18 months to two years ahead of its nearest rival, and the SD330 has already proved itself across the world.

I do not intend to place all the responsibiliies at the Government's feet, because the United States Government have caused some of Shorts difficulties. The borrowing rates are not conducive to airline companies embarking on extensions to their fleets. That has naturally caused considerable difficulties and redundancies. I know that 300 members of the staff are now redundant, although 150 redundancies were taken up by early retirement and a few by natural wastage.

The Minister must accept that there is some Government responsibility here, because the two industries that I have mentioned—aircraft and shipbuilding—are industries which in almost any part of the world are not considered real profit makers. Therefore, they rely heavily not on Government funding but on Government orders. I do not believe that the Minister or the Government can wash their hands of the matter.

In 1979, Short Brothers produced a corporate plan for a five-year period. That plan was endorsed by the Government in November 1980. They agreed a figure of £17.9 million to get the company through the period and also that there should be an annual review. Both management and work force at Short Brothers have considered how to get the firm back on a profitable basis and their plan was submitted to the Government about six months ago. It has been updated since then.

The trade unions at Short Brothers refer to their present existence as keeping going on a drip feed system. It is a hand-to-mouth operation. Employers of the size of Short Brothers and Harland and Wolff cannot be expected to continue on that basis. We require urgent and immediate decisions from the Government on the corporate plan that is presently with them. The Minister will be aware that aircraft component companies rely entirely on the success of other aircraft engineering companies. We should be glad that Boeing has given work to Short Brothers, and that its success has been recognised by many other firms. Naturally, if Boeing, Rolls-Royce and other companies start to cut back at their ends, Short Brothers will suffer at this end.

It should also be pointed out to the Government that by holding back finance from Short Brothers, as is presently the case, that has an effect on other British companies such as the General Electric company, which does sub-contract work, as well as to those companies that supply equipment to Short Brothers. The Minister must give the matter urgent attention. I ask him to address himself to the subject today and perhaps cause some joy in Northern Ireland by stating that he is about to take an immediate decision on the matter.

The missile division has been the most profitable section of Short Brothers. The Minister will be aware that it requires orders from the Government. I believe that the orders have reduced considerably in number, and that orders originally intended to be taken over a one-year period have been extended to two years. That has an overall effect of reducing the orders by about 50 per cent. Can the Minister tell us what change there will be in the missile division, which is far in advance of any other firm, in not only the United Kingdom but perhaps the world, in technology and production?

As to Harland and Wolff, it has been recognised by the House for a long time that that firm, as British Shipbuilders and shipbuilding firms throughout the world, is suffering from a general dearth of orders. At present it has an order from British Petroleum that is likely to keep the yard occupied until 1983, but the men who start the work—the steel workers—will soon be redundant unless new orders are received. Will the Minister tell the House what efforts he and the Government have made to ensure that there is some work to keep the yard occupied, especially Ministry of Defence work?

Finally, I move from the class that deals with industry and turn to Class X, especially to the decreases, amounting to £500,000, in respect of certain benefits, including attendance allowance and mobility allowance. The document that the Minister forwarded to hon. Members sets it out well. It states: These increases are offset by decreases amounting to £0.5m in respect of Old Persons Pensions, Attendance Allowances and Mobility Allowance, due to decreases in the number of beneficiaries. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) and I have on many occasions raised the matter in the House. Indeed, it is apparent to us that to be successful in receiving the attendance allowance or some of the mobility allowances rigor mortis must have virtually set in. Unless the Minister is prepared to re-set the criteria for successful application, there will continue to be reductions in that section. Until there is a firm system of appeals for attendance allowances, many people will believe themselves badly done by. They will believe that their case merits the attendance allowances and the benefit thereof, but because there is no appeals procedure they do not receive that to which they are entitled.

6.15 pm

Mr. Gerard Fitt (Belfast, West)

I welcome the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) back to his usual position in the Chamber. When he speaks from the Government Benches he speaks much more sense than when he is up in the stratosphere of the Side Gallery. His case, when he is up there, is much less intelligent than that that he advances from the Government Benches. I disagree with very little of what he said today. The hon. Gentleman spoke, in remarks that he made to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson), of the reality of the position in Northern Ireland.

I limit my remarks now to Vote 2. The reality is that the Government have been in power since 1979. When they took office the number of unemployed in Northern Ireland was 61,000. That number has nearly doubled to at least 120,000. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) said that there is a hidden figure, especially of married women who do not sign the unemployment register because they do not qualify for unemployment benefit. If we take that figure into consideration, 130,000 or 140,000 people are now unemployed, instead of 61,000 in May 1979. That is the reality about which we are talking, irrespective of all the promises that we have heard.

I have listened to the Minister this afternoon. Like his predecessors and the other Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office, the Minister who will reply to the debate will tell us how sorry he is about the tragedy of unemployment in Northern Ireland. However, he will say that Northern Ireland is receiving more in public expenditure, and that the Government are doing everything they can to attract industry into Northern Ireland. They must bear responsibility for the economic policies that they have carried out in Northern Ireland and in other parts of the United Kingdom, which have led to spiralling unemployment.

I cannot forget the supplementary budget that was given in August 1980 in a parliamentary answer. At that time it was called a reallocation of funds. The sum of £10 million was taken away from the Department of Education in Northern Ireland. That led to unemployment of schoolteachers and those employed in school meal kitchens. It led to the unemployment of caretakers, doormen and cleaners. The sum of £10 million was also taken away from the Department of Health and Social Services. That led to redundancies in the medical profession in Northern Ireland. It was deliberate. The Government knew what the effects of those cutbacks would be.

The Minister wrote to me recently about a controversy that is still raging about staff at Purdysburn hospital. I have received letters from the trade union involved which I shall give the Minister later. The trade union contradicts the figures that he gave me. It claims that many more people have been made redundant in the hospital, including 33 nurses since July. There are no jobs for them. The Minister may refute that claim if he so wishes. The redundancies have happened because of Government policy.

Mr. John Patten

This is not the time to debate statistics. However, to the best of my knowledge we have been recruiting, not laying off, staff at that hospital during the past six months.

Mr. Fitt

I shall cross the Floor and give the Minister the letter from the trade union.

The Budget provided for a £24 million reduction in the money available to the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland. That Department controls the Housing Executive. The reduction led to massive redundancies in the construction industry, yet that industry is the one way to rejuvenate Northern Ireland and put life into the business community. It is a home-grown industry, organised and managed by people who know it well. It is labour intensive, with many thousands of labourers, skilled workers and workers in allied trades who could all be re-employed if the Government changed their policy on public expenditure. The housing position in Belfast is terrible. The Government would be justified if they broke out of their self-imposed chains. There is a crying need for an injection of capital into the public sector, not only to create employment but to create the lasting capital asset of housing both in Belfast and throughout Northern Ireland. That would attack two social evils, the terrible scourge of unemployment and the terrible housing conditions that are probably the worst in Western Europe.

I ask the Minister whether it is beneficial to Northern Ireland to remain a member of the EEC?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Gentleman must have heard my earlier ruling on that matter.

Mr. Fitt

I was deliberately restricting my remarks. However, we are discussing unemployment and housing, which come under the heading of commerce. Northern Ireland was told that it would receive £300 million or £400 million. The Minister will reply to the debate on behalf of the Department of Commerce, which is a close associate of the Department of the Environment. If we are to build houses and create employment, these points come within the ambit of the order. We were told last week that Northern Ireland would receive £26 million to help create employment and build houses in the centre of Belfast. We were then told that at a meeting in Brussels the Government said that they could not spend that £26 million. Either the Government decided not to give us that money, or they were told by some committee of the EEC that they could not have the money. Northern Ireland is the loser. The Government can say that they had intended to spend the money on building houses and creating jobs, but that they were prevented from doing so by some edict from the EEC.

Northern Ireland was told that it would receive hundreds of millions of pounds. That sum was reduced to £26 million, and now it will get nothing. That has created a great deal of despair and discontent among the people of Northern Ireland who had been led to believe that the Government would exert all their energy to get money from the EEC.

The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) said that Northern Ireland's three representatives at the EEC should be there at all times to request or demand from the EEC as much aid as possible. I think that he was really referring to only one Member. The other two Members are Members of the European Parliament only, but the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) is also a Member of this House. Perhaps the hon. Member for Antrim, South was calling for his resignation from the House. That is not wholly surprising in view of what has been happening in Northern Ireland.

I had hoped that the hon. Member for Antrim, North would be here today to add his voice to the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) about the financial position of the Belfast shipyard. Many of the workers there gave up half a day on 23 November to support the hon. Member for Antrim, North. He should have been here today as some slight recompense for that.

Mr. Peter Robinson

The hon. Member for Belfast, West made a disgraceful comment about my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). He must know that my colleague is attending the funeral of Constable Coulter.

Mr. Fitt

I did not know that, but there have been occasions when similar debates have taken place in the House and the hon. Member for Antrim, North has been at funerals. I express my sympathy for the family of Constable Coulter. The hon. Member for Antrim, North should have been here to support the demand by the hon. Member for Belfast, East because of the frightening position at the shipyard. I do not exaggerate. Workers at the shipyard are frightened about redundancy. The Government have given the impression that they are not enamoured of the problems of the shipyard. Many Conservative Members regard it as a lame duck and would not be annoyed if there were some way to get shot of it.

The De Lorean project is not in my constituency, but on its borders. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield deserves great credit for bringing that company to Northern Ireland. It has lived up to expectations and now employs 2,500. We had expected it to employ only 2,000. Some Conservative Members are unfair in their attitude towards the company, for whatever reasons. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) made an unwarranted attack on the De Lorean project. One can only hope that he never has the same unemployment problem in his constituency as we have in Northern Ireland. One would expect support from even his Government, with their Right-wing views, in seeking to create employment in Northern Ireland.

It has been said that this is a restrictive order. That is certainly so. We had hoped to debate the many problems affecting our constituents in Northern Ireland, and to endeavour to find a solution.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield said that Class X draws attention to the fact that an increase in public expenditure has been created in order to pay out unemployment benefit in Northern Ireland. That is the road to nowhere. It is not the way forward to economic recovery. It gives no hope to those who have been without jobs for so long.

The Minister should go back to his office and examine the statistics. He said that the order would affect people who had been unemployed for more than one year. That is the sort of terminology used when discussing unemployment in England, Scotland and Wales. The vast majority of the unemployed in Northern Ireland have been unemployed for more than two or three years. Some have been unemployed for five, 10, 15, 20, and even 25 years. The figure of one year has no relevance to the circumstances of the Province.

I tabled a series of questions to the appropriate Minister. It may even have been to my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield who was the Minister at the time. The figures I received were astounding, astonishing and pitiful in the context of hundreds who have been unemployed in Northern Ireland for so long. That is an indictment of the present Government and of some of their predecessors.

When one considers the doubling, and near trebling, of unemployment since the Conservative Party came to power, it is not good enough for the Minister to tell us that the Government have done all they can. The reality is that this never ending spiral of unemployment is bringing with it all the untold tragedy that long-term unemployment brings. The people of Northern Ireland have a right to expect more from the Government.

6.34 pm

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson (Newbury)

I should like, first, to add my tribute to the late Robert Bradford and to say how much one misses him and his wise words in a debate such as this. I take this opportunity of offering my sympathy to his widow. His death underlines the security background to this debate. Violence in Northern Ireland has created a difficult dimension at a time when Northern Ireland has enough problems on its plate with its economy, and in restructuring that economy to bring it up to date and able to compete in the world around it.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on his encouraging remarks and the robustness of his comments. I listened carefully to what he said and I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members will agree with him on the need for an enhanced industrial base for the Province. The whole House will have been cheered up by his remark that Northern Ireland has the best package of investment incentives in the United Kingdom. Against that background we must wonder why Northern Ireland is not more successful in attracting investment.

I was also encouraged to hear that my hon. Friend the Minister of State has just returned from another mission to create inward investment. I hope that in his winding-up speech he will tell us something about his trip and whether there are any prospects of new firms coming to Ulster. When one looks at the state of the two traditional industries in Northern Ireland, engineering and textiles, one is sometimes inclined to conclude that as rapidly as we find new investment for the Province so its traditional industries shrink and the net gain is very much less than any of us would have liked.

To know that engineering employment has fallen by about 20 per cent. in the past four years, that the work force in textiles has decreased by about 25 per cent., and that both figures are still growing is to make one realise how serious is the industrial plight of Northern Ireland. In those terms, the two traditional industries of shipbuilding and textiles seem to take on a greater importance than they would if one could see a range of new industries growing, flourishing and increasing their work forces. But at present, that is not so. Therefore, perhaps I may concentrate my comments on the existing traditional industries.

I shall say only this about textiles. The reputation that Northern Ireland Irish linen used to enjoy was world-wide. I sometimes wonder why the Province has not concentrated on producing the highest quality product that anyone in the world could buy and then marketing that product in the rich and expensive markets of, for instance, North America, in New York and in California, and of France and Western Europe, to a greater extent that seems to have been the case. There is a market for very high quality products. I cannot see why Northern Irish linen should be exempted, particularly with the reputation that it built up and so jealously guarded and which was admired for long.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell

I wonder whether the hon. Member would be interested to know that a textile firm in my constituency which specialises in exactly the way that he has been decribing has recently brought home, from the Middle East, an exceedingly large and valuable order exactly of a kind that he has in mind, which is a suggestion that what he is saying has not escaped the notice of those who are leading in the textile industry in Northern Ireland.

Mr. McNair-Wilson

I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I ought to have guessed that the clever Northern Irish would have thought as I was thinking. I am grateful to know that my words at least have some practical reality. I am very glad to hear that, because I believe that sometimes, in the United Kingdom overall, we make extremely good products but often market them badly and, consequently, see markets which should be ours taken by foreigners with less acceptable goods.

The second of the industries is shipbuilding. My words are bound to be about Harland and Wolff. During this debate, Harland and Wolff has been on the lips of everyone who has spoken. That is reasonable enough, since it occupies an almost key position in the industrial structure of Northern Ireland and since, apart from those who work in the yard, it provides so much employment through subcontractors.

It is not unreasonable to say that Harland and Wolff has brought itself many of the problems that it is facing. It has had chronic labour problems. It has been guilty of far too many late deliveries of ships that it was selling. It has suffered from unnecessary industrial disputes that have ruined a once-famous name, to a point at which some may wonder whether it is possible for it to recover its fame and fortune. I still believe that that possibility exists. But if Harland and Wolff is to have a future, that future must be thought out with the greatest care by those responsible for it and by the Government, who will have to provide its finance for some time to come.

No one believes that Harland and Wolff will again be a super-tanker yard. Those days have gone. The real question that arises is whether we are prepared to restructure it as a yard with a viable future. Are we prepared to produce the finance to make it a yard that can build ships in the 60,000-tonne to 100,000-tonne category? This is the new size of ship, I am told, that the merchant shipping fleets of the world will be wanting. If Harland and Wolff does not at present possess the attributes to be such a yard, the question arises of the price of the restructuring and whether we are prepared to foot the bill.

A clear sight of the future for Harland and Wolff will enable us to attract to the yard the sort of management that, up to now—that is unfair; I should perhaps say in the recent past—it has been denied. Top management will go where a company has a future. Top management will not go to an ailing industry that looks sicker as the days go by.

Another question to be asked concerning the future of the yard is whether those who work in it—I am referring not to senior management but to those on the shop floor—are aware that industrial disputes and the days of having 16 trade unions and 158 shop stewards in one yard are past. Unless the labour side of the yard is restructured and streamlined, the yard is likely to continue to be inefficient and unable to meet delivery dates that are so critical. In those circumstances, Harland and Wolff will not regain its reputation but will simply become a continuing loss-maker until the point is reached where someone says it is not worth putting more money into the yard.

It took some nerve, I thought, for the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson) to suggest that the Government had starved the yard of funds. The hon. Gentleman is aware that this Government, like their predecessor, have put more than enough money into the yard. Anyone who suggests that present or former Ministers wanted to be rid of Harland and Wolff and were therefore killing it off by denying it funds should go and look up the records. They will not find that their statement is supported by the evidence.

There are many hard decisions ahead for those managing Harland and Wolff and for those Ministers who will have to reach decisions about finance. On the other hand, it is true, I think, that the yard can raise some of its badly needed capital itself. It has a 368-acre site on Queens Island, of which it is utilising only a small part. If that is true, there is clearly land available for sale and development. I should like to hear that such sales are in course of preparation.

It is also a matter of fact, I believe, that the yard may not be able to survive entirely on its own. If the opportunity is to be denied the yard to link with British Shipbuilders, which I have been pressing for many years, the question arises whether we are prepared to look to some other country—perhaps North America or Holland—to see whether unity could be created between Harland and Wolff and a foreign manufacturer. This would enable Harland and Wolff to develop its expertise in engines for ships while its counterpart, wherever it might be found, could concentrate on the hulls and other equipment. A link with another shipmaker would provide Harland and Wolff with the badly needed finance it requires and also perhaps give it marketing opportunities in a worldwide shipping market. It would not be based simply in Belfast, starved of funds and in a rundown state. Instead it would be a company bringing its expertise to another company that might be able to provide it with the orders that it seeks.

I believe that Harland and Wolff has a future. It will, however, be a difficult future to discover. It is one that I do not believe the yard itself will be able to discover until we are prepared to recognise the continuing need for financial assistance. To those who say that this sounds a peculiar doctrine to be coming from the Conservative Benches at this time, my answer is that circumstances in Northern Ireland are so unusual that we have to recognise that money spent in strengthening and, perhaps, rebuilding Harland and Wolff is money that will in the end produce a net profit for our nation and increase the viability of the Northern Ireland economy.

The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) referred to Short Brothers, as did the hon. Member for Belfast East (Mr. Robinson). I have worked for that company and had the good fortune to visit it last summer. I was impressed by what I saw on the aircraft side, the SD330 and the newer SD360 air liners. I congratulate the company on discovering what so far has been an untapped niche in the airliner market.

All those who visited the company were impressed by Sir Philip Foreman and his team. We were particularly impressed that Short Brothers has managed to survive all the vicissitudes that have visited themselves upon the aircraft industry in this country and still remains a viable and going concern. What upset me most, however, was to hear that Short Brothers has virtually only one contract left from the Ministry of Defence procurement executive for the rebuilding of Canberra aircraft, of which the company made many hundreds in the 1950s and the early 1960s. I pressed, during the last defence debate, that a remaining contract for five Canberras that were originally built at Shorts should go back to Shorts for rebuilding. I do not know whether the contract did go back to the company. It is surely the case, however, that Harland and Wolff and Short Brothers and Harland, being wholly owned by the Government, deserve to be considered for Ministry of Defence contracts as much as any other company in the United Kingdom.

To think that Short Brothers, which made the aircraft, might not be given the job of refurbishing them seems an extraordinary decision, if that was the decision, and the company has not won the contract. This is one way in which the Government can give direct help to two vital industries in Northern Ireland. I wonder, therefore, whether some Ministry of Defence work cannot go to Harland and Wolff and to Short Brothers to ensure that both companies get their fair share of what is available.

The De Lorean motor company has been mentioned during the debate. I have only one question. No one hopes more keenly than I that the £80 million that has gone into the company will produce jobs and profitable success for the company in Northern Ireland and a return to the British taxpayer. It was, therefore, with some disappointment that I read that 1,700 cars had had to be recalled to have some mechanical defect remedied. I hope the Minister will be able to say that the defect was of such a minor nature that the work could be done in North America. I would be sad if I were told that the car had to come back to Belfast, particularly at this crucial time in the inception of the car into the North American market. I look forward to any comment that my hon. Friend can give.

Mr. Adam Butler

This was a relatively minor fault. The House will be aware that cars are quite frequently called in by manufacturers. In this case, it was a nut to do with the front suspension. I understand that the work will be carried out in America by the distributors and that it will take 30 minutes, possibly 60 at the most, to be rectified in the case of each car.

Mr. McNair-Wilson

I am relieved to hear my hon. Friend's answer.

My next question relates to the Lear Fan project, which is very exciting and, if successful, could find a very large market. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would say whether the programme is on schedule. Is he able to tell us the total Government investment in it? When does he expect the aircraft to receive its certificate of airworthiness?

Lastly, I want to say a word about unemployment, which, as has been said so often in this debate, is about 19 per cent. overall in the Province. We all know that that figure hides a much larger figure in some towns, where I believe it can be as high as 40 per cent. The part of the unemployment total which worries me most is that of people who are under 25 years of age. I understand that, of the 112,224 people out of work in October, 45.1 per cent. were under 25. When will the Government bring forward a programme to do something to improve the marketability—that is not an inhumane word to use—of these young people?

I have searched the Library to see whether a consultation document has been published by the Government about youth opportunities in Northern Ireland, but so far I have found none. Yet, as the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) said, there are great problems in the construction industry in Northern Ireland. Any of us who visit Belfast can see the opportunities that exist for rebuilding large parts of the city. Surely a skill training programme is required. Surely we should not leave those young people unskilled and simply on the dole. Surely, more than just skill training, we should provide higher education, so that those young people can take advantage of the electronic revolution. Have the Government plans to provide those skills and that education?

As has been said so often in the past, unemployment is the breeding ground of crime and terrorism. Is it unreasonable to suggest that Northern Ireland, which, as I have already suggested, is unlike other parts of the United Kingdom in many tragic ways, might start a compulsory community youth service to run for at least a year? It could be open to those who have been unemployed for more than three months and who are over 18 years of age. If they find a job, they can of course come out of the scheme. If young people in the Province know that for a year they have a job to do, they will have hope and the feeling that when the recession finally disappears from the Western economy they will not have completely wasted their early years. Also, with skill training and higher education, they will be better able to take those opportunities which, God willing, will come to Northern Ireland. Thus they will help to build its economy both in a job, when a job becomes available, and doing community service when no work is available.

6.53 pm

Mr. Harold McCusker (Armagh)

I was impressed when the Minister introduced the Class II, Vote 2, support for industry and properly reminded us that the £6 million-odd that was being sought brought to £187 million the total budget for the Department of Commerce for this year. We in Northern Ireland do not want always to appear to be begging for more, although that theme tends to run through debates of this nature, but because of the circumstances that exist we always appear to come cap in hand looking for assistance. I do not like to do that unless I am convinced that we have properly and adequately used the money that has been made available to us.

After the Minister gave us that figure, he launched into an impressive sales pitch. If he had been selling me a secondhand car, I think that I would have bought it. He spoke with eloquence when he described the necessity of ensuring that everything possible was done to enhance our productive industries base, and said that the Government were indulging in a vigorous industrial development drive, that everything possible was being done at home and abroad, and that there was no hope unless the Government searched everywhere, because of the world recession and because of our damaging image abroad. He talked about our internal industrial vigour—I do not know what one does to encourage that—and he referred to the importance of the indigenous industrial manufacturing base in providing us with a springboard for success. Those are some of his comments that I managed to jot down.

Let us take the figure of £187 million and assume that roughly a similar amount was spent last year—perhaps slightly less. If we take an additional amount for the six months or so that take us back to the beginning of the two and a half years that this Government have been in office, we can assume that perhaps £350 million has been spent by the Government to achieve all those worthy objectives.

However, the Minister never told us what this is all about. Professor Black of Queen's university has told us. He says that since this Government came to office in 1979 over 110 substantial manufacturing establishments have closed", and he thinks that that might be an underestimate. The most worrying aspect, he says, is that the closure of many of these establishments means that the springboard is no longer there. It is not just that those establishments have gone into a slump or a recession, laid people off, but may well be able to take advantage of the upturn when it comes; they have closed. The springboard has been smashed. He said that the companies which had closed were the growth potential companies. He said that the technologically advanced companies that we attracted in the late 1950s and the early 1960s, such as ICI and Grundig, were closing, and that unfortunately—perhaps we should be pleased—the older indigenous industries, though still contracting, were still there. But they do not provide the springboard that the Minister mentioned.

Professor Black reminded us that in the 1970s, Northern Ireland had a potential increase in the labour force of 99,000 people, and that during that period 24,000 of them managed to find employment in the Province. Thirty-five thousand of them went on the unemployment register, and 40,000 had to emigrate.

We have been told that in those two and a half years unemployment has increased to roughly 120,000 and is running at 20 per cent. For all the great sales spiel from the Minister, there is nothing to show that Government policies are working. I want to ensure that the money is being well spent. If we can spend £350 million or £400 million on industrial development in Northern Ireland and finish up with the situation in which we now find ourselves, should we not ask "Are we spending money wisely? Is this to be the continuing situation?" Professor Black assumes that there will be a 9,000 annual increase in the labour market into the 1980s. He reckons that unemployment during the whole of the 1980s will never fall below 20 per cent. in the Province. Having had 10 years of tragedy and violence, with the likelihood that much of that will continue, although I hope not at the same level, are we now to look forward to 10 years of 20 per cent. unemployment?

The right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) spoke about the link between violence and unemployment. I do not accept a direct correlation, but there is obviously some relationship between the two. Even if one accepts that in part, how can one view 20 per cent. unemployment for another 10 years and not be extremely concerned about its side effects?

I intervene simply to ask: are we doing the right thing? Are we spending money wisely? Surely I am entitled to ask those questions. I understand the concern about the Secretary of State's proposals to get something going in Northern Ireland that is separate and different from what we do in the House in order to see what is required and to come forward with ideas to advise and help the Government. Things have reached such a stage in Northern Ireland that perhaps we should use the brains of the whole community in a way that we have not yet done. I do not necessarily wish to take anything away from the House, but to get together people with different abilities and with expertise in different areas. I should be happy to play a part in that if the Government would give me some assurance that, having played a part and having got others involved, our reports will not end up ignored in a corner of the Library.

My advice to the Secretary of State is that we must learn to spend £500 million better than we have done in the past two and a half years. If we are to learn to do that and to use what Northern Ireland has to offer, the Government must give us some assurance that when we make recommendations, or try to help, our contributions will not be ignored.

7 pm

Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Down, South)

As the debate approaches its end, it is right to recall something that my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) said at the beginning. He referred to the peculiar, indeed unique, nature of the document under discussion. Perhaps we have become so used to seeing Appropriation orders for Northern Ireland three times a year, that it has ceased to surprise us that one part of the United Kingdom, comprising only 1.5 million inhabitants, has a completely separate system for accounting and for voting money.

That is not a mere technical point, still less a constitutional point. It is of very practical effect. In several of the speeches today—most crassly in the speech made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson)—it has been said that the Province is being hugely, uniquely, subsidised by the rest of the United Kingdom, and it has been asked whether we can continue to labour under such an Atlantean load. I guarantee that I could find in the United Kingdom a dozen blocks containing 1.5 million people, which—if accounts were kept for them separately, as they are kept for Northern Ireland, and if they faced Appropriation orders three times a year—would be described by those hon. Members who attended the debate as terrible burdens that the rest of us are carrying, burdens that raise the question whether we should labour under them any longer.

The figures disclosed by the Estimates and by the order are simply a statement of the fact that Northern Ireland is an integral part of the economy, administration and financial system of the United Kingdom. In the phenomena which are a result of that, it does not differ in any way from many other parts of the United Kingdom. In such a debate as this, when some hon. Members are ready to misrepresent the situation, it is important to keep that in proportion.

I wish to make a bid to respond, in a fairly narrow field, to the challenge thrown down by my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker). In opening the debate the Minister said that the order was concerned with enhancing Northern Ireland's industrial base. My hon. Friends and I have always contended that in the balance of expenditure incurred in that attempt to enhance Northern Ireland's industrial base, the main weight should, wherever possible, be placed on what is commonly described as "infrastructure". We have always contended that the risks are greatest and the dangers of waste at their highest when one concentrates on specific projects, which sometimes prove to have been inadequately studied. We have always contended that the chances of success and of securing perhaps unanticipated benefits are at their greatest when expenditure is incurred on providing for those general requirements which the economy will have, whatever form it may take. The subject that I shall press on the Government concerns that infrastructure.

Communications between the Province and the rest of the United Kingdom are clearly of crucial importance in economic as well as in other respects. A whole debate could be held about possible developments in air travel; but whatever the scope of air communications, economic values and requirements will turn overwhelmingly upon surface communications.

It is no new observation to say that Northern Ireland is dangerously under-provided in terms of surface communications with the rest of the United Kingdom. In 1979, the Northern Ireland Economic Council published a report on sea ferry services. I entirely agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh when he said that we should utilise all the thinking and experience that we can get hold of in the Province and knock it together: the Northern Ireland Economic Council is an example of an attempt to do that. After careful study it reached—among others—this conclusion: For reasons of consumer convenience, and to some extent for strategic advantage, we would urge the early introduction of a passenger ferry service with roll-on/roll off vehicle facilities from Warrenpoint to Holyhead. That is part of the picture that the Northern Ireland Economic Council drew of the Province's insistent need for not two, but three major routes connecting it with the mainland. The council re-emphasised that point in the annual report that it published in 1980, which said: we continue to press for the establishment of a roll-on/roll-off service to make use of the facilities at Warrenpoint and provide a shorter route to the Midlands and South of England"— though the council deplored the fact that, with the recession in economic activity, the introduction of new air and sea services is likely to be delayed. This perception of the importance of the third link has not been restricted to the economic council. No less a person than the Prime Minister said at the beginning of 1978—almost four years ago—that the proposal for the Warrenpoint link was "interesting and important" and I was fascinated and much encouraged to notice that the new Secretary of State—taking his first view of the scene—said: These are commercial matters. From all that I have seen in a short time, the roll-on/roll-off operation from Warrenpoint would be very important."—[Official Report, 11 November 1981; Vol. 12, c. 538.] The Estimates include finance for commercial studies that are necessary to establish a potential market. At the request of the Department, Warrenpoint harbour authority carried out last summer just such a detailed study of the potential demand for roll-on/roll-off ferry services to Warrenpoint. Having seen that study, as the Minister also has, I am prepared to say that it is a more than convincing demonstration of the ample traffic that will be available if such a new link is created. The link has the advantage of the short sea run to Holyhead. It has the advantage of an almost complete dual carriageway connection with Belfast. It taps the centre of the island, both the south of Ulster and the north of the Republic. It offers vehicular transit within the day from any part of England to any part of Ulster.

That being so, the question might well be asked "After all this, and with those opportunities and attractions, what are we waiting for?". By way of answering that question, I should like to read a letter. I shall not identify the firm from which it came, but it was a firm that took a close interest in the practicability of this new link. It wrote this letter to the Warrenpoint Harbour Authority as recently as August this year. It states: We are investigating the possibility of starting a roll-on/ roll—off ferry service from a United Kingdom port to Ulster, and our research has shown that the most suitable for the Ulster port would be Warrenpoint with its position midway between Belfast and Dublin and its proximity to the border at Newry for cross-border traffic". Splendid. That is the first paragraph. We then come to these observations: However, for the type of service we would propose it would be absolutely essential to run a daily TIMETABLE service uninterrupted by tidal influences. At the present time we understand that you have a channel which is dredged to 13½ ft at low water. Experience tells us that a minimum depth at low water spring tides required would be 16 ft. This depth would also be required at Watson's Rock and also at the Carlingford Lough bar". That is a correct appreciation. If this is to be a viable link, it is essential that it should provide a timetable service that can be delivered on time at all states of the tide; and it is the fact that Carlingford Lough and the access to Warrenpoint at present do not offer, by a margin of about 4 ft at spring tide, the assurance of a timetabled regular service. So again I ask: "What are we waiting for?". We are waiting for two things. First, the deepening of the access channel that will make sense of Warrenpoint harbour, which is largely a creation of public capital, and of the abundant facilities provided there. Second, but as a preliminary to that, we require the geological survey that would enable such a work to be estimated, planned and costed.

It is a happy chance that the Minister in charge of the Department of Commerce is to reply to the debate; for he, and indeed the Government, have before them for decision the question of ordering the survey that is the necessary preliminary and condition to rendering this third link practicable.

I do not expect the Minister to give me the answer across the Dispatch Box in half-an-hour's time, but I do say to him that the time for decision has now come; for we have assembled all the materials on which the decision needs to be taken. It has to be taken now in a much more urgent environment than that which existed when I first troubled the right hon. Member for Mansfield and some of his colleagues with the same question five or six years ago. The interruption of the Belfast-Liverpool link has been a shock and a salutary warning to the Province as a whole. So it should be to the Government. It has been a reminder of the soundness of the assertion of the Economic Council that Ulster could not safely depend indefinitely upon the short link at the north, and the middle link between Belfast and Liverpool.

Like the right hon. Member for Mansfield, I hope that the Minister will have more to say about the future of the Belfast-Liverpool link. Incidentally, Liverpool—at any rate, in the earlier stages—would he an acceptable terminus for a Warrenpoint service, certainly until the full road development to Holyhead is complete, as it will be within the next few years.

The experience that we have had, and are still having, is a salutary lesson that ought to be learnt and carried into practice. The Government have now been warned that one of the economic essentials to enhance the industrial base of the Province is to provide it with the third surface link that has for so long been perceived to be essential. It is now known that it is commercially viable. It requires only the technical and exploratory work, upon which the decision lies with the Minister.

It might be thought that I have troubled the House with a constituency matter. During a debate on a Northern Ireland Appropriation Order one need not grovel to apologise for that offence. Yet I disavow it. This is only marginally the interest of any particular part of the Province. It is an interest of the Province as a whole. I go further: in these days, when references to economic cooperation between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic are in fashion, I do not mind saying that it is also an interest of a considerable portion of the adjacent Irish Republic. I hope that before long the Government will put that requirement of Northern Ireland's industrial base into position.

7.18 pm

Mr. Clive Soley (Hammersmith, North)

Like other hon. Members, I begin by expressing my regret at the untimely and unnecessary death of the Reverend Robert Bradford. As if we needed it, it is another reminder of the futility of believing that political problems can be solved by paramilitary killings.

Secondly, I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) and the Minister for their kind welcome. I shall not claim that I do not have any illusions about the difficulties and depth of the economic problems facing Northern Ireland, because one of the first things I learnt about illusions is that one does not know one has them until they have been shattered.

I have sat through a number of these Appropriation order debates, and I have always been struck by the way Conservative Members, particularly Ministers, suddenly develop a sort of schizophrenia about economic policy. We had it from the Minister, the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) and the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux). All of them want to see, either explicitly or implicitly, a greater degree of public involvement in the economy.

I think back to May 1979 and to that great election campaign that was fought on the belief that by cutting tax rates to those on high incomes the money thus released would help to regenerate the sinking base of the British economy. That was the theory before we had 3 million unemployed, inflation remaining higher than it was in May 1979 and tax rates that are even higher than in May 1979. That theory failed and the problem is that it has failed even more desperately in Northern Ireland.

Therefore, the problem for any hon. Member on the Conservative Benches is somehow or other to make the case for greater economic involvement by the public sector in Northen Ireland and at the same time to justify the political philosophy on which they were elected.

Mr. John Patten

Is the hon. Gentleman attributing all the problems of Northern Ireland to the policies of this Government over the last two and a half years? Does he not recognise that in any economy there is such a phenomenon as structural change?

Mr. Soley

I certainly recognise structural change as being a particular problem for Northern Ireland and I do not attribute all the problems of Northern Ireland to the Government. I did not say that, nor did I imply it. We all know that a great deal of the recession has been of an overseas nature. Recession is not unique to us but it has been grossly aggravated by the Government. We had an interesting statement from the hon. Member for Newbury, who justified greater intervention on the ground that "circumstances in Northern Ireland are so unusual". I am not sure that with 3 million unemployed and riots in the streets circumstances are all that usual here, either.

The problem is not as simple as it seems. When the Minister says that we need to do more and implies that he would like to do more he is saying that there should be more public involvement in the Northern Ireland economy. That raises the immediate question why we have such a paltry piece of paper with so little in it?

One of the first things that occurs to me, as it does to every other hon. Member, is the problem of unemployment. Yet there is no mention of housing and increased expenditure on housing. I regret that. We all know that one of the ways to soak up the unskilled unemployed is by increasing the house building sector of the economy, which easily absorbs unskilled labour. The modernisation and maintenance of homes has been curtailed and new homes have not been built. The Housing Executive cannot even plan ahead and is not helped by cuts and moratoria. The same restrictions have been applied to housing associations and councils in this country. The problems of Northern Ireland are aggravated not only by the bad housing but above all by unemployment. Those factors do not in themselves cause crime and political violence but they provide a marvellous recruiting ground for both.

I am puzzled by the way that the Minister—and, I suspect, all the Northern Ireland Ministers—does not share the optimism of the Prime Minister and her closer colleagues in the Cabinet on the economy. They appear to believe that we have reached the trough of the depression and they are turning every little bounce along the bottom of the depression into a recovery. However, it is noticeable that the Northern Ireland Ministers do not seem to believe that. It may well be because they are aware that the Government's policy is not working and they see it not working in a far worse and deeper way in Northern Ireland, for all the obvious reasons. The Under-Secretary of State is aware of some of them and has just commented on that of the structural change.

If there is structural change at a time of rapid technological change the last thing to do is to cut some of the basic aid, whether it is to further education, higher education, high technology industries or loans and grants. Yet we have here a paltry sum in terms of loans and grants. The Minister and the Government could do better than that.

I was fascinated by the contribution today from the spokesman for the Social Democratic Party, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson). The main thrust of his comments on the economy appears to be that the Government are creating a vanishing economy. On this day, of all days, the SDP could not afford to be upstaged so they immediately went one better and brought in the now famous SDP non-appearing policy. That policy seemed to be "we shall get rid of Northern Ireland because we cannot afford it but, on second thoughts, perhaps we shall not, because we cannot cope with that on our own". The policy seems to be that it is expensive to keep troops in Northern Ireland. At first I thought that that meant that it was cheaper to keep them somewhere else, but we might have been listening to another SDP policy to upstage the Labour Party, involving unilateral conventional disarmament.

I was reminded of James Joyce's headmaster in "A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man" who, when confronted with the political problem of Ireland, gave up in exasperation and said: It would appear that history is to blame. That is probably why the SDP spokesman has made his contribution and has left the House.

The hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) was in favour of more public expenditure. I welcome that, but I recognise that one cannot pour out public money without thought to where it goes and without limit. On the other hand, the Government's policy of cutting public expenditure of all types, except to finance unemployment, which they cannot control, is doing devastating damage. I cannot get over the hypocrisy of the Government when they say that local authorities are spending too much and yet cannot bring their own public expenditure under control. Given that local authorities are spending less than they used to spend, one cannot but conclude that this is a case of the Government saying "Do not do as we do; do as we tell you."

There is an alternative economic strategy. That alternative strategy could benefit such places as Northern Ireland. As the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and others said, one can identify any part of the United Kingdom and say that it has specific economic problems. Our argument is that without sensible, planned public expenditure we shall not come out of the recession until the world economy recovers and pulls us up with it—and that seems to be many years away. We cannot afford to wait that long, not least because of the problems in Northern Ireland; not least because of the 20 per cent. unemployment rate, which is still rising. We cannot afford to wait because of the high inflation and high taxation rates. Expenditure for many people has increased, particularly on energy. That does devastating damage to certain areas of the United Kingdom and provides a breeding ground for crime and political terror.

I should like to think that the Government will reverse some of their more insane policies and give up their idea of selling off the British National Oil Corporation. I should like them to use some of that money to fund Northern Ireland projects. That could be done. This country is wealthy in energy. That is unique in the Western industrialised world at a time of recession. We should be using that wealth and not throwing it away. We should use it to resolve the problems of Northern Ireland. One must accept that the political problems there have deep roots that are not only in the political nature of the border but in the structure of the economy.

7.28 pm

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Butler)

I add my tribute to the late Robert Bradford. He contributed to our debates in the House on Northern Ireland matters always in an excellent way. He gave evidence of the manner in which he looked after the interests of his constituents by the fact that he, poor man, was murdered as he was undertaking that task.

I welcome the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley). I suspect from what he said today that my hon. Friends and I will not always agree with him. Possibly we shall never agree with him, but he certainly spoke in a pleasant manner. I can assure him that we shall always carefully listen to what he has to say, even if we dispute every word of it.

It is traditional to say that a debate has been wide-ranging. This one certainly has been. The main theme underlying everything that has been said has been the general anxiety of hon. Members about the appallingly high levels of unemployment in the Province. However one looks at it, 109,000 people out of work in a part of the United Kingdom with a population of 1½ million is a shocking figure. Hon. Members were right to draw the attention of the House to the grave economic situation in the Province, one that contributes to unemployment. The deep and anxious concern is rightly there.

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) is not here to hear me say that the only remark that I resented in the whole debate was his suggestion that Her Majesty's Ministers take a callous attitude to unemployment, to the men and women who are out of work and the consequences for them and their families. That is an unworthy charge that I reject. There is no monopoly of concern anywhere in this Chamber.

I agreed with those who said that there is a strong and positive relationship between unemployment and violence. It is not just the violence associated with terrorism that we have regretfully seen increase and burst out on the streets from time to time. Normal crime—if one can call it normal—has also increased in the Province. That is equally to be regretted. That is why the Government attach the highest priority to strengthening the economy of Northern Ireland. That is why we are maintaining high industrial development expenditure in the Province.

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary referred to the Vote 2 figure of £187 million. If we were to multiply that figure in the usual way on a population basis, on my calculations that would be the equivalent of £7½ billion in the United Kingdom. Perhaps that sets the figure in perspective. Even now we seek the approval of the House for some additional sums of money.

No one, certainly not those who have had the responsibility that I now have in Northern Ireland, underestimates the economic difficulties that we face. There must be restructuring. Many of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members referred to the textile industry, which has been one to suffer most. However, there are exceptions, and even now companies are doing well, taking on labour and expanding. Nevertheless, that overdependence in the past has brought about its own special casualties.

However, it is not possible to separate entirely the problems of Northern Ireland from those in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom as a whole has been suffering from world wide recession. As the United Kingdom recovers from that recession and benefits from the policies of Her Majesty's Government, the Province stands to gain because the Northern Ireland economy is tied to the British economy, and when that moves, so will the Northern Ireland economy.

The right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) charged Ministers with a number of things. With all respect, however, I do not believe that he felt that everything that he was saying was correct. When he said that what we needed was a co-ordinated regional economic development policy and at the same time waved in the air the booklet "A Framework for Action", I wondered whether he had read it because contained in that document is a description of exactly what we are about in industrial development policy.

I am not a great one for documents because documents of themselves do not produce jobs. However, in that document we outlined in what I believe was a clear, cohesive and realistic manner the way in which industrial development institutions will carry out their jobs and the many positive initiatives that the Government are taking in industrial development. The right hon. Gentleman tried to make out that we were tackling things in a piecemeal way, but we believe that it is important that not only the House but the Province and those who provide the money—the taxpayers of the United Kingdom—should know what we are doing with that money and how our policy runs.

First, there is the general Government aid and financial support for new investment undertaken by existing industry under the industrial development programme, to which my hon. Friend referred in his opening remarks. So far this year the industrial development institutions in Northern Ireland—the Department of Commerce, the Northern Ireland Development Agency and the local enterprise development unit—have between them promoted over 3,200 jobs in local industry and an additional 6,200 jobs have been maintained under the Department of Commerce selective financial assistance scheme.

Those figures do not include jobs maintained in Harland and Wolff and Short Brothers. If one considers that the public are supporting Harland and Wolff by paying more than the wages of every man, one can see that there is assistance in that area too. I mentioned the figures for job promotion, Harland and Wolff and Short Brothers in passing reference to show the Government's continuing positive commitment to the indigenous industry in the Province.

Secondly, we are continuing our efforts to attract new industry to Northern Ireland. That is a difficult task, made no easier by the statements and actions of some hon. Members. It is made no better by the violence on the streets or the terrorist activity, from whatever source. It is made no better by any apparent threat to civic order in the Province. We must look at those factors responsibly. If we are concerned, as I believe all those who are involved are, with trying to overcome the tragic social problem of unemployment, in everything that we say and do, we must have regard to that matter.

I have been travelling round, as has been said. I now speak with knowledge from a recent visit to the United States. I have had meetings with various industrialists from overseas. I know that the perception of the Province is the biggest single factor that works against inward investment.

In addition there are the effects of the international recession, particularly in America. However, our biggest problem is the impression that news reports give. They ignore the fact that we have a large pool of skilled labour, a good industrial relations record, and the productivity record and reputation for hard work that the Northern Ireland worker has rightly earned himself. Those things do not get across to the media. Therefore, we believe that we need to strengthen representations in that area so that the message can be put across face to face to would-be investors.

Mr. McCusker

If we cannot convince mainland British investors to go to Northern Ireland—I believe that most of them are investing their money in the Republic—how does he hope to convince people from North America to go there?

Mr. Butler

We have convinced those in North America to a greater extent than those on the mainland of the United Kingdom. I shall return to that in a minute. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that a great deal more investment should come from the mainland.

We believe that one of the important ways of putting over the Province as an investment location is to talk face to face with people on their home ground and to get them to come to the Province and see the facts for themselves. They are doing that. I mention, as one example, a recent mission of industrialists from the Frankfurt area who visited the Province in October and were much impressed with what they saw and heard. We shall also seek to concentrate our overseas efforts in areas where success is likely to be achieved. My hon. Friend mentioned high growth and high technology. Those are areas in which the Province is lacking, and we cannot ignore them if we are to get a secure economic base for the future.

Much of that is encouraging, but we still have a great deal to do if we are to compete with other countries in attracting new investment. As the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) said, we need to do more in Great Britain, and we are already stepping up our efforts in that regard. We have increased our advertising and promotional activity. As the decisions are taken by a relatively small number of people, particularly with regard to big business, I have personally made contact with many of the major and influential companies, and I am also meeting groups of different industrialists and trying to persuade them of the advantages of coming to Northern Ireland and the benefits that are available to them.

Apart from attracting overseas investment—I have touched on only some of the increased and expanded activity in which we are involved—we shall continue our efforts to promote the development of small firms. We have spoken strongly again and again about the importance that the Government attach to small firms. The local enterprise development unit in Northern Ireland is continuing successfully in its work, and it can be commended. We are deliberately leaving it outside the new integrated industrial development institution so that it can operate independently in the market. I am glad to say that after some small, initial technical difficulties we have finally and fully launched the small firms loan guarantee scheme to which I attach special importance.

I have listed—I make no excuse for going through them in detail—the positive steps that the Government are taking to reduce unemployment in the Province. I referred to the integrated industrial development organisation. That organisation, like the document "A Framework for Action" cannot in itself create a job, but it will ensure that the resources available to it in manpower and finance are used as effectively as possible.

It is not just the Government who must make a contribution. I have been greatly encouraged by members of the local business community and the district councils, all of whom have been making a special effort to ensure—in the case of the councils—that their areas can offer what is best to would-be investors and to set out their plate as attractively as possible.

Much work has also been carried out by the local chambers of commerce, particularly the Northern Ireland chamber of commerce. I mentioned the Engineering Industries Association, which, under its theme of "Make it 82", brought to the attention of the Province a wide range of goods—over £10 million worth—that could be made in the Province and which were at that time being bought in. That sort of initiative in the private sector, in support of what the Government are doing, can help to overcome our problems.

The most important industry in the Province is still agriculture, and fanning concerns have been worse hit in the Province than in the rest of the United Kingdom. It was in recognition of the catastrophic decline in incomes that the Secretary of State decided that money had to be injected into the crucial sectors of beef, milk and intensive livestock. That £10 million gross—my hon. Friend explained why we are dealing with £7 million or so—was injected as a result of my right hon. Friend's decision on agriculture.

I was asked about the future. I have been accused of making the aid temporary. The House—certainly those hon. Members who take an interest in these matters—will be aware of the inter-departmental review that has been carried out on Northern Irland's agriculture. That review is complete. The report is with me, and I shall shortly be discussing it with the Ulster Farmers Union. There was a need previously for the injection of additional money, and that need still remains.

Two or three companies were mentioned, including as always Harland and Wolff and Short Brothers, which feature so largely in the economy. They have roughly 7,000 employees each—14,000 between them out of a manufacturing labour force of 115,000. Over 10 per cent. of the working population in manufacturing industry' is employed in those companies, so, understandably, we pay attention to them. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) made a positive speech, stemming from his special knowledge, and if he wishes I shall have a word with him about the many suggestions that he made.

Only one thing matters at present for Harland and Wolff—orders. Unless an order is found in the next few weeks, those on the steel works side will be short of work and there will be a hiatus in production. I am told by the company that a number of orders are possible. I felt it right to draw to the attention of the chairman of the British Steel Corporation, for example, the urgency of a decision. It would be wrong—and I am not prepared to do so—to tell a company such as BSC where it should place its business. That is a matter for commercial negotiation between the customer and the supplier. If a decision is to be made, it should be made quickly, and that is what I have said to the chairman of BSC. Otherwise, the Government are continuing to support Harland and Wolff.

Mr. Concannon

With regard to orders for Harland and Wolff, I find the Minister's argument intriguing. Obviously we have different views. I am amazed that the Government are not prepared to lean a little on the British Steel Corporation to come to the aid of another nationalised industry, even though it may be "Ulsterised". Harland and Wolff is likely to close down just for the want of a quick decision. I am sure that if I were a member of the Government I would lean heavily on BSC to make sure that the order was forthcoming.

Mr. Butler

That may be an area in which the right hon. Gentleman and I fall out. If "leaning" means making the corporation take an uncommercial decision, that will merely transfer Harland and Wolff's problem to the corporation. That has happened far too often in the past. The Government have made it clear that intervention fund assistance and standard credit arrangements are available for orders if the company can get them. I agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury when he said that perhaps the super tanker market is a thing of the past. Harland and Wolff is looking for bulkers, ships in the range to which my hon. Friend referred and certainly above 60,000 tonnes. That is much in line with the company's thinking.

Short Brothers is in a different category from that of Harland and Wolff. That is because Shorts has the potential of making a profit. I should like to think that shipbuilding in the United Kingdom had that potential, but it would be much harder for it to make a profit. Shorts is in a modern high technology industry and it must make money. Although the company has made some striking improvements in productivity, for example, and has increased its sales, it is still not making money. It has shown that it does not depend on the Government for its orders. It is selling overseas the same type of missiles that it sold to the MOD. It is doing first-class work in supplying the American aircraft industry. It is selling the SD330 and the Skyvan world-wide and it is hoped that likewise it will sell the SD360 in future. It is not dependent on the Government. Indeed, it has Queen's awards for exports.

The plan is before us and I hope that we shall be able to say something about it to the company. I appreciate the urgency that lies behind it. The plan contains various options and looks forward to 1984–85. It is only right that the Government should be satisfied that the sums involved are likely to be correct.

There are two facets to the De Lorean saga. In my view, there is no question but that the company has done a first-class job on the industrial and marketing side. In a relatively short time it has produced a car and demonstrated to the world that Northern Ireland is capable of producing cars. It has a long order book in North America and it should be congratulated on that success.

The other side of the picture is public funding. It is a proper procedure for hon. Members to query the use of public funds. I implore them to ensure that in so doing they do not damn the product and the company's marketing effort. Let them distinguish one from the other and Ministers will be happy to defend what has been done publicly to fund the company.

Lear Fan has an exciting development. It is an early stage to forecast what the future holds, but development work is progressing well. The first flight was on schedule. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury asked me about the airworthiness certificate. The company recently informed my Department that there will be some delay in applying for the certificate but that should not cause the House to be gravely concerned. It is very much an advanced technology product, and there are two or three peculiarities in its construction. Progress has been promising and we hope for no further delays. I cannot add to what has been said about the funding arrangements for the company.

There was one remarkable contribution to the debate to which the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North referred. It was made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson). I hope that the hon. Gentleman will excuse me for saying what I am about to say in his absence. As he has been absent for three-quarters or seven-eighths of the debate, it has proved difficult for me to comment on his speech in his presence. I hope that his contribution will not he typical of that which we shall have in Northern Ireland debates from the new and exciting party. I hope also that it will not be typical of what we have in other directions.

The hon. Gentleman's speech was mainly out of order. When it was not out of order it seemed to be based on complete ignorance of the facts. That includes his accusation that the Government are starving Harland and Wolff of funds. As he knew personally that his party would not be able to cope with the problem he said, in effect, "Bring in the United Nations. It must be sorted out in an international framework." Let us hope that he takes my words and other criticisms to heart. We want every positive and constructive contribution that we can get as we try to resolve the problems of Northern Ireland. I shall not resent them whenever they come and from wherever they come.

The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North, in his first speech on Northern Ireland from the Opposition Dispatch Box, made some general reference to the approach that is adopted by Ministers in Northern Ireland compared with the approach of Ministers in Great Britain. He tried to suggest that in Great Britain Ministers are conservative and monetarist and that in Northern Ireland Ministers become profligate spenders of other people's money in the Socialist manner.

We are conscious that there are regions of the United Kingdom to which national funds should properly flow. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and some of his colleagues drew attention to the way in which the affairs of Northern Ireland are distinguishable from others. He said that, when one considers the flows of money into other regions, the differential between those and the flow into Northern Ireland is not so great. Of the total flow about 30 per cent. more per capita goes into Northern Ireland compared with the flows into other regions of the United Kingdom. Certainly the flow to Northern Ireland is greater than to Scotland or Wales, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. Northern Ireland is the most deserving of the regions and, therefore, it does not conflict with Conservative policy to say that public money should flow into the region.

Mr. Soley

I am interested in the use of "deserving". Is the Minister using that word in a charitable sense or is he saying, as I suspect that he is trying to say, that public investment and the use of public money can help to regenerate the economy? If he is saying that, will he have a word with the Prime Minister and one or two of his colleagues?

Mr. Butler

I was not using the word in an undeserving charitable sense. The fact is that nearly one person in five is out of work in the Province. There are problems in housing and in many other areas. It is only proper that a disproportionate amount of the resources that are available to the United Kingdom should be spent on trying to redress the balance and on investing for the future. That is why we put such a heavy emphasis on investment in industrial activity so that dependence on the United Kingdom for funding can be removed over time.

The Government differ from the right hon. Member for Mansfield and the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North in realising that the expenditure of public money involves the use of other people's money. Every pound that is spent is at the expense of increased personal taxation or at the expense of funds that otherwise would be available to the private sector at lower rates of inflation. The expenditure of public money can be at the expense of other people's jobs.

In his opening speech the right hon. Member for Mansfield conformed to his old habit of saying "Spend your way out of trouble. The Government should not hesitate to spend." The right hon. Gentleman will not have regard to the consequences of so doing either for inflation or for other people's jobs. We are not prepared to adopt that approach.

Although I have not covered all the points that I should have, I hope I have been fairly comprehensive and that the House will acknowledge that. The priority that the Government attach to tackling inflation and controlling public expenditure, in the interests of a more competitive industry and a stronger United Kingdom economy, will be in Northern Ireland's interests in the long run. Moreover, the array of initiatives that I have outlined today, and the references made again and again to the substantial public expenditure, cannot be described as anything other than a full commitment by the British Government to resolving the economic problems of the Province. Taken together, they give the lie to the accusation that the British Government are engaged in a deliberate economic withdrawal from the Province. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Government are doing all they can to secure the existing industrial base in the Province and to draw its potential to the attention of overseas industrialists. The Government will continue to do that. The moneys for which we are seeking approval in the Appropriation order before the House tonight are important if we are to ensure that the Province has the funding which will enable those measures to be continued. I trust that the House will find the order acceptable and approve it.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the draft Appropriation (No. 3) (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 17th November, be approved