§ The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Butler)I beg to move,
That the draft Electricity Service (Finance) (Northern Ireland) Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 19th January, be approved.I am conscious of the lateness of the hour, but I know that some hon. Members wish to make a contribution to the debate.On 5 March 1981 the Prime Minister announced that the Government would take steps to bring Northern Ireland elctricity tariffs more closely into line with those in England and Wales and to keep them there. The purpose of this draft order is to give continuing statutory authority for the payment to the Northern Ireland Electricity Service of the subsidies that are necessary to implement that important commitment in this and subsequent financial years. As an interim measure payments have already been made to the electricity service under the authority of the Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, and as a result the new tariffs necessary to implement the policy have been in force since last May, when the increase in charges was limited to 5 per cent. rather than the 35 per cent. which would have been necessary without assistance from the Government.It may be helpful if I sketch out the background to the Government's decision on electricity tariffs in Northern Ireland. The problems inherent in a small electricity generating system combined with Northern Ireland's excessive dependence upon oil —about 80 per cent.—for electricity generation and the failure of electricity demand to grow as expected have meant that the electricity service has been faced with recurring financial problems. In order to break even without assistance on a considerably greater scale than had hitherto been made available, the electricity service would, as a result of the oil price increases of 1979–80, have had to increase its charges to unacceptably high levels—in the Government's opinion.
In recognition of the latest situation, the Government in 1980 set up a comprehensive review of their policy towards electricity matters in relation to Northern Ireland. On 5 March last year the Prime Minister announced the main conclusion of that review that electricity tariffs in Northern Ireland constituted an unreasonble burden on the Northern Ireland community and that they should be brought more closely into line with those in England and Wales, and significantly, kept there. As a result, the electricity service was asked to limit its tariff increases in 1981–82 so that charges to industrial consumers were made equal with the highest in England and Wales and charges to domestic consumers were set at not more than 5 per cent. above the highest in England and Wales. That was in May 1981, for the financial year 1981ߝ82. In 1982ndash83 and subsequent financial years, all charges to industry and domestic consumers will be kept in line with the highest charges in England and Wales.
The main provision of this order is article 3, which gives the Department of Commerce power to pay grants to the electricity service in respect of this and succeeding financial years. The payment of grant is to be subject to the approval of the Department of Finance and may not exceed the deficit on revenue account of the electricity service in the year in question.
508 The House is already aware that the total public expenditure support required for the electricity service in 1981–82 has been estimated at about £88 million. A sum of £44.9 million was provided from the Contingency Reserve, which enabled the Government's commitment to the service to be met without reductions in other Northern Ireland services. A figure of £70 million has been earmarked for support to the service in 1982–83. The final cost will, of course, depend in part on tariff decisions for that year yet to be taken by particular area electricity boards in England and Wales, and on final consumption.
These are large amounts of money, and I am very conscious of the importance of ensuring that proper control is exercised of the charge to public funds arising from the commitment to keep tariffs in line with those in England and Wales. To this end, a programme of measures is in hand.
For its part, the electricity service is considering how best to adapt its existing generating capacity in response to a situation of lower demand and reduced forecasts of future demand. In addition, at the request of my right hon. Friend, the electricity service is carrying out a series of studies of longer-term options for future generating policy in Northern Ireland. These studies include consideration, for instance, of the merits of converting oil-fired power stations to use coal, of interconnection with Great Britain and of newer generating technologies. We wilt give careful consideration to the results of these studies.
On the Government side, we have established a system of regular monitoring of the performance and finances of the electricity service. The service's corporate plan for the period 1982–83 through to 1986–87, which is being prepared in close consultation with the Government, will provide the basis for establishing future financing needs and for performance criteria.
The Government's announcement was described in the annual report of the Northern Ireland Electricity Service for 1980–81 as good news of major importance for electricity consumers and the service. I warmly echo that comment. Householders and industry in Northern Ireland have many problems to cope with. The continuance of payments under this order will ensure more equitable treatment in comparison with Great Britain, and will remove an unfair burden from their shoulders.
I therefore commend the order to the House.
§ Mr. Harold McCusker (Armagh)It is a shame that we have to discuss this order at this time of night, because it is of real significance to Northern Ireland. I believe that the decision that the Prime Minister made about 12 months ago was probably the most positive action that was taken for some considerable time and showed people in Northern Ireland that there was a political determination on her, part—quite apart from an economic determination—to maintain and sustain the Union. At that time attempts were being made to show once again that there was economic withdrawal from Northern Ireland, and the Prime Minister, by visiting the Province and making that announcement answered that allegation as well as she could.
I have not complained that Northern Ireland business is normally handled late at night, but what we are doing now exposes the nonsense of the way in which Northern Ireland is governed from this House. In the light of current events, I hope that it will not be too long before such 509 matters are given an airing in the Province, where representatives from the Province will be able to express their views and have it adequately reported to their supporters.
I would be churlish not to welcome the order and what it heralds, but I have a question. If there was movement in this direction, why did the Government have to peg prices in Northern Ireland to the highest tariffs in England and Wales? Is there not a good argument that the price of electricity in Northern Ireland should be pegged to that in a comparable region in Great Britain? The North-East of England, for example has many things in common with Northern Ireland: old, decaying industry—shipyards and so on—and substantial dependence still on textiles, which are in decline as well.
It would have been much more equitable and beneficial to the Province if some account had been taken of its circumstances and problems. The Government could have said "If we are looking for equity or parity, we should perhaps peg electricity prices not to those in the region with the highest prices in Great Britain but to those in a comparable region." If they had been pegged to tariffs in the North-East of England there would have been an even more significant improvement than is already being achieved.
This action was crucial, both for the Province's industrial development and for the alleviation of a heavy burden on the domestic budgets of people in the Province. I think, too, of the closure of Courtaulds and ICI. In drawing up their long-term plans, those two companies, heavy users of electricity, must have been influenced by the thought that if they were to invest in the United Kingdom, why invest in a Province where it seemed electricity prices would always be substantially higher than in any other part of the United Kingdom? That question would have been faced increasingly by other industrial concerns in the Province. This action will have gone some way to improve the position.
The Northern Ireland Consumer Council in 1980 commissioned a study to compare energy prices in Northern Ireland with those in the rest of the United Kingdom. It showed that electricity prices in general were 25 per cent. higher than the average in Great Britain. Gas prices were 153 per cent. higher and coal prices in general were 8 per cent. higher. Is it any wonder that in the poorest region of this country a little over a year ago energy costs represented a 9.1 per cent. Share of household expenditure, whilst on the mainland they represented 5.9 per cent? A household in Northern Ireland had to spend 50 per cent. more on energy than did a household on the mainland. That must have been the reason that justified the Prime Minister in describing this as an unreasonable burden on the people of Northern Ireland. I do not want to appear churlish. If it is accepted that Northern Ireland has the highest unemployment and the greatest poverty, there is perhaps a case for seeing whether more can be done.
The Northern Ireland Economic Council in its report for 1980–81 summed up what most people in Northern Ireland believe. It said:
During the past year the Government has taken some important steps to strengthen the regional economy. Bringing electricity tariffs into line with the highest levels in Great Britain will make a contribution to industrial costs and domestic living 510 standards which, to the extent that it is financed by an addition to the planned Northern Ireland budget, represents a significant advance.Everyone in Northern Ireland is grateful for that. I have remarked on previous occasions that we in Northern Ireland are trying not to beg all the time. If we are to receive additional expenditure, there is a responsibility on us to keep this extra subsidy to the minimum. We should ask ourselves what we can do to make it as small as possible. We have 20 per cent. unemployment. However, parts of Scotland and Northern England have 17 or 18 per cent. unemployment. The gap is not great.Northern Ireland has to be careful to avoid demanding more massive handouts for certain industrial undertakings when other parts of the United Kingdom might require the same consideration.
If we want extra expenditure in the Province, we have to show the other regions that we want our extra expenditure to be a share of extra expenditure for all the underprivileged regions.
What can be done to make sure that the subsidy is kept to a minimum? There is no doubt, as the Minister said that attention can be given to the proportions of fuel that are used to generate electricity. A heavy dependence on oil has created problems for Northern Ireland compared to Great Britain. The annual report to which the Minister referred paints a clear picture. In a reference to generation, it states:
In a number of ways, the Service attempted to minimise the effects of higher fuel costs—particularly those of oil. Comprising as much as one-half of total expenditure, these were over £24.6 million greater than in the previous year, although less fuel was used, due to an increase of 27.2 per cent. compared to the previous year in the average delivered price of all fuels.The report gives the assurance that the development of the new fuel terminal enables the purchase of larger amounts of oil. Interchangeability is helping to reduce costs. It is conversion from oil to coal that will bring improvement. The report refers to Belfast West power station, which, if things had been going to plan, would presumably almost be closing today.The report states:
In maximising the use of coal, being the cheaper fuel for generation, Belfast West power station achieved an output of some 20 per cent. of total generation in 1980/81, while constituting only 11 per cent. of total installed capacity. This was made possible by a coal burn even greater than in the early years of this now ageing plant.I am not an expert, but if that load is being put on the plant at this stage of its life, it will burn out far more quickly than may have been expected. I assume that that injects a certain urgency into the need to convert some of our other generating units to coal firing. Can the Minister give us any more information about that? We have heard a great deal of talk about it. It was first mooted two and a half or three years ago. Has no real action yet been taken?The right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) may not like my next question. Do we really need to take our coal from the National Coal Board? A few years ago I would have taken the view that we were obliged to do so, but if we are denied our share of natural gas we cannot be expected to use the NCB's high priced coal if we can obtain coal more cheaply elsewhere.
The annual report states on page 13:
Coal delivered to Belfast West power station increased in price by 12.34 per cent. during the year due to increases in National Coal Board pithead prices and rail and sea freight charges.511 The implication is that all the coal used was from the National Coal Board.If Northern Ireland importers could bring in cheap coal from North America, from Australia or from the Iron Curtain countries, why does the electricity service not use that? Early-day motion 150 expresses concern about the possible imports of cheap United States coal. if such cheap coal is available, I should like to think that the Northern Ireland Electricity Service was purchasing it.
I can scarcely be criticised for saying that, when the people of Northern Ireland are denied access to other fuels that are far cheaper than coal. If we are denied that access, we are entitled to look elsewhere for cheaper prices for the fuels that we have to use.
I hope that the Minister will tell us that some real effort has been made to convert Ballylumford or Kilroot to use coal in the future.
The other area in which we can look for some improvement to try to keep the subsidy to a minimum is that of debt recovery. One cannot take much consolation from the annual report in this respect either. On page 9 the report states that
progress was made in reducing the number of consumers with amounts outstanding for more than six months by 1,360.There remained almost 25,000 with debts outstanding for more than six months, representing a debt of £5.3 million—an increase of 11 per cent. over the previous year.The report goes on to refer to a further £3.3 million in respect of "removed accounts". I do not know what they are—perhaps the Minister can tell me—but I assume that one is entitled to add the two figures together, making a total of nearly £9 million.
I am glad ghat the report says that the electricity service intends to pursue those debts and to ensure that those people pay them, because it has a responsibility to the majority of consumers to do so. It is about time that it made some real effort in this regard. I remind the Minister that several years ago the Northern Ireland Electricity Consumers' Council criticised the service for pursuing some people in Northern Ireland for debts while conveniently forgetting others, perhaps because it was politically expedient to do so or because it was difficult to get at some people but not at others. I hope that the Minister is encouraging the Northern Ireland Electricity Service to go after that debt.
Many older people in Northern Ireland living in poor circumstances refuse to be a penny in debt, yet many younger people are prepared to allow debt to grow. They get away with it. I do not want to inflict hardship on anyone, but everyone should be prepared to meet his obligations, not only people under financial pressure.
The Northern Ireland Electricity Service should pursue the people in debt instead of the people we read about in this morning's newspaper. The service is accused of ruining companies in Northern Ireland by putting them to the wall and making them bankrupt. It has done so by insisting that they meet their energy bills. According to the newspaper report, many of those companies could have remained in business, sustained employment and eventually paid their bills.
The Northern Ireland Electricity Service's response to the allegation is that if someone were to write, it would be prepared to explain. Perhaps the Minister will explain. 512 Unemployment in Northern Ireland is so bad that the NIES will have to give a better explanation than that on the front page of the Belfast morning newspaper.
The third way in which we can help minimise the subsidy is through interconnection, not just North-South interconnection, but East-West as well. It is a long time since we were first told that some thought would be given to a North Channel interconnector. Has the Minister any more information about that? We know a lot about the North-South interconnector.
I have with me a publication entitled "Understandmg and Co-operation in Ireland—Trade and Co-operation in Electricity and Gas". It is paper IV produced by a body interested in extending mutual co-operation. It shows that during the past 10 years the North-South interconnector cost Northern Ireland £16.2 million at 1980 prices and that the Republic lost about £12 million. In 1980, the last year for which figures are available, it cost the NIES £2½ million. I presume that the figure for 1981 will be £2½ million to £3 million. What are we doing to ensure a iavang of that £3 million so that it can be deducted from the £88 million mentioned by the Minister?
In its own way, the report makes some damni ng criticisms of the Government. One would not expect authors such as these to make such comments. It,s said on page 25:
It is clear then that some consideration must he given to reinforcing the interconnector".That is telling the British Government "Get your finger out and do your job. Try to get the interconnector working and do something to protect it".The final sentence adds:
what we are effectively showing here is the price which people are having to pay for the absence of security".I could hardly believe that when I read it. This Irish Republic publication is saying to the British Government "This is the price you are paying because you do not have security in South Armagh".The report also says that the £12½ million accumulated or £2½ million per year
is also an indication of how much could justifiably be spent on securing the interconnector".In other words, it is costing £5 million—roughly £2½ million for each Government—yet we are not spending a penny to put it into operation or to protect it.I hope that the Minister will take seriously the criticism that is implicit in that and the criticism that was relayed to me by Ministers of the Irish Republic, when they spoke of the heavy responsibility that they had with the British Government to ensure that the interconnector worked. They were scoring points, because the bombs that blew up the interconnector were made in their territory. However, when we make an effort to protect it on our territory we shall be able genuinely to criticise the Republic for what it is doing on its territory.,
I draw the Minister's attention to the letter that he sent to me on 25 November. I asked him about reports that rebates were in the offing for consumers of the various area boards in England and Wales. He replied:
The area boards have not yet decided whether to accept this recommendationon how the rebates should be given. He added:You may take it however that we are closely monitoring developments in England and Wales and will be considering the Northern Ireland position carefully in the light of whatever arrangements may be decided upon".Has any action been taken? Has the Minister decided what arrangements are likely to operate in Northern Ireland? 513I hope that I have indicated that we do not want to hold out the begging bowl again. We are entitled to pay roughly what other electricity consumers in the kingdom pay. If that requires a subsidy, we want to try to minimise it. If the Government were to take action in the three areas to which I have referred, that would help to minimise it.
§ 4.7 am
§ Mr. J. D. Concannon (Mansfield)As I sat through the night while the previous debate took place I condensed the speech that I intended to make. As a result, my contribution will be noticeably shorter than those that I made from the Government Dispatch Box when I was a member of the previous Labour Government and had responsibility for energy matters in Northern Ireland.
The Opposition do not oppose the order. In 1977 the then Labour Government began the process of bringing electricity prices in Northern Ireland more closely into line with those in the rest of the United Kingdom. We are pleased that the Government have seen fit to continue the policy of subsidisation.
We have some reservations about the implications of the order for future energy supplies in the Province. The subsidy that the Government intend to operate for the Northern Ireland electricity service differs slightly from the policy that was operated five years ago. In 1977 the Labour Government wrote off the capital debt of the electricity service and made an additional £20 million a year available for five years to reduce industrial and commercial tariffs. Our subsidisation was based on a fixed amount of additional money that was made available for a limited period. That policy was operated in conjunction with others. There was no point in having a good package of investment if there were continual complaints from industry. The greatest complaint at that time concerned the price of energy. We provided incentives and took action to reduce energy prices.
The remarks of the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) about cheap coal going to the power stations would have incurred my wrath. The benefit that my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) and I obtained for the electricity service amounted to about £160 million at one go. If the hon. Gentleman carries out further investigations, he will find that the NCB fixed a special rate for its supplies to Northern Ireland for the production of electricity. That was followed up by my right hon. Friend and myself. If the hon. Gentleman wants more interesting facts, I point out that we had the Second Reading of the Coal Industry Bill yesterday. If he reads the debate, he will find out how other countries manage to get cheap coal. They get cheap coal because they subsidise their coal industries more than we subsidise ours.
The Government's proposal provides for an open-ended subsidisation of electricity costs. We have not been told what it will cost each year, and there does not seem to be any limit on the funds made available by the Department of Commerce. Nor is it clear where the money will come from in future. I am glad that the Minister has made it clear that the funds to keep down electricity prices in the Province will be additional to other expenditure, and not funny money. I do not think that the people of Northern Ireland would tolerate the allocation of resources from other designated expenditure to meet these costs.
The long-term public expenditure implications of the order are not 100 per cent. clear. We do not dispute the immediate need to subsidise electricity costs in Northern 514 Ireland, but we are concerned that the Government have embarked on this long-term course, apparently without regard to what could be termed general energy policy considerations for the Province.
The energy situation in Northern Ireland is characterised by high reliance on electricity as a fuel. It is also marked by the near total dependence of the electricity supply industry on oil as a power station fuel.
Figures have been bandied about. It is worth pointing out that over 80 per cent. of the installed electricity generating capacity in operation in the Province is oilfired. That causes difficulties for Ministers when grappling with the problem. This high dependence on oil creates vulnerability in terms of prices and of supply. Should the world oil situation change radically, as it often does, Northern Ireland electricity would become exceptionally expensive, if it were produced at all. Subsidisation will help to cushion the effect of high oil prices in future, but it cannot provide electricity if oil supplies are severely restricted.
I know the difficulties. Northern Ireland is not short of energy. If it were, it would make Ministers' decisions so much easier. We could plan our future energy resources much better. Northern Ireland possibly has too much energy. It had too much energy even with the Labour Administration's economic policies. There was surplus energy in Northern Ireland to about the year 2000. In view of present-day economic problems, I am sure that that surplus will go beyond the year 2000.
When talking about energy in Northern Ireland one cannot ignore Kilroot. It is there. If it were not, Ministers would no doubt find it easier to look for new energy supplies in Northern Ireland and to diversify and plan for them. Unfortunately, decisions on these matters were taken long before direct rule. With hindsight, Kilroot would not have been Kilroot. The obvious thing would have been to diversify, as has been done in the rest of the United Kingdom, and to have had two or three smaller power stations. We could then have considered other fuels than oil.
Of course, as the hon. Member for Armagh pointed out, it would have been better if the interconnector could have been put into use. I suggest that any Minister should seek to put that into effect at the first opportunity. Ministers—and the south—know the savings that could be made. It would be good for both communities in Ireland. I fail to understand those who will not allow it to be connected, because it could only benefit the people there. But I can assure the hon. Member for Armagh that in security terms it is not as easy as he suggested. The matter does not end with the interconnector, but goes on to other factors.
We do not have time tonight to debate all the issues surrounding energy in Northern Ireland, but I must make it clear that we cannot continue writing blank cheques for the future subsidisation of electricity in the Province unless that is part of a wider energy policy based on diversification of supply. Even with the difficulties that I have described, we cannot leave energy there as it is now. I hope that we shall have the opportunity to debate Northern Ireland's energy problems at greater length soon, and that we shall not be confined just to making a few remarks in a gas order debate.
The effect of the subsidisation that we are to approve tonight will be to bring electricity prices in Northern Ireland into line with the highest rate of charge in England 515 and Wales. The Province's domestic consumers will be paying 8 per cent. more than the average British price for electricity. The scale of fuel poverty in Northern Ireland is more extensive than in any other part of the United Kingdom, and even with the subsidy, electricity is still beyond the means of most low-income families, those on social security, and the ever-increasing numbers of people in the dole queues.
Throughout Northern Ireland, thousands are suffering as a result of fuel debt and deprivation. We believe that consumers should pay their way. Electricity debtors on social security can repay through the debt collecting machinery by which there is a limit on the amount that the Northern Ireland electricity service can claim each week. However, debtors who are in low-income, non-public sector jobs have to repay through voluntary agreements where high payments are often demanded on pain of disconnection. I hope that the Minister recognises that the energy position in Northern Ireland needs far more to improve it than subsidised, but still high, electricity prices.
We believe that it is time that a more sophisticated energy policy was developed for Northern Ireland. In September 1978 the Northern Ireland Economic Council prepared a paper entitled "Recommendations on Energy Policy in Northern Ireland", and one conclusion of that report is relevant to our debate tonight. Paragraph 43(c) reads
The recent subsidy arrangements introduced by the Government"—the ones I have been describing"—to reduce electricity industrial and commercial tariffs were necessary and justified in the circumstances, but a subsidy from Government revenues is not a satisfactory long-term approach to a structural problem.We must ask the Minister to turn his attention to that structural problem and to produce comprehensive suggestions for the future structure of energy supply.Perhaps it is time to re-examine the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) two and a half years ago, that an independent energy commission should be set up in Northern Ireland to consider the future supply and demand and o make proposals.
The Province does not yet have an energy crisis. I assure the Minister that I understand the difficulties. Speaking for the Opposition—I believe that the people of Northern Ireland feel the same—I suggest that more strenuous efforts should be made to get an energy policy for the whole of Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Armagh made a fair point when he said that we cannot go on paying out the subsidy without examining the root cause. The proposal before us involves £88 million. There has been a £20 million a year write-off, and an overall sum of £160 million. There must be a better way. If we do not find a more sophisticated policy we are only storing up trouble for the future.
The Opposition welcome the efforts being made in Northern Ireland. We understand the problems and know why electriciy generation is expensive. It is to a great extent due to the unfortunate happenings and to what has taken place at Kilroot. If the Minister is still getting the same information as I was getting, he will know that it will be rather expensive now to change the direction of Kilroot. If there is any possibility of doing it, I hope that the Minister will consider it.
We gladly welcome the order.
§ Mr. Adam ButlerBy leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to reply briefly to the debate. The Government welcome the reception given to the draft order by those who have spoken. There can be no doubt of its importance. It is correct that the share of household income that energy costs represent is substantially higher in the Province. It falls on those who on average earn less than people in Great Britain. Therefore, this act of Government policy can be seen as following a process—not begun by the previous Administration but pursued by them—of helping with electricity costs. That is seen as necessary.
On the other hand, the costs involved are high. The figure is £88 million for the current financial year and £70 million set aside for next year. Therefore, I welcome the statement by the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) and the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) that we have to consider whether it is possible for the subsidy to be reduced or perhaps even substituted by some change of policy.
The right hon. Gentleman called for a sophisticated energy policy. There has to be a policy, but I wonder whether somebody in this House or in another place called on the Government of the day for a sophisticated energy policy and was told that the investment should be in oilfired stations. At the time it was, I am sure, thought to be a wise and sophisticated policy decision. I am not, with hindsight, blaming anybody but simply pointing to it as a fact. It is as a consequence of that decision that we have many of our troubles today.
The Northern Ireland economy is a very small one, but as far as possible in any economy a range of energy sources is necessary. I must not be drawn down that road but it is one reason why we shall continue to look positively at the possibilities of gas supply from the South, and at the possibility of conversion from oil to coal of one or more of the power stations. That is part of the review which is now being carried out by the electricity services. We must establish the cost benefit of what would undoubtedly be substantial capital expenditure. We have to look at the likely pay-back, but, as oil prices go up faster than others, an investment of that sort has to become increasingly attractive.
We are looking not only at the conversion from oil to coal. There are other alternative sources, such as Strangford Lough. All these will be included in the review, as well as the possibility of an interconnector between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. We shall also be including in the review—the hon. Member for Armagh may be interested in this—the source of coal.
There are some hopeful prospects for the use of domestic lignite. The possibility of importing coal from countries other than Britain must be examined. However, in order not to worry hon. Members, like myself, with coal mining interests in their constituencies, it stands to reason that if conversion takes place the total consumption of coal will rise and there may be a prospect of further sales by the NCB. That must be a matter for the electricity service and not for me.
Debt recovery must also he a matter for the electricity service. It is clear from the report that the service intends to intensify its work in that area. The hon. Member for Armagh drew attention to a report in a newspaper this morning, which I have considered. The position of the 517 Northern Ireland energy service is the same as any other facility in the United Kingdom. In cases of liquidation or receivership, the service has a responsibility to recover debts, just as the liquidator or receiver has the responsibility to take appropriate action in his case. As far as one can establish, in only one such case has there been a threat to jobs, but that has been resolved satisfactorily.
I must answer the question why we chose to restrict the tariffs to the board with the highest charges in England and Wales. It is important to remember that action had to be taken to prevent increases to unacceptable levels. Secondly, we had to provide stability and certainty against which industry and the domestic consumer could plan. Investors may have been put off by high, fluctuating tariffs.
We need not be reminded that the sums involved are great. One way in which to limit the subsidy is not to take a comparative point lower than we decided. Why did we go for the highest? There is very much in the argument that, while it may be equitable to look to individual and corporate taxpayers to subsidise their equivalents in Northern Ireland, it would hardly be reasonable to look, for example, to the taxpayers in the London region, where the tariffs to the domestic consumer are higher. As an argument in equity, that is reasonable.
The proposed reduction in bills in England and Wales are not regarded strictly as a tariff reduction but as a one-off exercise. We felt that it could not be said to fall within our tariff policy for Northern Ireland. We considered whether we should take comparable action, but we felt that what had been done for consumers in Northern Ireland was of substantial benefit. As the Government's policy was not implemented until May 1981, the consumers have enjoyed a benefit in the month before tariffs were raised, albeit by a smaller amount. There is no reason for complaint from the Northern Ireland consumers.
I have been glad of the opportunity to say something about these matters. I regret that, as so often—tonight is probably a worse example than usual—we are having to debate important matters at the end of the day's proceedings in the Chamber. I would have welcomed a longer discussion, but I commend the order to the House.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§
Resolved,
That the draft Electricity Service (Finance) (Northern Ireland) Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 19 January, be approved.