Northern Ireland (Loans) Bill (Hansard, 4 December 1985)

§ Sir John Biggs-Davison
I was making the point that the borrowings are repaid with interest. People who are critical of the amount that is spent on Northern Ireland should note that. Whether we are debating this technical measure or any other aspect of Northern Ireland affairs, we debate under the shadow of resentment, menace and foreboding which is felt not just by Loyalist militants but by the most sober elements, not all Protestant, in Northern Ireland. The Republican terrorists have not been overcome by the sheer goodness of the Hillsborough agreement, and the paramilitaries, dubbed Loyalists, have not evaporated.
Northern Ireland, as I have said, is now not being governed with the consent of the people. Therefore, I submit that it might do a little to assuage the anguish and restrain the lurking forces of violence if the Government were to pluck up their courage, forgo this sort of separate legislation, close that precious separate statute book, and administer and finance Northern Ireland as though it was what the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland thought and said it was until he was told differently by the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister —acting, I suppose, in the spirit of the intergovernmental conference —namely, truly a part of the United Kingdom under this one Parliament.

§ Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson (Newbury)
Any piece of legislation which is described as a technical financial measure is one that usually does not attract my attention, but, because money has been lent in Northern Ireland over the past decade without much accountability to the House of Commons, I hope that I shall not stray out of order if I ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State if he could answer a few questions about the Bill and about clause 1, in which the principle of the Bill lies.
As I understand it, the Bill increases the ability of loans to be made by a further £700 million over the £1 billion which is currently available. I think my hon. Friend made it clear to the House on Second Reading that that would mean about £150 million a year extra available in loans. He also told us that the full rate of interest would be paid on those loans, but what I do not know is the rate of interest that is currently being levied on those loans, and over what period they are expected to be repaid.
I have sought some information about the current situation, but in the Library I can find only the annual report for 1981–84 of the Northern Ireland civil contingencies fund account and that lists loans and advances given by that body to a total of £329,335,641. However, there is a note at the bottom of the appendix which says: These figures differ slightly from those on page 11 as certain receipts were not brought to account until 1981–85, an amount of £502,156 being in transit. Even if that is the case, I find it difficult to discover why we are having to increase the loan limit if that figure is the sum total of loans and advances. If it is not, will the Minister say how much has currently been lent and why he is seeking this further ability to lend another £700 million?
How many of the loans listed in the appendix have been paid back by the various local authorities and statutory 394 bodies named? When are some of them due to be paid back? I again ask how much of the £1 billion originally provided for loans under the 1975 Act have been lent and when some of the money will be paid back? Does the new total imply that the Government are setting about a fresh programme of capital expenditure by the statutory bodies to which they intend to lend this money?
I notice that one of the beneficiaries of loans was the Northern Ireland Department of Finance and Personnel. It, in turn, up to 1982 made advances of capital to the Northern Ireland Development Agency. That agency ceased to exist in 1982. What happened to the money that was lent to it? Over £5 million is quoted. What body has taken over its responsibilities?
The Minister will be aware that my questions about the Northern Ireland Development Agency bring me to the subject of De Lorean and Learfan, not because I wish to debate those unhappy subjects but because money was lent by the Northern Ireland Development Agency to both organisations and all that money has been lost.
Did that money originally come from the loans fund? I think I see the Minister shaking his head in dissent, indicating that it was not. How can he be so categoric, for apparently the £5 million to which I referred was outstanding up to 1982? Presumably it was passed on to whichever statutory body took over from the Northern Ireland Development Agency.
I hope that the Minister will answer those questions and agree that they are pertinent to the debate.

§ Mr. Bell
I congratulate you, Sir Paul, on having permitted the debate to weave in and out of the complexities of the Hillsborough summit in relation to the Bill, and I am sure that hon. Members on both sides enjoyed the contributions of the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) and the hon. Members for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) and for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson).
I mean no disrespect to the hon. Member for Epping Forest when I say that he slipped in a Mickey Finn when he said that there was no longer government by the consent of the majority. I do not know how that can be tied into the Northern Ireland (Loans) Bill on clause stand part, but it is not the Opposition's view that that is the case. Arrangements of a limited nature have been made. They allow for consultation and consensus.

§ Sir John Biggs-Davison
I have made the point that since the Hillsborough agreement there has been an atmosphere and a feeling of resentment in Northern Ireland. It amounts to the withdrawal of willing consent to being governed as the people of Northern Ireland are being governed now. Will the hon. Gentleman, who disputes that, agree that there should be a referendum on the Hillsborough agreement?

The Second Deputy Chairman
Order. We must return to the clause.

§ Mr. Bell
I shall gladly return to the clause, but may I point out that I have not said that there is not a feeling of unease in Northern Ireland. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) and I have said that there is a feeling of unease in Northern Ireland.

Mr. John David Taylor
The hon. Gentleman said that there is consultation. With whom is there consultation in Northern Ireland? There is certainly no consultation with the majority of the people in Northern Ireland.

The Second Deputy Chairman
Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) will resist the temptation to reply to that question. I know that he is anxious to discuss the clause that is in front of the Committee.

§ Mr. Bell
To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, I can resist everything except temptation. However, on this occasion I shall resist the temptation to involve the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) who, on his own behalf and on behalf of his constituents, feels very strongly about these issues.
Clause 1 has been described as the operative clause. It amends the limit upon the amount of lending that the Secretary of State may make from the national loans fund to the Northern Ireland consolidated fund. The limit is contained in the Northern Ireland (Loans) Act 1975. The right hon. Member for South Down reminded us last week that he was in the Chamber when the 1975 Act was discussed. The Northern Ireland (Loans) Act 1975 was amended by the Northern Ireland (Increase of Limit) Order 1984. The clause relates to the total indebtedness of the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund to the National Loans Fund. The Opposition understand the reasons for clause 1. It is the operative clause and we support it.

§ The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Dr. Boyson)
I shall confine my remarks to clause 1. As the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) said, it contains the guts of the Bill. I do not disagree with the right hon. Gentleman about the history of this fund. It was created by the Government of Ireland Act 1920. In 1921 it became the consolidated fund. In 1950 there was another Act. After devolution in 1972 it was withdrawn from devolved control. However, it was kept in being not as a relic but like a suit that one has not worn for some time but which one keeps in the wardrobe in case it should be needed. I think that the right hon. Gentleman has been influenced by Professor Hayek: that it is accident to which one reacts.
One cannot say that something will never happen. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, for whose speeches and writings I have great respect, believes that one can say that something will never happen. I do not believe this. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) made a similar point. His party supports devolution if it can be applied in Northern Ireland. The Government's policy is similarly to support devolution. I know that the right hon. Members for South Down and for Strangford (Mr. Taylor)—

Mr. John David Taylor
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Dr. Boyson
No, not until I have finished this sentence.

Mr. Taylor
Will the hon. Gentleman give way now?

§ Dr. Boyson
No, the right hon. Gentleman will have to wait for the full stop. I do not expect the right hon. Gentleman to run away, but we in England do not run away, either. We have respect for Northern Ireland Members and we in England do not run away. I shall continue until I reach my full stop.

Mr. Taylor
rose—

§ Dr. Boyson
Let me finish my sentence and then I shall give way. The right hon. Gentleman must contain himself. We do not want any heart attacks in the Chamber. We can all get excited from time to time.
I was saying that I do not believe that any right hon. or hon. Member can say that a thing will never happen. I shall give way willingly now.

Mr. Taylor
As the Minister has mentioned devolution, will he tell the people of Northern Ireland honestly, because it is in Northern Ireland and nowhere else that the final decision will be taken, what powers will remain outside the devolved system of government and within the Anglo-Irish conference if we agree to devolution?

The Second Deputy Chairman
Order. I hope that in answering that point, the Minister will be able to relate it to clause 1.

§ Dr. Boyson
I shall follow your guidance, Sir Paul, despite my desire to follow the hon. Gentleman's line.

Mr. Taylor
Running away.

§ Dr. Boyson
I follow the guidance of the Chair. That is what democracy is about when all is said and done. I have great respect for Sir Paul and the way in which he guides in this Committee.

Mr. Taylor
Very weak.

§ Dr. Boyson
The right hon. Gentleman can throw all kinds of adjectives across the Chamber, but they will not help. Let us return to the point.

Mr. Taylor
Answer the question.

§ Dr. Boyson
If the right hon. Gentleman listens, he might learn something. I have listened to other speeches too—

Mr. Taylor
Answer the question.

§ Dr. Boyson
I am not answering any more questions from the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman has no intention of listening so why should I tell him?
The consolidated fund does not exist for something that may never happen. It may never happen, but it is possible that it will. It exists for the return of devolution in Northern Ireland and that is all that the Bill is about. I rest the case for clause 1 there.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) feels strongly about the issue. The disagreement is again on the question of devolution. My hon. Friend prefers no devolution but integration in the United Kingdom which is not the policy of the two major parties in the House, nor indeed of other parties in the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) raised points of detail which I cannot answer now but I shall write to him. The Bill has been brought forward because the £1,000 million which was allowed under the Northern Ireland (Loans) Act 1975 will run out in the middle of next year. We could not continue transferring money from the Treasury here to Northern Ireland without the Bill. This transfer is not the only income going into the consolidated fund. Savings certificates, surplus cash balances of other Departments and money from the European Investment bank have also gone into it.

Mr. Taylor
rose—

§ Dr. Boyson
I shall not give way. I am answering the questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury. I have no intention of giving way.

Mr. Taylor
The hon. Gentleman is afraid.

§ Dr. Boyson
I do not spend my life saying that people are afraid. I am answering the questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury and I shall continue to do so. He has asked serious questions without repeating himself.

Mr. Taylor
rose—

The Second Deputy Chairman
Order. May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that we are in Committee and it might be much easier if he were to listen to the Minister and then try to catch my eye?

§ Dr. Boyson
I shall continue trying to answer the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury. He asked serious questions instead of speaking to the wind.
At present, £1,502 million has gone out of the consolidated fund. Some of that comes from other funds on the technical side and some from what is borrowed and transferred. I must put the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury at rest. To my knowledge, none of the Lear Fan money or the De Lorean money came from that. It came directly out of the Northern Ireland block from the Department of Economic Development. None of that money ran away. I will write to my hon. Friend about the details that he raised.
I know that many right hon. and hon. Members would like to extend the debate so that we have the Anglo-Irish debate all over again, but this is a one-clause Bill and I am speaking to clause 1 stand part.

Mr. John David Taylor
The Minister has given a despicable performance. It is a performance that will underline the withdrawal of consent within the majority community of Northern Ireland from the present imposed Dublin-London system of government in Belfast and throughout Northern Ireland. He is an absolute disgrace to the people in Northern Ireland. In 1986, the people of Northern Ireland will so express their opinion through the democratic process.
The Minister referred to two systems that reflect democracy throughout the United Kingdom. One is democracy itself and the second is the financial implications. In a rather flimsy manner, he referred to the transfer of finances from the central Exchequer to the Stormont Exchequer in Northern Ireland.
I shall deal with the first aspect —democracy. I speak as one who has been a Member of Parliament for some 20 years. Democracy depends upon the people, not upon Parliament or the Government. At the end of the day, it depends upon the man in the street. Democracy also depends upon consultation. In what respect in recent months have the people of Northern Ireland had consultation? The Whip tonight, the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. Maude), who voted against the people of Northern Ireland, even with a small majority, knows that there has been no consultation in Northern Ireland.
The second pillar of democracy is consent. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, so-called of Great Britain and Northern Ireland —so she says —states that we shall not seek the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. The 398 two great pillars of democracy, consultation and consent, have been thrown to the side. Since it was the Minister who raised the question of the Anglo-Irish agreement, I say that there is one remaining pillar of democracy —the voice of the people. The Government will ignore the voice of the people in Northern Ireland in 1986 at their great risk. If the majority of people in Northern Ireland go to the poll and express their view of what the Government have done without consultation or consent, saying, "So what", the Government will be answerable for what takes place in Northern Ireland thereafter.
The second issue raised in the debate is transfers from one Exchequer to another. It has been a dishonest debate, showing that the United Kingdom is not governed under a system of economics where all people within the United Kingdom are treated equally.
In the United Kingdom there are two Exchequers —not three or four. There is the Exchequer at Stormont and the Exchequer here in the capital of the United Kingdom. Therefore, it is easy for Ministers to refer to the transfers from London to Stormont. We have not heard what the transfers are from here to Scotland, Wales or the south-west of England. The Government run away from that. They pillory the people of Northern Ireland. They speak in terms of the transfers from London to Northern Ireland, but there are transfers from London to many other regions in the United Kingdom. It is dishonourable for the Minister to say that in some way Northern Ireland is exceptional and depends on support from the rest of the United Kingdom.
Many of the regions depend upon support from the central Exchequer. All that we in Northern Ireland ask is that the Government —last week they failed to recognise the fact —recognise that we in Northern Ireland, as with England, Scotland and Wales, are part of the United Kingdom, and like all other citizens we wish to carry the same burdens and accept the same privileges. When the Government face up to that, we shall support them, but at the moment we are on the road to confrontation with them.

§ Mr. Bell
I am glad to see the House move so rapidly from Second Reading, to Committee, to Third Reading. That comes from the heart, because I sat through 67 sittings of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill in Committee and, in the same year, 195 hours of the Finance Bill, so I am encouraged to now note that the House can make rapid progress when it wishes.
As we have seen, the Bill is essentially technical arid provides merely a piece of financial machinery. It does not itself authorise any expenditure, nor does it affect policies behind the programmes that it will help to finance. It merely ensures that when certain programmes of capital expenditure have been approved by the normal procedures, the money for them can be made available. All expenditure on transferred matters in Northern Ireland is financed out of the Northern Ireland consolidated fund. It obtains most of its funds from revenues. The Northern Ireland consolidated fund also obtains smaller sums by 399 borrowing from various sources, of which the national loans fund is by far the most important. The Bill is concerned solely with loans to the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund from the national loans fund.
On Second Reading there were interesting interventions by my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) and for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry). They were concerned that the Northern Ireland (Loans) Bill touches upon housing and, of course, the Divis flats were mentioned. Although I do not wish to go beyond the scope of Third Reading, reports have reached me that Mr. Frank Gillem, chairman of the Divis flats residents association, his wife Lillian, the secretary of the association Mr. Francis McCann, and his partner Jeanette Lackey were arrested by the Royal Ulster Constabulary, under section 12 powers, in a raid on the flats at 6 o'clock this morning.
The Bill relates to housing, and housing relates to the Divis flats, which in turn raises a question about social conditions. I do not wish to labour that point, but simply to place it on record for the benefit of the House.
We have followed these proceedings with great care. They are identical to the proceedings on 28 November 1975, when that Northern Ireland (Loans) Bill was read a Second and Third time. The proceedings have been enlivened —if that is the right word —by the intervention of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and by hon. Members occasionally wandering off into the broader issues of that agreement rather than sticking to the narrow issue of the Bill.
I welcome that widening of the debate, because hon. Members representing constituencies in Northern Ireland take their duties seriously. They have expressed their view to the Government and to the Opposition across the Floor of the House. No doubt in future we will hear more about the Anglo-Irish Agreement than we will about the Bill.

§ Dr. Boyson
Obviously, I support the Third Reading of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) raised a point in Committee about the interest rate, to which I did not reply. It is exactly the same as the rate fixed by the Treasury every Thursday.
I commend the Third Reading of the Bill to the House so that, when the existing loans money runs out in the middle of next year, it will be replenished so that allocations for housing and for the Northern Ireland electricity authority — especially for the transfer of Kilroot to coal—can go ahead.