HC Deb 29 June 1988 vol 136 cc478-97 11.41 pm
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Stanley)

I beg to move, That the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 26th May, be approved.

The order has been made under paragraph 1 of schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974. The draft order authorises the expenditure of £2,020 million. That amount, when added to the £1,598 million approved by the House on 1 March, gives a total voted cash provision for the Northern Ireland Departments of £3,618 million for the 1988–89 financial year. That forms the voted element for Northern Ireland Departments of the public expenditure planning total of £4,564 million, excluding law and order, shown in the public expenditure White Paper, Cm. 288. The House will know that this sum may be increased by supplementary estimates later in the year. The services on which the money will be spent are detailed in the Northern Ireland estimates for 1988–89.

Before turning to the detail of the estimates, I want to highlight certain key features of the Northern Ireland economy. Over the past year there has been a welcome fall in unemployment in the Province. In May, total seasonally adjusted unemployment was about 9,400 lower than a year earlier, although the overall unemployment rate of 17 per cent. is still twice that of the rest of the United Kingdom. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, that is an unacceptable level.

The latest figures for those in employment, which show an increase of 5,000 in the 12 months ending in March 1988, are also encouraging and show growth across most sectors of the economy. The economic revival of Northern Ireland is perhaps most clearly reflected in the construction sector, in which output in 1987 was nearly 20 per cent. above its 1986 level.

As for the future, the United Kingdom economy is now in its eighth successive year of sustained growth and the Northern Ireland economy can be expected to benefit from further growth at national level in the months ahead. In the private sector, independent surveys—for example, by the CBI—show a favourable economic outlook for the Province, with investment intentions and business confidence remaining relatively buoyant. It is encouraging that in the past few months plans for substantial investment in the Province have been announced by Moy Park at Craigavon, Herdmans at Sion Mills near Strabane, Norbrook Laboratories at Newry, Glen Electric at Bangor and Newry, Neotech at Antrim and McDonnell Douglas at Glengormley.

As for the public sector, these estimates are based on forecast total public expenditure in Northern Ireland this year, including law and order, of £5,144 million. That is the highest ever amount in real terms—12 per cent. higher in real terms than in 1978–79. This provides the clearest possible evidence of the Government's recognition of the special expenditure needs of this part of the United Kingdom.

I now come to the details of the estimates, starting with agriculture. The net provision sought in the two votes covering agriculture, forestry and fisheries totals about £127 million. Vote I covers expenditure of about £40 million on national support measures which apply throughout the United Kingdom. In the main this is made up of £27 million to assist structural improvements by way of various capital and other grants; £12 million is to support farming in the less-favoured areas by means of headage payments on hill cattle and sheep.

Vote 2 seeks total provision of about £87 million for local agricultural expenditure programmes. This includes £16 million for industry support, and I would draw particular attention to the allocation of £6 million for the first year of the revised agricultural development programme which will commence very shortly. This programme will provide a range of assistance for farmers in the less-favoured areas, including renewal of existing drainage, grassland improvement, and silage effluent and animal waste storage facilities. These measures are extremely important to farmers in Northern Ireland's less-favoured areas, which cover almost 80 per cent. of the Province.

The reopening of the agricultural development programme will place farmers in a strong position to maintain levels of capital investment in farm structures. The aim is to increase efficiency by reducing costs and to avoid an increase in the production of commodities in surplus. This will help to offset to some degree the disadvantages suffered by agriculture because of Northern Ireland's geographical location. The other main elements of the vote are £38 million for agricultural, scientific and veterinary services to the industry, £20 million for drainage and forestry, and £12 million for central administrative services including accommodation.

I shall now turn to the Department of Economic Development. Vote 1 covers expenditure by the Industrial Development Board. In this vote the main provision sought, about £76 million, is for industrial support and regeneration including support for marketing and research and development. In addition, £13 million is required for the provision and maintenance of industrial land and buildings. Taken together, the IDB's various activities make a significant contribution to the strengthening of the Northern Ireland economy by stimulating investment and promoting job opportunities.

The Department of Economic Development vote 2 covers other economic support measures. About £60 million of the £110 million sought is to provide assistance to Harland and Wolff. This will be used largely to assist in refurbishing work within the yard, to provide grants for contract work, to fund redundancy payments and to meet current operating losses. This high level of support is required to enable the yard to meet the persisting difficulties of the world shipbuilding market.

The Local Enterprise Development Unit, the Northern Ireland small firms agency, has an allocation of £23 million. In the last financial year LEDU promoted 4,570 jobs, bringing to over 35,000 the number of jobs that it has promoted since the unit was first formed in 1971. The House will agree that this is a most creditable performance and illustrates the potential of the small firms sector in Northern Ireland.

In vote 3, a total of £116 million is sought for various training and employment measures such as the youth training programme, industrial training, the encouragement of enterprise and the provision of work experience for the long-term unemployed. The youth training programme is an important element in the Government's strategy for fighting unemployment. It requires about £34 million this year. This level of funding enables a training place to be guaranteed this year for a minimum of two years to every unemployed 16-year-old and for one year for every 17-year-old. Nobody under 18 need now be on the unemployment register.

Also in vote 3, £37 million is sought for the action for community employment scheme. The ACE scheme is proving extremely successful and provides useful employment for those who have been out of work for at least 12 out of the previous 15 months. The scheme also gives participants improved prospects for obtaining employment in the open market. This provison will enable the number of ACE jobs available to increase this year from 6,200 to 8,000.

The balance of £45 million in vote 3 is made up of £29 million for industrial training, £12 million for other employment schemes such as Enterprise Ulster and £3.4 million on various labour market services such as the Fair Employment Agency. Finally within DED, vote 5 requires a total provision of £17 million; £15 million of this is to cover the orderly rundown of the gas industry. A further £1 million is earmarked to assist industry with the cost of implementing approved energy efficiency projects.

The Department of Environment vote 1 covers roads, transport and ports, and a total provision of £126 million is sought for these services. The major portion, some £102 million, is required for roads, of which some £42 million is for maintaining the existing road system. Vote 2 covers another very important matter—housing—for which £246 million is required to provide assistance to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, to the voluntary housing movement including the co-ownership housing association and to the private housing sector, mainly comprising the cost of the rent assessment machinery. The Government's public expenditure allocation for housing of some £338 million in 1988–89, supplemented by rental income and capital receipts, will mean that gross expenditure on housing should be over £552 million this year.

Department of Environment vote 3 covers water and sewerage services. The total requirement is £84 million, of which over £26 million is earmarked for the capital works programme. Part of this is aimed at improving sewerage facilities in the Greater Belfast area. As a result, there will be an improvement in the quality of the River Lagan. Provision of £21 million is included in vote 4—environmental and other services—for urban regeneration measures. An important element is the encouragement of partnership between the Government and the private sector, as illustrated by the urban development grant scheme, in which every £1 of public money generates £3 of private finance.

The education estimates seek a total provision of £803 million for Department of Education and Science services. Total current expenditure on the schools sector in vote 1 accounts for over half the total provision in the education estimates. A major element of the expenditure is required for the salaries of almost 18,700 teachers. This number of teachers will maintain the pupil-teacher ratio at the improved 1987 level of 18.3. It includes an additional 50 specialist teachers for the continued development of the vocational education programme for secondary schools. Provision of over £6 million is included to increase the number of pupils following courses in science, economics, technology and information technology.

Expenditure in the schools sector also reflects the expansion of the 11-to-16 programme into a further 50 secondary schools. The main aim of the programme, which commenced in 1984–85, is to improve the quality and relevance of education for all pupils in the age range 11 to 16 but especially for those young people who do not react positively to secondary education.

The current expenditure provision of £250 million to area education and library boards to cover the running costs of controlled and maintained schools represents an increase of 5 per cent. above last year's spending. In the further education sector, provision has been made for an additional 30 lecturers in the priority disciplines of engineering, business studies and microelectronics. The estimates provide for total capital expenditure on education of some £51 million. This will enable a substantial programme of new building work to start, including 21 school building projects worth £30 million. The major projects are listed on pages 104 and 105 of the estimates volume. The capital provision includes almost £2 million for work on the replacement and upgrading of schools for the mentally handicapped, including a start on a major new special school in Belfast.

In the Department of Education's vote 2, provision of £127 million is sought. The bulk of this, some £100 million, covers expenditure on the two universities in the Province, and expenditure on the Open university and on teacher training in Northern Ireland. Grants to the universities are based on the principle of maintaining parity of provision with comparable institutions in Great Britain. The remaining £27 million is for expenditure on arts and museums, youth, sport and community services and the administrative costs of the Department of Education. Provision is also made in this vote for the community relations initiative to promote cross-community contact among young people in Northern Ireland, which was launched by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on 14 September last year, and which I am sure commands the warm support of both sides of the House.

For the Department of Health and Social Services, a total of £762 million is sought in vote 1 to maintain and further improve Northern Ireland's health and personal social services. The largest single element within this total is the health and social services boards' expenditure of £625 million. A further £25 million has been earmarked for capital expenditure. This will permit the continuation of a substantial programme of major and minor works, including the first stages of the new area hospital at Antrim, the new block at the Mater hospital, Belfast and geriatric units and day hospitals at Enniskillen and Armagh.

Vote 3 provides £71 million for the Department of Health and Social Services administration and miscellaneous services. Vote 4 provides £825 million for social security. This includes £32 million for support to the national insurance fund. Some £18 million is for payments into the social fund. The balance—£775 million—is for family and non-contributory benefits, as well as means-tested benefits.

I hope that this summary of the main items of expenditure has been helpful and I commend the Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order to the House for its consideration and approval.

11.57 pm
Mr. Jim Marshall (Leicester, South)

I thank the Minister for taking us so carefully through the details of the order. That helps every hon. Member to understand what the order, which is of paramount importance to all the people of Northern Ireland, contains. Important as these measures are, their substance should be discussed by local politicians in Northern Ireland. I regret the absence from this debate of some of the main protaganists from our previous debate, as the order is essential for the well-being of all people in the North of Ireland.

There is much to be welcomed in the order and the Minister's speech. It is good to see the Government's continued adherence—in the North of Ireland, if not in the rest of the United Kingdom—to the importance of economic intervention and public spending. As I conceded to the Secretary of State in the previous debate, there are some optimistic economic indicators in Northern Ireland. The Minister cites the continuing fall in unemployment. among other improvements, and the recently announced expansion of the textile industry.

However, the improvement is relative when compared to the economy of 15 or 18 years ago. I am sure that the Minister will accept that there has been a massive decline in employment in manufacturing industry since the 1970s. Industrial output is still below the level of 1973, and unemployment, even though it is on the decline, still hovers at around twice the national average. I am sure that he will further concede that living standards are among the lowest in the United Kingdom, which is a reflection of both the low wage economy and the high levels of unemployment.

There are one or two worrying signals about the future economic prospects of the North of Ireland. As the Minister did not say much about them, perhaps the Under-Secretary will do so later. The Government will know that a recent report issued by the Northern Ireland Economic Council highlights the fact that the underlying economic position is not based on a fundamental improvement in the economy. Additionally, there has been a worrying excessive growth of credit in the local economy. A recent observation shows that personal credit at the end of 1987 stood between £700 million and £750 million. With the fragile economy that pertains in the North of Ireland. the families that are in debt are in a position that is fraught with disaster.

I do not intend to highlight every detail of the order. I shall refer to one or two examples and my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) will take up some others when she winds up for the Opposition.

First, the Minister will know that Northern Ireland egg producers have become accustomed to extremely low, economic returns. Those returns have often been negative for short periods. In the recent past, the position has worsened dramatically. There are no EC arrangements for effective price support for the industry. Is it possible for the Government to take unilateral action to finance a scheme to enable egg producers to be given financial incentives to abandon their enterprises?

The Government are rightly proud of the recent growth in the linen industry in the North of Ireland. I am sure that they will be aware that the basic raw material, flax, used to be an abundant crop in the North of Ireland. I understand that the recent expansion in the industry has been based on imported flax. Some time ago the Government commissioned a report which showed that there could be a revival in the flax-growing industry in the North of Ireland if up-to-date techniques were used. Have the Government any intention of introducing any incentives, or any new new policies, to encourage the production of flax within the North of Ireland?

I acknowledge and welcome, as I have done on previous occasions, the extent of financial support for industrial regeneration. However, if the Government are so committed to industrial development, why are 100 jobs, including 35 Government training inspectors within the Department of Economic Development, under threat?

The Minister of State referred to Harland and Wolff and the measure of public support that it enjoys. I welcome the Government's decision to maintain and increase that support. I am sure that the Minister will agree that Harland and Wolff is of great economic benefit to Belfast and to the Province as a whole. No matter what its future ownership may be—we would differ on that issue—there is an urgent need for Harland and Wolff to continue to exist. The Ultimate Dream project is of some importance in that context. I ask the Minister to be more specific. Can he tell us when the Government are likely to be in full knowledge of the facts of the Ultimate Dream project and when they will be able to announce their response to Harland and Wolff's request for financial assistance?

Within the responsibilities of the Department of the Environment, I wish to raise one point about housing and another about roads. All parties would concede that successive Governments have been generous in making provision to fund Northern Ireland housing. We all accept the need for that, in view of the chronic condition of the housing stock there, which necessitated drastic action.

That finance has been forthcoming. Consequently, housing has greatly improved, but it still falls below the standard in the rest of the United Kingdom. This is not the time to slacken the pace of house building and improvement in Northern Ireland, but unfortunately that is beginning to happen, New house building by the Housing Executive is being reduced, waiting lists are increasing, and there is a growing backlog of improvements and repairs. That situation must be reversed. Northern Ireland is not yet in the fortunate situation where the drive to improve the housing stock can be slackened.

In general, we all accept also that Northern Ireland's road system is good, with most major towns being bypassed and Warrenpoint and Belfast ports being served by excellent dual carriageway and motor road access. However, having recently visited Larne, I wish to make a special plea on behalf of Lame in respect of the A8 between Larne and Belfast. The Minister is aware of the issue and has recently replied to the boss of the port authority, rejecting the plea that I shall now repeat. I hope that in response to my personal submission he will give a less unequivocal no than the one that he gave previously.

Larne is the largest roll-on, roll-off port in Northern Ireland, but its growth may be impeded by the road system linking it with Belfast. Increasingly, the 11-mile stretch of single carriageway between Lame and Belfast is becoming a bottleneck. It also represents a considerable accident risk, as long queues of traffic frequently develop behind relatively slow-moving heavy goods vehicles and caravans. As the Minister knows, there are few safe passing places on that stretch of road.

I hope that the Government will show their good intentions towards Lame port and its economic well-being, as well at the high priority they accord to road safety, by announcing that they accept the need for a dual carriageway system to extend along the whole length of the A8 between Lame and Belfast.

On Department of Health and Social Security matters, I shall let pass the opportunity to condemn the Government's complacency and get down to more particular points. Why are the Government refusing to hold a public inquiry into cuts and hospital closures in the Northern health board area? What is the Government's policy on peripheral hospitals such as Down general? In particular, what is the Government's response to the plan submitted by the local medical and other staff to concentrate all the facilities of Down general on the site of the new maternity hospital?

I also wish to ask about the royal group of hospitals, and particularly the Royal Victoria. I do so for a number of reasons. First, in last year's debate, a number of hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies expressed doubts about the long-term desirability of keeping the Royal Victoria. Unfortunately those comments, together with financial cuts, have fuelled the suspicion that a political decision has been made to run down and eventually close the hospital. I sincerely hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to scotch such rumours once and for all by expressing his confidence in all the staff of the Royal Victoria, and in the long-term future of the hospital.

The Minister will no doubt accept that the Royal Victoria is a centre of excellence with a worldwide reputation in many specialties, and is second to none as a major source of medical research. Its medical reputation is one of which all of us, whichever part of the United Kingdom we come from, can be justly proud. Moreover, members of both communities work side by side in the hospital, and it is a major employer of both communities in that part of west Belfast.

The closure of the hospital would be not only a medical disaster but a social and economic tragedy to many thousands of employees and their families. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to my plea on their behalf.

I can only repeat what I said in an earlier debate on appropriations. While we all recognise the imperative of security, it must not be achieved at the expense of other services. Unfortunately, the suspicion lingers in my mind that that may be the case in some key areas of expenditure in the North of Ireland. The Government must also continue to take a lead in encouraging economic activity and co-operation between the North and the South. I am sure that the Minister agrees that inward investment is of paramount importance, and the debate that we are to have on Friday, and the subsequent legislation, will play a large part in determining the level of American investment.

In conclusion, I can give the Government a light pat on the back. But they could do better: they could provide more financial resources. In view of the pleas that we have made and will continue to make, I hope that those increased resources will be forthcoming.

12.12 am
Mr. James Kilfedder (North Down)

The order, entailing the expenditure of some £2,000 million, is all-important to the Ulster people. Yet under the present colonial-type rule, only one and a half hours have been provided for our debate. How can I tell my constituents—and, indeed, the people of Northern Ireland—that the Government place Northern Ireland high on their list of priorities, when the debate is taking place at midnight after a long and busy day? This is a sad comment on the present state of affairs. Not so long ago, matters covered by this all-important appropriation order were considered carefully and in great detail by the Northern Ireland Assembly. I see here colleagues who served in that Assembly: my hon. Friends the Members for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea).

Rev. William McCrea (Mid-Ulster)

When dealing with the budget and the vote for the Education Department, will my hon. Friend reflect on something that may have been raised with him when he was Speaker of the Assembly? The case, which has been going on for some time, is that of a Mr. Crozier from Cookstown, a former teacher.

In a previous debate I stated that Mr. Crozier wanted only to be told why he is being pensioned off on health grounds and then he would take the pension.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) will agree that in the desire for accuracy it would be correct for me to state that Mr. Crozier would agree to a pension only if his excellent service for 10 years could be proved false and if Dr. Flanagan's report of normal good health could be proved wrong. It is right that that should be stated correctly in Hansard and I ask my hon. Friend to encourage the Minister to be sympathetic to my constituent.

Mr. Kilfedder

I am sure that the Minister has heard what my hon. Friend has said about the matter which he mentioned during the lifetime of the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is right that he should put the record straight.

It is sad that the Northern Ireland Assembly no longer exists, because all these matters, which may seem of little consequence to hon. Members from Great Britain, are vital to people in Northern Ireland. Therefore I hope that the day is not long off when the Northern Ireland Assembly can be brought back into being and when constitutional politicians can once again meet at Stormont and work together in a positive mood to improve the conditions of the people of Northern Ireland.

Anyone who visits Northern Ireland will know that, despite the image projected by television, Ulster people are kindly, humourous, good-natured and big-hearted and that it is not their fault that the evil of terrorism haunts them every day and every night of their lives. I hope that we can return to peace in Northern Ireland and that we can work together for the goal of creating a better Ulster for the people who will come after us.

I wish to make use of this opportunity to protest about the effects of the substitute teacher regulation in primary schools. The regulation, which was implemented in September 1987, bars a principal from obtaining a substitute teacher until the third day of absence of one of his teaching staff. The regulation was introduced by the Department of Education in Northern Ireland as part of a policy of Government expenditure cuts. Will the Minister say—if not tonight, perhaps later—what was the cost of such teacher cover in primary schools in Northern Ireland in the last school year before the regulation was introduced and what has been the cost for this year to date, which amounts almost to an entire school year?

The Government are concerned only about money. I am convinced that the regulation should be abolished. I am concerned about the primary schools and the boys and girls who are entrusted to those schools by their parents.

When a teacher is absent, the principal of a primary school has to make the unenviable choice between putting that teacher's class in with another class or dividing the class among a number of other classes in the school. We have to remember that classes in schools in many parts of Northern Ireland are already full, and chairs and desks may have to be moved whenever rearrangements are made. As a result of the rearrangements the pupils suffer the loss of proper tuition while the temporary arrangements last. Not only the pupils who are missing the teacher are affected; all the boys and girls in the rearranged classes lose out, because no matter how good a teacher may be, the changes and the crowded classroom will disturb the normal routine and unsettle the children. Therefore they will suffer educationally.

Of course, there is an additional worry for the school because the possibility of an accident is increased and it is more difficult to clear a classroom in case of fire. Therefore, I urge the Minister to abandon the regulation, in the interests of the schools, the parents, and above all, the boys and girls in the primary schools.

I have been informed that the Northern Ireland Schools Examination Council has introduced a new syllabus. Under the old one, Northern Ireland was studied with the United Kingdom, but now, for the first time, it has been taken out of that context and it must be studied as part of a course on Ireland, North and South. I would like the Minister's comments on that. Perhaps he will ensure that the previous arrangement is brought back.

Parents in my constituency and others covered by the South-Eastern education board have a real grievance about the lack of grammar school places for boys and girls who would benefit from such education but do not pass the 11-plus transfer test. The new policy being pursued by the South-Eastern education board means that, even with a controlled school such as Glenlola in Bangor, which has the physical capacity and the necessary teachers to take another 20 to 30 pupils in September this year, no more fee-paying pupils are permitted. That is unacceptable. I have argued with the board and made representations to the Department of Education on behalf of six girls whose parents want to send them to the school. It amounts to discrimination against the girls. If they had been boys of similar education attainment, they would have been given a place in a voluntary grammar school. I do not think that the education board should be a party to discrimination.

We need a reversal of Government policy, which was meekly accepted by the Eastern health board until last year, when even it protested about cuts in hospital services in its area. The board's area includes the city of Belfast, which has teaching hospitals, including the Royal Victoria hospital and the new tower block at the City hospital. They attract vast sums of money, which is drained away from North Down, which I have the good fortune to represent, to the detriment of Bangor hospital, the Ulster hospital at Dundonnell and the Ards hospital.

The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) will mention hospitals in his constituency, as he has before. We lodge formally a protest with the Minister about the unacceptable situation. Hospitals are being denied the money which would enable them to provide a proper and full service to people in their areas. Vast sums are, however, going to hospitals in Belfast, which has a decreasing population.

North Down borough council has attempted to have a new byelaw accepted by the Department of Environment. The council has endeavoured to control the problem of alcohol and solvent abuse in council parks, piers, promenades and open spaces. Sadly, Bangor is no different from other towns in Northern Ireland, which have suffered from drunks, smashed bottles, shouted obscenities, fights and general bad behaviour. The council submitted a draft byelaw to the Department of Environment for approval, but the Department has so far refused to confirm it as it would criminalise an activity not presently illegal and that it considers that the Police already had sufficient powers to deal with the matter. The truth is that there are not enough police in Bangor, and more police are needed.

I am still awaiting a response to the appeal and complaint that I made to the Northern Ireland Office at the beginning of the year. It replied, acknowledging my letter. It sent another acknowledgement and then another. It then said that it had passed the matter on to the Police Authority. The Police Authority then sent me an acknowledgement. Months later, I have still not got an answer to my demand for more police for the Bangor area.

As a result of the behaviour of drunks in Bangor and those who engage in aggressive conduct, many people in the area, visitors and residents alike, are offended. Something must be done to protect law-abiding people, not only in Bangor but in other places, who are subjected to hooliganism. I urge the Government to recognise the problem that is faced by Bangor and other towns in Northern Ireland.

Millions of pounds have been spent on a new marina and other developments in Bangor, which will transform that seaside resort over the next few years. I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will take the opportunity of coming to my constituency to see the delightful resort of Bangor——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)

indicated assent.

Mr. Kilfedder

I am glad that you are nodding your head in agreement, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We—I am including the Bangor borough council—will put out the red carpet for you. I am not too sure about the Northern Ireland Office. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—I think that he is pointing at his chest; I do not know whether he has something wrong with his chest. He is now pointing at his brain, or rather at where his brain should be——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I thought that the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was adding to the hon. Gentleman's encouragement to me to visit Bangor.

Mr. Kilfedder

The trouble with some people is that they extend invitations to areas for which they do not have responsibility. I, as the Member of Parliament for that area, and speaking on behalf of the Bangor borough council—a most distinguished body of people—am extending that invitation to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The Minister was invited to Bangor and has seen the progress that has been made in the marina. He knows about the problems which people will face if they use the marina where young people urinate into the yachts that are already there and smash bottles. That is not the sort of welcome which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would expect. Therefore, I ask the Under-Secretary of State to make sure that approval is given to that draft byelaw.

I turn now to housing. A substantial cut of £5 million in the Housing Executive budget for 1988–89 was made by the Government in March without any notice to the Housing Executive and after the amount for 1988–89 had already been announced by the Government. For the year 1988–89 the Housing Executive had sought a funding allocation of £345 million, but the Government reduced that to £309 million. Therefore, the Housing Executive budget for this year has been severely cut.

According to the Housing Executive, the cuts will have a detrimental effect on the number of new houses to be built in Northern Ireland and on the amount of renovation work that is undertaken. Improvement work will now have to be placed on such an extended time scale that disrepair and need will rise at a far faster rate than the rate at which the Housing Executive can carry out remedial work.

The housing unfitness rate in Northern Ireland is already worse than the average for the rest of the United Kingdom. I pay tribute to Mr. Victor Blease, the Housing Executive's chief executive, who is a totally dedicated man, leading an enormous organisation, and dealing with a gigantic task in Northern Ireland. But perhaps the size of the Housing Executive is its weakness. The repairs carried out on individual homes are not always of a high standard. I have seen many botched jobs in my constituency and my complaint applies to other constituencies in Northern Ireland. Some council repairs are not properly checked by officials, yet the contractor is paid. The executive may then bring in another contractor to make good the botched job, but more often than not, it will not do so, and the unfortunate tenant suffers.

Major renovation work is taking place in various parts of my constituency. At the block of flats in Drumadoon drive, Ballybeen, Dundonald, the contractor has still not completed the work which he started last year. Each block was to have been completed within a relatively short space of time and the tenants were assured that the work would be completed within a few months. Instead of finishing each small block in turn, as promised, the contractor has work going on in all the blocks. That is unfair. He should have finished one block and then moved to the next.

All the tenants are suffering with holes in walls and unfinished work, and even where the contractor has finished, he must come back to make good what was not done properly initially. I demand an investigation into that renovation contract and into other sites where work is prolonged and the lives of tenants are made a misery by delays and the standard of workmanship.

In addition to the undue and punishing delay in completing the work, defects have become manifest, and workmen must correct mistakes. For example, windows can be opened only with the greatest difficulty. It is extraordinary that a contractor can leave a job in that state. There is a further punishment for tenants. They find that in their absence workmen have used their kitchens, cookers and cooking utensils, and left cigarette stubs in saucepans. If that is not enough, the contractor makes use of their electricity for power machines. One tenant's electricity bill has more than doubled since the contractor has been there.

That is not how tenants in that sector should be treated. It is not as though rents are cheap; they are not. They have been increased to a level which makes life difficult for those who do not qualify for housing benefit. The recent housing benefit changes have made a cruel difference to many of our senior citizens. Perhaps the Government do not recognise that many people take pride in watching their pennies. The expression used for people who are careful with money is that they "look after" their pennies. These senior citizens of mine who have worked hard all their lives and now deserve some dignity in old age, have to consider how to spend their pennies. It is not a question of being able to discount the pennies and throw the pounds around; they have to watch how every penny is spent.

No wonder I am incensed when I hear of people spending vast sums in the City of London while pensioners are denied what would give them some comfort in their old age. That is why the Government need to show compassion.

There is a need to freeze rents at their present level. In many cases they are already too high in the Housing Executive sector. The Government should seek to help the elderly, the sick, the disabled and, especially, parents with a mentally handicapped son or daughter. I know that the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) wishes to speak, so I do not have time to enlarge on those matters. I give notice that I will return to them at a later stage.

12.35 am
Mr. Eddie McGrady (South Down)

We have spent five hours discussing the political environment in which the people of Northern Ireland live. It is a great pity that we do not have the same time to debate the bread-and-butter issues that relate to that environment on a day-to-day basis. In the short time available, it would be impossible for anyone to deal in detail with the points raised by the Minister, so I shall make a few general comments.

The principle of the budgetary process in Northern Ireland is based on parity, but it seems to be applied in different ways to different announcements. For example, when parity demands a cut, there is a minus sign; when the plus sign is used, parity means an increase in rents and electricity. The most adverse parity is when it relates to benefits, which are the same as those in the remainder of the United Kingdom, despite the fact that food, transport and energy are much dearer in Northern Ireland. Therefore, the benefits are not of equivalent value.

Agriculture is a base industry in Northern Ireland and it is suffering a grave disadvantage in almost all sectors, be it milk, pig or poultry. The Minister has referred to one or two areas where the producer suffers adversely compared with his counterpart in the remainder of the United Kingdom. The higher cost of transport, both inwards and outwards and the higher feeding and energy costs result in a very meagre profit margin, while the pig industry actually suffers a substantial loss.

Much has been correctly made of job creation, but it must be understood that as well as creating jobs, there must be an appropriate and equal distribution of them, because of the peculiar circumstances of the two communities, job distribution will be essential for equal opportunities in job attainment and requirement.

I was glad that the Minister announced the advent of the agricultural development programme and the £6 million that will be provided. I urge him to hasten that programme because the larger part of Northern Ireland is a less-favoured area. I shall be parochial and say that my constituency of South Down is one of those less-favoured areas. It made an application to the EEC in January 1986, through the Department of Agriculture, but there has been no word on it since. I ask the Minister to give an assurance that a more dynamic approach will be made to whoever has the power to make a decision—be he in Brussels or in London—to ensure that those less-favoured areas are declared.

Another area in which the Minister could take immediate and beneficial action for the whole of Northern Ireland—again, it has a particular relevance to South Down—is that of sheep farmers. The hill subsidy is paid in two instalments to both the highland and the lowland farmer. The annual premium for ewes has been paid only in part to the highland areas—that was last November—and there has been no payment at all to the lowland areas. Relief could be given if the will were there to do so.

The very small farmer is making a contribution to the maintenance of his livelihood and that of his family, and I ask the Minister to extend to him basic grants such as those for reseeding, drainage and fencing. That would alleviate some of the hardship.

The Minister may have noticed that I tabled a question to the Prime Minister about assistance for fishermen who had lost their gear, their tackle and their catch through becoming entangled with those mysterious, unnatural objects that move backwards in the Irish sea. I ask him to be more sympathetic in endeavouring to solve those problems.

I have already made general comments about economic development and job promotion. The Government could take a number of steps to help job creation. In March, unemployment stood at 17.3 per cent.—double the United Kingdom average. The Industrial Development Board should make a more vigorous approach to the north American continent. There should be a better presentation of the benefits of establishing inward investment in Northern Ireland. The board's current approach is too sympathetic and sentimental; it is based on heritage, and how many Presidents we gave to America. The hard-nosed business man is not interested in all that. He wants to know about training, grants, education, skills and so on. A hard-nosed sales technique would be much more beneficial.

The Minister said that the CBI was showing confidence because of full order books. Perhaps he is not aware that the CBI is concerned that, despite full order books, there is no real intent to make substantial additional investment, either internally or from abroad. Yet that is really the only way in which jobs will be created. The recent 10 per cent. increase in electricity costs will not help to create viable industries in Northern Ireland. It is a tragedy that the year that young people spend in skilled training under the youth training programme is not recognised as apprenticeship by the respective industries. It would help those young people to obtain jobs if it was judged to be a recognised year of training.

Another aspect of job promotion is tourism. I pay tribute to Sir Jack Swinson, who retires tomorrow after 14 years' service. He has done a magnificent job and brought a tradesman's dimension to tourist promotion. However, it has been concentrated on particular areas, and now needs a new image.

There are enormous opportunities for expansion to other areas. I especially have in mind Down, which has scenic beauty, outdoor activities, parks, golf courses and all that anyone needs, including the passive holiday enterprise of St. Patrick's country, St. Patrick's heritage and St. Patrick's grave. That has not yet been packaged, but it could be a big sell to the Irish-American community in north America.

Job creation and tourist promotion lead me almost automatically on to roads. In the halcyon days of big money, money was spent on certain areas of Northern Ireland, not on areas such as South Down and South Armagh and other areas outside what I call the new pale. Those roads should be improved and properly maintained.

I am not satisfied with the yo-yo approach to housing finance in Northern Ireland. We still have 131,000 houses in serious disrepair, which is 25.7 per cent. of the total stock, 51,000 are unfit and 49,000 lack at least one amenity. That means that 10.4 per cent. of total housing is in an adverse condition. In addition, 11,000 households are in urgent need. I hope that the Minister will do his best to increase that budget, particularly since he is introducing legislation for the homeless for which there seems to be no budget.

I echo what the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) said on health and I put in a plug once again for the Down hospital. However, one particular matter is causing me great concern. I have received a letter from a consultant radiologist who is greatly concerned that, because of obsolete diagnostic X-ray equipment, people in Northern Ireland are receiving two and a half times the necessary radiation dose in the normal application of X-rays. A new nuclear magnetic resonance scanner is required, against which I understand that the Department of Health and Social Security has set its face. That does not involve ionising radiation and is considered to be safe. That is the case despite EC regulations and the strictures of the National Radiological Protection Board and the Health and Safety Executive. Will the Department please look for a few thousand pounds or whatever is required to give that added safety factor to the medical service in Northern Ireland?

Finally, I want to refer to my abhorrence for the consequences of the social security regulations as applied to Northern Ireland. According to a brief survey in my constituency, applications for benefit have dropped by 76 per cent. People who have come to my surgeries have been denied benefit for rates and rents. To say that there is not major deprivation as a result of the social security changes is to fly in the face of the facts that I meet every day in my constituency.

12.48 am
Mr. Seamus Mallon (Newry and Armagh)

I am aware that tonight is the debut, or honeymoon, of the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam), so I shall be brief and confine myself to one issue.

I shall not mention South Armagh, nor shall I mention the imbalance that remains after three years in the number of managers in Government training centres. I do not expect the Minister to give me a satisfactory reply, but I still hope for one.

The urban development grant was provided for Northern Ireland, especially for those areas that have suffered greatly during the past 20 years from the bombings, troubles and all kinds of environmental deprivation. I live in one of those areas, known as Armagh. It has been bombed about 18 times. It has been almost razed to the ground. Surprise, surprise, the Department of the Environment, acting as agent for the international fund, was able to process only one application for the sum of £9,000. One wonders what is wrong. The list shows that Coleraine, another world from Armagh, had six such applications processed, to the tune of £264,700.

That drives me to one of two conclusions; either the DOE is grossly inefficient in the areas in which I live and work—I know that it is anything but inefficient; it is most efficient—or there are differing approaches to the administration of this urban development grant. I would need some convincing by the Minister that there is not an imbalance in the application, administration and payment of the grant.

I hope the Minister will explain this, if not tonight, then on another occasion. I note that Ballycastle received one award of £84,000. Let us remember that the grant exists so that dilapidated buildings can be brought up to standard. And one dwelling was awarded £84,000. In Armagh, one dwelling was awarded £9,000. Downpatrick got £1,500 for one dwelling. Bangor has no problem; it had three grants at £46,100. The hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) will know of the ravages that the IRA has wrought in Bangor.

I want clarification of where the £84,000 in Ballycastle went. I was told by a Government Department that it was for retail outlets. In my younger days, they used to be known as shops. One should not justify the unjustifiable by clothing it in different verbiage.

12.52 am
Ms. Marjorie Mowlam (Redcar)

I start by echoing the words of the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) who said that these are bread and butter issues, which it is important to discuss. It is sad that we have little time left in which to do that, and I shall be brief so as to allow the Minister to answer the many questions he has been asked. I should hate to deprive him of the chance to do that by talking too long.

The Minister mentioned indicators that we should examine to determine whether the position in Northern Ireland is getting better. He listed some that tended to portray the silver lining to some of the grey clouds that can be seen over Northern Ireland. But there are other signs which could have been used and which might have given a more complete picture.

The Minister readily acknowledged the 17 per cent. unemployment—the highest in the United Kingdom. He cited the construction sector, but if he had mentioned the manufacturing sector we should have seen a 30 per cent. contraction since 1979.

Two other statistics will begin to give a true flavour of the degree of social and economic deprivation in the Province. One quarter of the population are on means-tested benefits, which gives some idea of the extent of the benefits problem. The second statistic records the number of youngsters who leave school at 16 with no qualifications. We are talking about a quarter of 16-year-old youngsters leaving school in Northern Ireland with no qualifications compared with one tenth in England and Wales. That is a worrying statistic because it creates a climate of deprivation, poverty and unemployment which is a breeding ground for alienation, frustration and paramilitary recruitment. That must be borne in mind.

Mr. David Lightbown (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury)

Rubbish.

Ms. Mowlam

The Government Whip might consider it rubbish but if he had listened to a little more of the debate he might be able to comment more constructively instead of making negative comments.

When we look at the picture more broadly, we see that we have to take into account the economic and social situation and the political side and make sure that they work hand in hand.

I should like the Minister to address an aspect of the order that has not been covered—value for money. We have had some suggestions about how the money could be allocated differently, but I should like to be sure that it will be allocated in an efficient, value-for-money way.

I shall give an example of what I mean. In his opening statement the Minister said that 21 new schools are being built. Is one of the schools that he listed the Catholic school being built 100 yd down the road from Skegoneill primary school in north Belfast which is closing this month? If it is, that means that within 100 yd one school is closing and another one is opening. As I am sure the Under-Secretary of State is aware, 21 per cent. of the students of the school that is closing are Catholics. In September, the intake would be 50 per cent. In the Minister's view, that school is ripe for grant-maintained integrated status in line with the Government's policy of supporting integrated education. It is ideal for funding under what are known as the Mawhinney proposals.

It appears to be a scandalous waste of Government resources to close one school and open another, because there is no clear indication that that is not a waste of taxpayers' money due to inefficient management of the Department of Education budget. Similarly, we could look at the allocation of money to nursery education. I am sure that the Minister knows that 84 per cent. of three-year-olds and 25 per cent. of four-year-olds receive no nursery education.

The recent European Commission report shows that Britain is the meanest EC country in relation to nursery education and that Northern Ireland has the lowest number of available places. Has there been any attempt in the order to respond to that problem and to the Commission's report?

When answering that question, perhaps the Minister would also respond to the 1987 policy document "Day care in education for under-fives in Northern Ireland". It proposed the establishment of a central advisory committee to discuss the whole question of the under-fives. I have found no evidence to show that that advisory committee has been set up. People are unable to go to work or have to give up work because of a lack of nursery provision or local authority provision in Northern Ireland. Can the Minister say whether that committee has been set up to address that important problem?

When the Minister is replying to the question asked by the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder), perhaps he could tell the House about the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman mentioned of discrimination against girls in the 11-plus transferability test. Perhaps he could tell us whether the setting of a quota of 27 per cent. for boys and girls when all the statistics show that more girls pass at that age is clearly a case of sex discrimination. Will he support the Equal Opportunities Commission, which wants that regulation changed? Clearly it discriminates against girls who at that age are more capable than boys of passing that examination.

We have heard a great deal about integrated education and there has been much support, supposedly from the Government, for that. Will the Minister address the matter of capital funding for Hazlewood and Lagan integrated schools? We know that Hazlewood has been given funding a month ahead of time, but what about capital funding for other schools that are going for integrated status rather than changing? He knows that without that capital funding new integrated schools are unable to survive. I am sure that Minister will not prejudge the matter but will pay careful attention to all the submissions that have been made about this topic. I should like him to tell the House whether the question of integrated education will be considered.

I shall make a couple more points, and then I will stop to give the Minister a chance to respond.

A number of hon. Members asked about agriculture. I should like to add to their questions by referring to the problems facing seed potato farmers. As I am sure the Minister will know, because of export problems last year crop commitments have been made without adequate financial resources to back them. Until now the Government have refused to help the industry. It is no exaggeration to say that the seed potato sector is on the verge of collapse. About £700,000 investment is needed and 750 jobs are threatened. The Government should have addressed that problem in the order.

As I understand the DED estimates, they include a reduction in the electricity tariff subsidy from £4.5 million to £1 million. Will not that lead to even higher electricity prices—a problem which the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) raised in relation to industrial development? The Minister has acknowledged the problems that pensioners face in this regard.

Will the Minister assure us that in the figures for social security—especially the appropriations in aid—there is not a saving in terms of cuts in social security benefits? We know that the social fund loan will be less than what was paid out in single payments. We know that the transfer from supplementary benefit to income support involves a decrease. We seek an assurance that the appropriation in aid will not in fact represent a cut. The Minister has said about social security that overall it is pensioners who are the main losers in the changes. Can he assure us that there will not be an additional cut in pensioners' income as a result of both electricity price increases and potential benefit cuts?

Can the Minister assure us that the appropriations for the Northern Ireland Audit Office—appropriations in aid of £235,000—represent value for money? I understand that the money is related to contracts that are being worked outside the main Government Departments. However, we need to be sure that the Audit Office is doing its job properly and has adequate funding to ensure that Government Departments are acting efficiently in terms of value for money.

1.2 am

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham)

It would require 90 minutes rather than nine to answer the torrent of questions that the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) asked with her customary vigour. If I do not get round to answering all of them, I shall of course write to her with full details, and if she wishes to have a further meeting, I shall, as always, be only too delighted to see her.

The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) pointed out that not many members of the Official Unionist party were present. I do not understand how hon. Members in the Official Unionist party think that they can do anything to lessen the alienation of which they complain so bitterly by boycotting debates as important as this. Last year, I seem to remember, they were here; the year before, they were not. Their behaviour is increasingly reminiscent of the words of the old song: First she said yes, then she said no. First she said come, then she said go. You probably remember them yourself, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The Unionist people of Northern Ireland showed clearly at the last election what they felt about hon. Members who abstained in parliamentary proceedings: they kicked two of them out. But it seems that Unionist Members have once again retired to their tents to complain through the columns of the newspapers that no one is listening to them. It is hard to listen to people who will not talk. We all remember one Northern Ireland Member who came to a debate to abstain in person. Now Northern Ireland Members come to boycott debates in person.

The hon. Member for Leicester, South gratifyingly pointed out that an economic revival is taking place in Northern Ireland, but relative to what happened 15 years ago, it is still fairly shallow. There have been great problems in replacing the old industries, which have been running down in the Province over the past five or six years. The major problem, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is that it is extremely difficult, in the present political and terrorist climate in Northern Ireland, to tempt people back. The best hope for reducing the number of unemployed and getting industry back is to replace war-war with jaw-jaw, and in the earlier debate, we had some signs that we may be making some progress in that process.

The problems of egg producers are felt throughout the country and the Community. I realise the difficulties facing them, but I do not have much more than sympathy to offer.

The hon. Gentleman will remember from his visits to Northern Ireland that the growing of flax, which he mentioned, is a two-edged sword, to mix my metaphors. The retting of flax can create problems of pollution and although, as he rightly pointed out, the climate in Northern Ireland is conducive to the growing of flax, it is not as ideal as the climate in other flax-producing areas. However, he is right to say that the linen industry is doing much better, and I hope that that will continue.

There is a question about Harland and Wolff on tomorrow's Order Paper and, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, we hope to be able to make a statement on the future of the yard soon. We are ready to consider any privatisation proposals, but I have nothing of further use to add tonight.

I appreciate that the housing budget for this year is not as much as the Housing Executive asked for. I have to point out to the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) that if one asks for £500 million and gets only £300 million, one can say that one has had a budget cut of £200 million. However, it would never have been possible for us to fund everything that the Housing Executive wanted.

I probably will not be able to cover all the points made by the hon. Gentleman, but I can say that the outturn for 1987–88 was £500 million, and the outturn for 1988–89 is likely to be £506 million, so there has not been a reduction. In cash terms, that is a small increase. We are still spending proportionately double the amount that we spend in the remainder of the United Kingdom, so we shall continue to be able to reduce the levels of unfitness and disrepair, which are worse in Northern Ireland than in the rest of the country.

The hon. Member for Leicester, South asked me about the road to Larne. If we spend more money on roads, there will be less money to spend on housing or other sectors. We shall look at that road, right the way down to the border. We have been having discussions for some time with the Government of the Republic to try to get that route upgraded, but it is a question of finance. I should like to see stages 2 and 3 of the Newry bypass built, and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) has pressed me about it and no doubt will continue to do so. However, it is more important to get the housing conditions in Northern Ireland right before we concentrate on roads.

The hon. Member for Leicester, South asked me why there had been no inquiry about the Northern health board's proposals. We looked carefully at the case that it has put, at the consultative procedures and at the alternatives that it was suggesting to its proposed closures, and we decided that its policy should be supported as it was in line with its structure plan. As to the small hospitals in its area and other areas, we shall look at the proposals that come to us, but it is our policy to have major acute hospitals of real quality and we find it hard to staff the much smaller acute hospitals. It is difficult to get staff to go to them.

I cannot think where the hon. Gentlemen got hold of the idea that there was a suggestion that the Royal Victoria hospital might close. Some of those who circulate such rumours are quite capable of creating them. There is no question of there being any danger to the Royal Victoria hospital. In fact, we are spending large and increased capital sums on it. It is one of the finest hospitals, if not the finest, in the country. I support the tremendous work that is does. In the total terms of public expenditure—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business).

Question agreed to.

Resolved, That the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 26th May, be approved.