Appropriation (Northern Ireland)

HC Deb 18 February 1993 vol 219 cc499-512 4.47 pm

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Mates)

I beg to move, That the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 15th February, be approved. The draft order has two purposes. The first is to authorise expenditure of £80 million in the 1992–93 spring supplementary estimates. This will bring total estimates provision for Northern Ireland departmental services to £5,094 million for this financial year. The second purpose is to authorise the vote on account of £2,376 million for 1993–94, to enable the services of Northern Ireland Departments to continue until the 1993–94 main estimates are brought before the house later this year.

Details of the sums sought are given in the estimates booklet and the "Statement of Sums Required on Account" which, as usual, are available in the Vote Office.

Within the estimates, many of the votes seek token increases only because new pressures have been offset by savings elsewhere in the vote. To give hon. Members the maximum time, I shall refer only to the main areas where supplementary provision is sought. In the Department of Agriculture's vote 1, a token increase of £1,000 is required to reflect expenditure trends in capital grant schemes. The sum of £2 million is for additional commitments under the agriculture and horticulture development scheme. This is offset by reduced requirements under the farm and conservation grant scheme, where the uptake of grants has been lower than predicted.

The Department's vote 2 also shows a token increase of £1,000. That reflects various reallocations within the vote, including a £200,000 increase for fees to private veterinarians under the disease eradication programme. An additional £370,000 is for watercourse management, including flood defence, and £250,000 for the forestry service.

Token increases are sought for four votes in the Department of Economic Development In vote 1, an additional £5.8 million is for new inward investment projects. That reflects the Industrial Development Board's success in attracting internationally competitive companies. A recent example is Pan European Textiles, which will create up to 500 jobs. A net increase of £5 million is sought for assistance to Short Brothers plc. That additional expenditure is offset by savings elsewhere in the vote, including a £3.2 million reduction in industrial development grants, reflecting lower than anticipated claims. Due to slippage on a contract, there is a reduced requirement of £7.8 million in relation to assistance to Harland and Wolff Holdings plc. That will now fall to be paid in 1993–94.

In vote 2, £1.7 million is sought for the industrial research and technology unit, and £1 million for assistance to the Northern Ireland tourist industry. It is encouraging that initial indications of visitor numbers in 1992, estimated at 1.24 million, show a further increase on the previous year's record performance of 1.18 million. Also in this vote, £1 million is required to cover the additional costs of clearing the Ormeau road gas works site in Belfast. Those increases are offset by savings elsewhere in the vote. They include £5.5 million reflecting the Local Enterprise Development Unit's accelerated implementation of its new strategic approach to financial assistance.

In vote 3, which covers the training and employment agency, an additional £4.7 million is required to meet in full the demand for training places under the youth training programme. Offsetting savings have been found elsewhere in the vote.

Finally, in the Department of Economic Development, additional provision is sought in vote 4 to meet expenses incurred in the privatisation of the electricity supply industry in Northern Ireland. Those are being met from the proceeds of the sale of the generating stations earlier in the year.

The Department of the Environment requires a token estimate in vote 1. That reflects a redistribution of resources within the roads programme. Some £700,000 is for minor roads schemes.

In vote 2, covering housing, additional net provision of £14.4 million is sought. Hon. Members will recall that an additional £18 million was made available under the house purchase scheme announced in the Chancellor's autumn statement. Increases in the vote are offset by receipts of £3 million from sales under the co-ownership scheme and housing association rents.

Vote 3, covering expenditure on water and sewerage, shows a token increase of £1,000. That reflects various reallocations within the vote and includes an additional £7.6 million for capital expenditure on sewerage services. That includes the first stage of the replacement of Belfast's century-old sewage treatment plant at Duncrue street. The estimated total cost of the project at present prices is £67 million. Increases are offset by reductions elsewhere and by increased receipts.

The token provision sought in vote 4 reflects an increase of £2 million for community economic regeneration schemes, which continue to be targeted at areas of social, economic and environmental need. Additional provision is also sought for Belfast action teams and for caravan sites for travelling people.

The Department of Education seeks a net increase of £7 million for vote 1—£6.2 million is for grants to education and library boards, including the increased cost of school teachers' salaries, and £2.3 million is for voluntary grammar and grant-maintained integrated schools. The Schools Examination and Assessment Council seeks £1.1 million, mainly in connection with education reforms. Those increases are offset by reduced requirements, including £2.5 million for the repayment of loans.

In vote 2, £1.8 million is sought for the increased uptake of student loans and an increase in the cost of postgraduate student awards. Resources have also been reallocated within the universities and colleges of education sections.

The Department of Health and Social Services seeks a net increase of £13.2 million in vote 1. The main increase of £11.7 million is for the family health services, to meet increased costs in pharmaceutical and general dental services and £6.2 million is for increases in capital expenditure. Those increases are offset by increased receipts, including £2.6 million from health service contributions.

Additional net provision of £3 million is required in vote 3. This includes £9.7 million for increased expenditure on housing benefits, rent allowances and rent and rates rebates. Those increases are offset by reductions elsewhere and by increased receipts of £5 million from the national insurance fund.

Finally, in vote 4, which covers social security, £40.4 million is sought to meet increases in the numbers receiving a wide range of benefits, including attendance and disability allowances and income support.

In my opening remarks I have drawn attention to the main provisions of the order. In replying to the debate the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), will respond to the points raised by hon. Members. I commend the order to the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris)

It might be helpful if I made it clear that the debate on the order may cover all matters for which Northern Ireland Departments, as distinct from the Northern Ireland Office, are responsible. Police and security are the principal excluded subjects, but I am sure that hon. Members are well aware of that.

4.55 pm

Mr. Roger Stott (Wigan)

I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for setting out the permitted subjects for debate. I intend to address most of my remarks to the condition of the economy in Northern Ireland.

Today's debate takes place in the shadow of new unemployment figures showing that more than 3 million men and women are now out of work in the United Kingdom. In Northern Ireland, the figure stands at a disastrous 108,000. Ministers have previously found comfort in the fact that Northern Ireland was not as ravaged by the recession as the rest of the United Kingdom had been. However, the growing unemployment queues in the Province should send strong signals to the Government that it is time for them to awaken from their complacent slumbers.

The Minister of State, the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), recently described the unemployment figures for December as merely "disappointing". What is disappointing is the Government's apparent contentment to sit back and wait for recovery in Northern Ireland to bloom when it will.

During 1992, the total number of unemployed in the Province increased by more than 4,000, and accounted for 14.7 per cent. of the work force. That is the highest figure of any region within the United Kingdom. It is one league table where I would be happy to see the Province at the bottom.

The Minister will no doubt be aware that the economic forecasts for the coming months are just as dismal as the Government's record on unemployment. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Coopers and Lybrand annual economic review published last month, which makes depressing reading. It predicts that up to 6,000 jobs will be lost this year in the Province, and warns that Northern Ireland's economy can well expect a zero growth rate in 1993.

Another report that was published last year by the PA Economic Review of Cambridge said that the jobless total will climb without respite as output from the Province's manufacturing and agricultural sectors continues to decline. According to the report, more than 100,000 manufacturing jobs and 8,000 people employed in farming, fishing and forestry could lose their jobs during the next 10 years.

The underlying weakness of the Northern Ireland economy and the Province's high rate of population increase mean that the 1990s will be an extremely difficult decade. The report's author, Mr. Colin Warnoch, concluded: The outlook for the next decade and beyond is not good. He warns the Government against making cuts in the real value of public expenditure. Under such circumstances, the Government should be taking decisive and positive action. Instead of a concerted effort to treat the causes of unemployment, we have been treated to the musings of the Prime Minister, who wishes to clear the unemployed out of job interviews, when they can get them, and on to the streets to be engaged in community service. Of course, that would not provide the unemployed with any more remuneration or the chance of a real job, but apparently it furnishes them with the satisfaction of knowing that they are serving their own community. I thought that the Prime Minister's performance at the Dispatch Box this afternoon, when my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition raised the issue of unemployment, was nothing less than an insult to those 3 million people who have been thrown on the scrap heap by his Government.

The Government should be serving the people of Northern Ireland by investing in communities which continue to suffer the waste of unemployment. I am sure that the Minister would wish to tell the House how he thinks that the schemes proposed by the Prime Minister will help the unemployed in Strabane, who represent 23 per cent. of the work force; or the unemployed in Derry, who represent 20 per cent. of the work force; or the unemployed in Belfast, who represent 21 per cent. of the work force in that city. In neglecting to tackle unemployment, the Government are neglecting the rich potential within every individual in every part of the Province.

The one true resource which the Government insist on leaving untapped is the people of Northern Ireland, who are left with the frustration of knowing that the Secretary of State is as content to let the Province slip into economic decline as his Cabinet colleagues have been to see the rest of the United Kingdom languish in recession. It is clear that the contempt that the Prime Minister and his colleagues show towards the unemployed is equalled only by the contempt with which they treat the low-paid.

On 6 November last year, at column 431 of Hansard, the Secretary of State announced his intention to table an order to abolish wages councils in Northern Ireland. Almost 34,500 workers in Northern Ireland are covered by wages councils. The majority of those people are women and are almost exclusively the only wage earners in their households. Those people covered by wages councils agreements are among the poorest paid workers in the Province.

Tonight is not the occasion to address the issue in detail, but the Minister should be aware that the Opposition will oppose such a move with as much vigour as we have for the rest of the United Kingdom. I hope that I will have the support of hon. Members representing the Province.

Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South)

In the light of his comments, will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that, with so many people on low wages, Northern Ireland can be described as a low-wage economy, and that, in that sense, it has not been attracting the investments that we were told low-wage economies attract?

Mr. Stott

The hon. Gentleman makes the point better than I could. I very much hope that, when the Secretary of State brings the order to the House—I understand that it will be subject to the procedure—and we pray against it, we will have the opportunity to debate the matter on the Floor of the House.

Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann)

I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman's commitment that the Opposition will pray against that order when it is laid. I hope that it will be the beginning of a practice that the Opposition will regularly follow in praying against negative resolution orders. As the hon. Gentleman knows, a high proportion of Northern Ireland legislation is made by negative resolution orders, which means that it is never debated. That scandal cannot be allowed to continue.

Mr. Stott

I hear what the hon. Member says. I cannot give him an explicit commitment that we will do that every time, but when the matter warrants it, as the matter of wages councils does, we will do everything we can to ensure that it is debated on the Floor of the House of Commons.

Earlier this week, I was invited to meet representatives of the Northern Ireland Co-operative Development Agency. I am pleased to tell the House that I spent an enjoyable and informative morning in Derry visiting a few of the worthwhile local projects which the agency has been instrumental in establishing and sustaining. However, I am deeply concerned that the future of this vital agency is currently under review.

Allowing the agency to close would simply further widen the credibility gap between the Government's claims to be concerned with developing local businesses and economics and the reality of their policies. The Minister is no doubt aware that significant improvements in strategy have already been made by the agency in recent years.

The KMPG report recognises that the agency is now in a position where it has established a mission statement, developed a list of objectives and outlined its strategy for achieving these objectives—none of which was in place in 1988". Given the importance which the Government rightly attach to value for money, I am sure that the Minister also welcomes the statement that the vast majority of client enterprises considered NICDA's services to be highly appropriate and of a high quality'. Again, that was from the Government's own report.

The agency is responsible for local projects as diverse as environmental development and developing interests and opportunities in music and the arts. Its value is without question. It has been in a position to assist the growing number of individuals, groups and organisations now entrusting themselves to the principles of co-operation and the notion of community ownership in the process of social and economic development.

The individuals I met earlier this week are mainly drawn from marginalised communities—areas which have little or no history of economic development; or infrastructure. Their motivation has been the desire not for personal profit, but to create community confidence and hope that it is possible to initiate jobs and enterprise to fight back against the social consequences of poverty, unemployment, neglect and the socio-economic and political realities which face most disadvantaged communities.

Mr. David Porter (Waveney)

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's rhetoric, which is quite entertaining, but some five minutes ago he asked the Government to take positive and decisive action on unemployment in the Province. I am waiting to hear what positive and dramatic action the Government can take. In formulating his reply to me and the House, perhaps the hon. Gentleman might take into account the fact that the Government have taken considerable measures to help the Province. I would draw attention to those relating to Shorts and to Harland and Wolff, which would not have happened on the mainland. If the Opposition have a policy for decisive action, the House would be grateful to know what it is supposed to be.

Mr. Stott

The hon. Gentleman frequently attends Northern Ireland debates; we are old sparring partners. I refer him to several speeches and publications which my hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor has been producing since the turn of the year, setting out a detailed analysis of how we would go about creating jobs and a proper industrial strategy. Most of those proposals would benefit the people of Northern Ireland.

If the Government pursue their intention to close the Co-operative Development Agency or drastically reduce its budget, Northern Ireland will become the only region within the European Community without specific funding for the promotion of co-operative development. I therefore strongly urge the Minister to review the policy towards the Co-operative Development Agency and facilitate a partnership between the agency, the Local Enterprise Development Unit and the Department of Economic Development.

Of course, the lack of Government initiative in helping local economies to develop is symptomatic of a broader economic non-policy. When the Government withdrew from the exchange rate mechanism, the policy void was filled with nothing more than a broad grimace from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Confidence in the Government's ability to manage the economy is falling in the Province, as highlighted by the Coopers and Lybrand report. It concludes that one third of local businesses are unsure when recovery will occur: The manufacturing sector tends to be more gloomy than the service sector, with 50 per cent. being uncertain and the majority of the rest of the opinion that economic recovery will not come for some time to come. The report warns: The local economy still remains well below the UK average, and indeed most of the other regions, in terms of all indicators of economic growth. That lack of confidence and lack of growth has been met by a lack of Government action. The only dogmatic policy that still seems to be on the agenda in Northern Ireland is privatisation. The Government are intent on making the people of the Province pay for their mismanagement of the economy. They are doing nothing more than plundering the utilities for fast cash. That is the quick-fix, short-term solution.

There is no more acute example of the consumer having to pay for Government failure than the flotation of Northern Ireland Electricity. The Electricity Consumer Council recently obtained information suggesting that the price of electricity is likely to rise by a huge 15 per cent. after privatisation. Under those circumstances, I can understand the Minister's reluctance to meet the group to discuss the likely effects of Government plans, but instead of ploughing relentlessly through representations by individual and business electricity users, the Government should come clean with Northern Ireland consumers. How does the Minister think that a significant rise in electricity prices will cultivate any increase in confidence among the Province's big users?

If the Government privatise and float off Northern Ireland Electricity, and if the increased price that I quoted is correct, what impact will that have on the Province's future employment patterns?

Mr. Roy Beggs (Antrim, East)

If the hon. Gentleman's assertion is correct, it will sound alarms throughout Northern Ireland industry. The threat of a 25 per cent. phased increase in electricity charges over the next three years was enough for some manufacturers to consider pulling out of Northern Ireland and relocating to the mainland. If charges increase by another 15 per cent., as the hon. Gentleman has implied, that will systematically kill off employment opportunities and existing industries.

Mr. Stott

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. In my discussions with primary users—industries using more than 1 MW—I learned of their fears, and that they may consider it necessary to relocate elsewhere, where energy costs are much cheaper. The consumer council, which believes that figure of 15 per cent. to be correct, wants to meet the Northern Ireland Minister responsible for privatising the electricity industry, but I understand that he has not seen its representatives. When he does so, perhaps he will confirm or deny the figure that I have just read into the record.

I return to the subject of investing in people. Of the total unemployed in Northern Ireland, 27.8 per cent. are under the age of 25, and almost 58 per cent. are under the age of 34. That is a scandalous figure, and one of which the Government should be deeply ashamed. In the light of those statistics, one would have thought that educating the young would be at the top of the Government's list. Instead, they have thrown the education service into turmoil. By trying to push on with so-called education reforms in Northern Ireland, the Government have precipitated something approaching a crisis.

I am glad to see that the Minister responsible for Northern Ireland education in his place. The Minister and his colleagues thought that they knew best—certainly the Minister's predecessor thought that he knew best. They did not listen to the deep concerns expressed by right hon. and hon. Members when the relevant order was debated three years ago, and nor did they listen to the professionals —the teachers themselves. As a result, the Government have been forced to review, back-track and delay. They have left teaching staff in an uncertain no man's land, doing their level best to provide decent education for the children in their care.

I remind the Minister that the former Minister of State, the hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), said that his frequent contacts with teachers had convinced him that the vast majority were impatient to get their hands on the new programmes of study and to make a start on implementing them. Since then, the Government's enthusiasm appears to have waned. In a recent study by Queen's university, Belfast, 93.6 per cent. of school principals strongly agreed that the implementation of the reform programme has been a disaster.

It is time also that the Government listened to the economic heartbeat of the Province. Northern Ireland needs new life breathed into its infrastructure and into its demoralised people—those who are unemployed and who have no prospect of being re-employed. Northern Ireland needs investment and real co-operation between the Government, industry, and the community. Most of all, we need the Government to enable the people of the Province to utilise all the energies, skills and potential that we know them to have.

Sadly, judging by the Government's performance not just this year, last year or the year before that but for the past 14 years, they have failed not only the people of the United Kingdom in providing worthwhile jobs but the people of Northern Ireland.

5.17 pm

Mr. William Ross (Londonderry, East)

It is unusual to have so much time to debate next year's budget for Northern Ireland. We could spend a great deal longer doing so if even more time were available, because we are debating the nitty gritty. Because there is a lack of any democratic responsibility at any level in Northern Ireland, everything lands on the desks of Northern Ireland Ministers—should we choose to put it there. That serves them right, because they know perfectly well what could be done to devolve power to various locally elected people, but for the past 20 years they have failed to do it.

The order, which was laid on 15 February, highlights again the wholly undemocratic nature of the way in which Northern Ireland is run. We have been saying that for many years, and I am sure that the Minister understands that as well as we do. I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will get their finger out and move towards democracy in the Province. The unrepresentative quango system that is currently used to run the Province is unacceptable to anyone who claims to be a democrat.

Both the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) and the Minister touched on some of the matters for debate tonight, and I am sure that other hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies hope to catch the eye of the Chair to expound on their own concerns.

I begin by welcoming the change announced last autumn regarding compensation payments and the Government's view that any excess over the provision made should come from the contingency fund. That will at least prevent the Northern Ireland block grant from being dipped into too deeply. It is a welcome and necessary change.

The present system of compensation law in Northern Ireland has been in operation for a good many years, and I believe that a careful examination of that operation is long overdue. As the Minister will know, the compensation agency is conducting a questionnaire survey. That is all right as far as it goes, but I do not believe that it is an altogether sensible way to proceed. A far more detailed investigation is needed to try to sort out the difficulties that some people have encountered, and many others allege that they have encountered, in the operation of compensation law in the case of both criminal and personal injuries.

Just before Christmas, the Coleraine bomb wrought tremendous destruction. The other day, I took a deputation of Coleraine business folk to see the Minister of State, the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), and they floated some ideas for putting the heart back into the town. That cannot be done on the cheap; it must be done properly. I hope that the Government will make every effort to render all possible assistance, to ensure that the town has a good anchor in the centre and can resume its former health and prosperity. As the Minister knows, however, that health and prosperity has been much blighted by high unemployment rates.

The Minister will also be well aware that Coleraine is the key shopping anchor for the whole north coast, which has a tremendous tourist industry. I see little sense in trying to build up a tourist industry on the north coast without maintaining the shopping potential of Coleraine town. Walking through the streets of Coleraine on any dampish summer's day, it is possible to meet almost every citizen of Northern Ireland at some point; but one hardly ever sees Coleraine folk. They appear to be elsewhere.

The town is a magnet, attracting people from the entire Province and, indeed, from further afield. I have always been amazed by the impossibility of finding my constituents in Coleraine town centre when I have tried to canvass them there. However, I find nearly every other Northern Ireland Member's constituents—who, of course, are very welcome. The local traders have a slogan: "Use your brain, shop in Coleraine". That is a sound slogan, and one which most of the Province clearly accepts as a truthful indication of the potential of the town's shopping facilities. Ministers have received our deputations favourably so far; I hope that that favourable reception will be converted into favourable action in the coming weeks.

Another problem that troubles many of my constituents relates to the difficulties faced by agriculture. Let me give two examples. First, the potato growers are in a dreadful position. Potatoes cannot be stored and forgotten about for a year; once grown, they must be sold. The growers must get rid of them. They are a costly crop to produce and, far from declining, production costs are rising every year. In my opinion, someone who manages to grow a crop of potatoes to sale point for £1,000 per acre is doing very well; I suspect that the cost could be rather higher.

The Province is justly famous for its seed potatoes. I used to play a small part in growing them, because for many years my father grew the foundation seed stock for the whole of Northern Ireland. I witnessed the whole production process, from the point at which single tubers were planted to the point at which the Department of Agriculture, which was then in charge, sold the high-quality, top-class seed to farmers for commercial on-growing. It is not a cheap business: it is both costly and difficult, and requires a good deal of time and effort.

Many varieties of potato are grown for a specific overseas market. This year, farmers have encountered horrendous difficulties in trying to harvest their crop: some of my neighbours are still digging potatoes. Moreover, the sale of the potatoes has caused severe problems, because for some reason the export market—and there is only the export market—has disappeared. I am told that there are a number of reasons for that, not least the fact that the countries that usually import potatoes seem to be running out of hard currency and are therefore not in a position to buy. The problem seems to have been compounded by the fact that some other EC countries are using EC money to fund the purchase of potatoes from their nation states. The result is that United Kingdom farmers, especially those in Northern Ireland, are left with a costly crop on their hands. Some of it is now being used for stock feed.

Any specialist grower—this is now very much a specialist market—can no longer survive a loss of that kind. In the past, it was possible to provide schemes to help out in one way or another. I hope that the Minister will take note of the problem, for it is very important. People will be looking for seed potatoes next year: the crop has served the Province well. It is a cash crop—a high-value crop. It is in severe difficulties this year, but those difficulties will probably not be repeated. When potatoes are transported to warmer countries and grown there, they pick up disease so fast that a fresh, healthy seed must be imported every year, or at least every other year. Such countries will be looking for potatoes next year and, if we do not grow them, the market will be gone for ever. That would have serious, long-term financial consequences.

My second agricultural example relates to the recent debate in the House about an order concerning hill livestock compensation payments in Great Britain. I listened carefully to the Minister who defended the decision to cut the payments. I must say that I admired his brass neck: he persisted in talking about the ewe premium. In my view, his remarks were completely out of order, because the order had nothing to do with the ewe premium; it concerned an entirely different matter. If the Minister looks at the legislation, he will appreciate that.

The ewe premium applies throughout the United Kingdom. As the Minister referred to it the other night, let me point out that the satisfactory increase in the premium —if it can be called satisfactory—arose because of the decline in the value of lambs, changes in the value of the green pound and the increase in the number of ecus taken into account from 5.5 to 7. The whole 7-ecu rate was recalculated, resulting in a final figure of 79p extra increase. The agriculture Minister seemed to consider that a wonderful act of generosity on his part, but it was not; it was simply the automatic outcome of his operation of the system. It is ridiculous that he should try to get away with such an argument. The farmers can count as well as he can; no one believes the case that he has made.

That order did not apply to Northern Ireland, but an exactly similar piece of legislation does. As far as I can discover, it is not subject to parliamentary scrutiny, which is a great pity. It means that we are deprived of another hour and a half debate on the subject. The Minister could not then have got away with talking about the ewe premium when he ought to have been talking about hill livestock compensatory allowances—HLCAs. We should have drawn the attention of the occupant of the Chair very swiftly to the fact that he was out of order. However, it is not possible to have such a debate. Therefore, we have to deal with that issue today.

The ewe premium is a one-off premium. It arises from a mechanical application of the present rules and is unlikely to be repeated. The HLCA cuts bear particularly harshly on hill farmers. The ewe premium applies to all the farmers, whether they are hill or lowland farmers, but the cuts will have a particularly severe effect on hill farmers' incomes.

That leads me to discuss food production generally in the United Kingdom. The food that is produced in this country has to conform to standards that are laid down by the European Community and this House. The legislation that we are discussing today makes provision for quite a lot of money to be spent on enforcing those standards. I welcome the provision of that money. It means that the people of this country enjoy wholesome, high-quality food. The production of food to those standards, however, is very expensive. Therefore, we must look to the so-called level playing field that everyone demands for everything else.

We have no control over the production of food that is imported to this country. We can only control and police the production of food within the confines of the United Kingdom. If we have no control over the standards of food production elsewhere, it cannot be said that the costs of food production are comparable. Therefore, the production of food by United Kingdom farmers is not done on that so-called level playing field.

It is difficult to check food quality. If a machine does not work, it is easy enough to take it apart, find out what is wrong and correct the fault. However, we do not know what is sprayed on to crops or put into the ground elsewhere. We do not know, either, what is fed to livestock overseas. That factor of food production has been largely ignored. However, we ought to face up to it. If we do not, it might have severe consequences for the people of this country who eat imported food. It must also be borne in mind that food production cannot just be switched on and off. It takes a long time to build up the production of food. Once the market is lost, it is extremely difficult to regain it.

We have also been treated to the claim, regarding HLCAs, that the incomes of United Kingdom farmers are going up. Everyone admits that farmers' incomes increased from a very low base. I understand that the Northern Ireland figures for 1991–92 will not be published until the middle of March. However, farm incomes in Northern Ireland fell between 1988 and 1991 from £136.3 million to £125 million.

One can argue, of course, about the methodology. There was argument in the House a few days ago about that. If the same methodology is used, one can see whether incomes are rising or falling. The methodology is now so standardised that there is a fair indication of the way in which farm incomes are moving. Farm incomes over that period were down by over 8 per cent. Inflation during the same period was 20 per cent. Therefore, the fall in farm incomes was much greater than the cash sum to which I referred. The reduction has to include inflation.

Farm incomes include two elements. The first is the living expenses of farmers. They, like everyone else, have to eat. So do their families. Those expenses cannot be greatly reduced. Many farmers, especially hill farmers and small farmers, live frugally. The second element is the sum invested and there has been a considerable reduction in investment in farm machinery and equipment. That ought to worry any Minister with responsibility for farming. It certainly worries me.

If farmers enjoy fairly high income levels, they invest. Whenever their incomes fall, they cut their investment. They decide not to buy a new tractor, or other equipment. Although it may be desirable, they decide that they can carry on with the old piece of machinery for another year or two. They decide not to build new sheds or new silos. They let their machinery take its chance and stay outside under a sheet of plastic. Investment is the first to suffer. Over that same period, farm investment went down by 7.5 per cent. The most notable reduction was investment in tractors which, in money terms, fell from £14 million to £10.5 million. That says an awful lot about the state of farm incomes in Northern Ireland.

I hope that the Northern Ireland Minister will answer the question that the United Kingdom Minister failed to answer the other evening: how many farmers in Northern Ireland receive income support, or some other form of support from public funds, such as family credit? Many of them are in that position. It is not a happy position for proud and independent farmers to be in.

In 1988, the average value of Northern Ireland lambs was just over £40 a head. In 1991, it was down to £33. I believe that the 1992 figures will show the loss of a further £1. Last year, lambs were selling for about £32. That represents a drop of £8 in the value of each lamb between 1988 and 1992. However, inflation totalled 22 per cent. between 1988 and 1992. If those two factors are taken into account, instead of receiving £32 for each lamb, Northern Ireland farmers ought to have received £48 in order to stand still.

Mr. Beggs

Will my hon. Friend make it clear to the House that he is referring to the prices for finished fat lambs? Hill farmers rarely have the conditions in which to finish the lambs that they rear. Therefore, the price for their lambs ranges from between £16 and £22 per head when they sell them on for finishing.

Mr. Ross

Yes. My hon. Friend draws attention to a relevant point, which is that the price of hill farm lambs has dropped by considerably more than £8 per head. Therefore, those farmers suffer very much more from the drop in value.

We hear a lot of nonsense about extensification, environmentally friendly farming and all the rest of it. That is asking farmers to uninvent the wheel. It cannot be done. There is a body of knowledge within farming about how food can be produced efficiently, well and to high quality. One cannot wipe that knowledge out of people's minds. They will continue to use it. If the acreage that is farmed is restricted, farmers will intensify. One cannot get away from that.

There is a large problem of farm profits in the United Kingdom. I have something to say to the Minister and I am sorry that I did not get the chance to say it to a fuller House. Farmers' incomes may have been dropping; the price of lamb off the farm may have dropped by an horrendous amount in the past four or five years. But I do not think that many of our wives have noticed the price of lamb dropping at the butcher's shop.

I do not hear Sainsbury's and other grocery chains telling us that their profits have dropped. Indeed, I understand that this year they have all celebrated record profits. Perhaps the people of Britain had better think a little about that. It seems to me that the primary producers have contributed considerably to those profits. Unless a sensible price which reflects the costs of production is paid for not only lamb but beef and many other products which come from the farms of the United Kingdom, we shall go into a steady downward spiral.

We need a true level playing field, not one that is tilted against the farmer. In my experience, it was always tilted against us. We seem to be the only business which always buys retail and sells wholesale. I cannot think of any other business that does that.

There is also a problem of depopulation in the rural areas. I do not like that. I believe that more people should live in the country. But they need to be country people. My experience is that when folks move out of large towns into the country they have considerable difficulty in adjusting to country life. We must keep country people in rural areas and allow them by one means or another to earn their living there.

If we are to keep a viable rural population, if only to look after the countryside, the Government must realise that it will cost someone money and that that money will have to come through the Government. To some extent, the HLCA payment was intended to help people stay in the country and keep it neat and tidy. If the Government decide as a matter of policy that they will not maintain the type of countryside that we have at present in the United Kingdom, well and good. But let them tell us.

I have heard stories about the countryside going back to wilderness. It will not go back to wilderness. It will go back to what appears to be wilderness or a wilderness of sitka spruce. It might be a wilderness in which people pursue sporting activities such as shooting, hunting and the rest, which are popular with some folk. The countryside will be used for something, but it will not be used for food production unless farmers can obtain a reasonable return on the food that they produce.

I could continue at length, but I shall raise only two further small items. The Minister talked about flood defence. That is a matter which must be examined. I hope that whenever planning authorities consider a planning application for a house on a flood plain, they will point out to the individual who is building it that it is on a flood plain and that flood banks can be breached. I hope that a comprehensive look will be taken at how we could care for folk who live on flood plains. Such problems arise not only in Northern Ireland but throughout the United Kingdom.

Every time there is an horrendous wind or rain storm we are confronted with complaints from many parts of the United Kingdom and requests for help for flood victims. There is no help. It is not good enough for the Government to say that if something is insurable they will not cover it. In theory, houses and buildings on flood plains are insurable, but one need only try to insure a house on a flood plain to see how difficult it is. Something must be done on a nationwide scale, not least in Northern Ireland, to deal with that problem. Let the Minister bear that in mind when he talks about flood defence.

I have made points about the Local Enterprise Development Unit previously and I make no apology for doing so again. LEDU can handle the simple job. It can handle an application from a firm with all the i's dotted and the t's crossed. But there seems to be a big black hole in its ability to handle the inventor who walks through the door looking for help. Such people seem never to find anything that is useful to them. Will the Government please take a look at that aspect?

I believe that there are many inventions and good ideas floating around in Northern Ireland which, with a certain amount of help at the right time, could make a useful contribution to reducing unemployment and, in many cases, extending the engineering industry in Northern Ireland. We should try to provide such help. Some ideas will go wrong, but so what? A great deal of money is being lost anyway. I am not telling the Minister to throw public money away, but sometimes it is necessary to risk public money to obtain a good return. Over a period of years, a scheme could be worked out that would pay for itself and do much good for the whole Province.