Appropriation (Northern Ireland)

HC Deb 18 July 1995 vol 263 cc1537-66

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris)

Before I call the Minister to open the debate, it might be helpful to make it clear that the debate may cover all matters for which the Northern Ireland Departments, as distinct from the Northern Ireland Office, are responsible. Police and security are the principal excluded subjects.

8.51 pm

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler)

I beg to move, That the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 8th June, be approved. The draft order, which covers the main estimates for Northern Ireland Departments, authorises expenditure of £3,437 million for the current financial year. Taken together with the sum voted on account in March, this brings the total estimates provision for Northern Ireland Departments to £6,142 million, an increase of 4 per cent. on the 1994–95 provisional outturn. The order also authorises the use of additional receipts to meet an excess vote in 1993–94.

The sums sought for individual services are set out in the estimates booklet, which is, as usual, available from the Vote Office. As you have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the estimates for the Northern Ireland Office for law and order services are not covered by the order.

As is customary on these occasions, I shall highlight the main items in the estimates, starting with the Department of Agriculture. The net provision in the two agriculture votes amounts to some £155 million. In vote 1, some £21 million is to fund EC and national agriculture and fishery support measures which apply throughout the United Kingdom.

In addition to the various pre-funded market support measures under the common agricultural policy, the vote includes some £6 million to assist structural improvements by way of various capital and other grants. Some £14 million is to provide support for farming in special areas by means of headage payments on hill cattle and sheep.

In vote 2, some £133 million is for on-going regional services and support measures. This includes £60 million for the development of the agriculture and agricultural products industries and for scientific and veterinary services. Some £38 million is for farm support, enhancement of the countryside and fisheries and forestry services. Some £23 million is for central administration, and £5 million is for the rural development programme.

In the Department of Economic Development's vote 1, some £135 million is required for the Industrial Development Board. This will enable the board to continue to support and assist industrial development in Northern Ireland, mainly through the provision of factory buildings and selective assistance to industry.

The terrorist ceasefires announced last year, coupled with overseas interest in Northern Ireland as an attractive investment location, have significantly improved the prospect of achieving and sustaining higher levels of economic growth in the next few years. The board will continue actively to assist firms to set up and expand in Northern Ireland, and has set itself a target of securing 20 inward investment projects, involving some 4,500 job promotions during the current year.

In vote 2, some £95 million is required. Some £33 million is for the Local Enterprise Development Unit, Northern Ireland's small business agency. This will allow the agency to maintain its excellent track record in developing, strengthening and improving the competitiveness of small firms in Northern Ireland.

Some £16 million is for the Industrial Research and Technology Unit, primarily to promote the competitiveness of local companies through increased industrial innovation, research and development and by technology transfer. This underlines the importance that the Government attach to helping Northern Ireland industry to grasp the emerging technological opportunities which underpin successful economic development.

Finally in this vote, £13.6 million is for the Northern Ireland tourist board to support the tourist industry in Northern Ireland. While 1994 saw the sixth consecutive rise in visitor figures—with a record 1.29 million people coming to Northern Ireland—the prospects, with the continuing ceasefires, for this year and beyond are very encouraging, with increasing interest in what Northern Ireland has to offer as a holiday destination.

In vote 3, £203 million is for the Training and Employment Agency. This will enable the agency to continue to provide a range of comprehensive training and support measures, and includes £77 million to fund almost 16,000 places under a new job skills training programme, and for on-going expenditure on a new training facility in west Belfast.

Some £55 million is for the Action for Community Employment programme, which will provide some 10,000 places for long-term unemployed adults in projects of community benefit. Some £18 million spread over a number of programmes is to assist companies improve their competitiveness by developing the skills of their work force, and to provide training for those intending to pursue management careers in industry.

In respect of the Department of the Environment, in vote 1, £180 million is for roads, transport and ports. That includes some £150 million for the development, operation and maintenance of Northern Ireland's public road system. Emphasis continues to be placed on the maintenance of the road system, with expenditure of almost £1 million more than in 1994–95.

The maintenance programme is complemented by new road construction, and local minor road improvement and safety schemes. Construction work on stage 1 of the Belfast cross-harbour road bridge project was completed in 1994. Work on the second stage of the project linking the M3 Lagan bridge to the Sydenham bypass is scheduled for completion by the end of 1997.

Vote 2 covers housing, where some £203 million will provide assistance mainly to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, and to the voluntary housing movement. When net borrowing and the Housing Executive's rents and capital receipts are taken into account, the total resources available for housing this year will be some £593 million. That is an increase of £20 million over 1994–95, and will support the continued improvement of housing conditions.

Vote 3 covers expenditure on water and sewerage services, on which gross expenditure is estimated at £202 million. Some £94 million is for capital expenditure, and £108 million for operational and maintenance purposes.

In vote 4, £142 million is for environmental services. That includes some £35 million for urban regeneration measures, which continue to be targeted at areas of social, economic and environmental needs. As in previous years, it will generate much higher overall investment through the successful partnerships that have been established with the private sector. Provision for the new Public Record Office of Northern Ireland Agency, launched in April 1995, is also covered within this vote.

The estimates for the Department of Education seek a total of £1,380 million, an increase of 4.3 per cent. over last year's provision. Vote 1 includes £842 million for recurrent expenditure by education and library boards, an increase of £39 million over 1994–95. That includes £794 million for schools and colleges of further education, which will help maintain the pupil-teacher ratio at present levels. Some £48 million is for libraries, youth services and administration and £41 million is for boards' capital projects.

That includes the provision of new laboratories and technology workshops to enable further progress to be made on education reforms. Some £143 million is for voluntary schools, and £15 million is for integrated schools, an increase of some £4 million over 1994–95.

In vote 2, £119 million is for local universities, to enable them to maintain parity of provision with comparable universities in the rest of the United Kingdom. Some £124 million is for student support, including grants and student loans. The vote also covers expenditure on a range of youth, sport, community and cultural activities, including some £16 million for arts and museums and some £3 million for community relations.

Mr. Roy Beggs (Antrim, East)

How much of the money allocated to education in Northern Ireland is contributed to meeting the cost of educating in Northern Ireland students from the Irish Republic? Does the United Kingdom manage to get that money back from the European Union?

Sir John Wheeler

I cannot supply an answer off the cuff on how much money from the estimates is spent on educating persons from the Republic of Ireland, but if I can give the hon. Gentleman more detailed information in the fulness of time, I shall ensure that he has it.

Mr. William Ross (Londonderry, East)

I have listened carefully as the right hon. Gentleman has detailed the sums to be spent on various aspects of education. He will be well aware that a large school building programme was launched in Northern Ireland in the 1950s and 1960s. Many of those schools had a fairly limited design life, and are now coming to the end of it. What provision are the Government making in future years to replace those schools?

Sir John Wheeler

I am indeed aware that many of the school buildings erected in Northern Ireland in the 1950s and 1960s, as was common elsewhere in the United Kingdom, and in other countries too, have perhaps completed their useful cycle. That concern is borne in upon me by the Minister of State who is responsible for the Department of Education. He urges upon me the necessity of finding ever-increasing sums of money to meet that particular difficulty. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall attend to it when the coffers permit.

In vote 3, gross provision of some £224 million is for the Department's administration and other costs. That includes £122 million for the Social Security Agency, £19 million for the Child Support Agency, and some £13 million for the health and personal social services management executive.

In vote 4, £1,463 million is for social security benefit expenditure administered by the Social Security Agency. That represents an increase of 5.8 per cent. on last year. It covers not only the general uprating of benefits from April 1995, but an increasing number of beneficiaries.

In vote 5, £406 million is to cover expenditure on the independent living fund, housing benefit, the social fund and payments to the Northern Ireland national insurance fund.

Finally on the Department of Finance and Personnel, within votes 1 and 3, some £5.6 million is for the community relations programme. Together with the expenditure by the Department of Education, total spending on the community relations programme will be some £8.7 million. That reflects the importance which the Government continue to attach to community relations in Northern Ireland.

I have drawn attention to the main provisions of the estimates. In replying to the debate, the Under-Secretary of State will respond to the points raised. I commend the order to the House.

9.7 pm

Mr. John Spellar (Warley, West)

A couple of weeks ago the House considered the renewal of direct rule. That debate necessarily concentrated, although not exclusively, on political issues and the peace process. Today's appropriation debate traditionally allows us, as the Minister made clear, to consider the day-to-day economic issues facing Northern Ireland. Some of those are problems shared with the rest of the United Kingdom, while others are more specialised and unique to Northern Ireland. Although I wish to be comprehensive in my coverage of those issues, I am aware that a number of hon. Members representing Northern Ireland want to participate in the debate and raise particular issues of concern to their constituents.

I should like to deal first with the economy. We greatly welcome the recent reduction in levels of unemployment in Northern Ireland, especially among the long-term unemployed. We also welcome the Secretary of State's acknowledgement in his speech to the House on 5 July that that rate is still too high. We note the extremely high levels of unemployment in some especially deprived areas. Although we record the significant progress already made, we must do more to reduce the appalling level of unemployment, which, let us remind ourselves, is still officially around 12 per cent. We must especially try to reduce long-term unemployment, which is one fifth of that total—a far greater proportion than in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Those levels of unemployment are economically disastrous and socially damaging, as I am sure that we are all aware. We want action to target social need and to tackle the relative deprivation of specific areas and pockets in Northern Ireland. Measures to tackle unemployment must be accompanied by enforced fair employment legislation. In that, I commend the proposals recently made by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty).

The recent reduction in unemployment also reflects the encouraging fact that Northern Ireland industry is enjoying similar growth to the rest of the country in the manufacturing sector and is ahead of the game on export-led growth. As the Minister and the House will be aware, that was reinforced by figures in yesterday's Financial Times, showing that Northern Ireland had the fastest growth this year of any region in the United Kingdom.

We should also acknowledge that, since our last appropriation debate in the Chamber, there has been welcome news of new orders for Shorts and for Harland and Wolff—both important employers, and key parts of the sector employing skilled and technical labour in Northern Ireland. Harland and Wolff received an order from British Petroleum for a floating production system, which is especially welcome as it may well offer access to a whole new world market as oil production moves further and further offshore.

The Ministers will remember that both Opposition Front-Benchers and hon. Members from Northern Ireland have pressed that case, and the need to secure the future of Harland and Wolff, very strongly in the Chamber, and I am sure that we all welcome the news.

We are awaiting the follow-up from the Washington conference and hoping for new investment for other industries from that. We need to echo tonight the concerns expressed by Baroness Denton that the recent disturbances should not discourage inward investors and frustrate the strenuous efforts that we have all put in on behalf of Northern Ireland and inward investment there.

Inward investment—increased investment from the United States and elsewhere—will provide some new job opportunities, we hope a considerable number, in the medium to long term. However, as Labour Members have repeatedly emphasised from the Dispatch Box, Northern Ireland urgently needs a new economic strategy, including an immediate action programme for jobs and longer-term measures focusing on investment, innovation and training. I notice the figures in the Minister's report emphasising the work being put into training, but we must ensure that, for example, the modern apprenticeship ends up with real apprenticeship leading to real skilled work, instead of being regarded as a make-weight training measure.

Northern Ireland needs a change of direction and a new economic strategy that includes measures to help small businesses, which comprise a considerable sector—indeed, a far larger sector of business in Northern Ireland than in the rest of the UK economy—a unified framework for skills training, incentives for businesses to take on long-term unemployed people and to focus on long-term unemployed people, and improvements in nursery care to help in that process.

I say in a slightly stronger tone that we are worried that the Government might be seen to be undermining some of those efforts by ignoring their own guidelines on fair treatment. I shall refer to those later.

However, the fruits of that endeavour are more in the future, and other sectors have considerable difficulties now. The Minister will not be surprised to hear that I once again draw attention to the plight of the construction industry and, more, that I accuse his Department of complacency in its response to the industry's difficulties.

Let us be frank. The problems that confront the industry partly result from a welcome outcome of the peace—the reduction in property damage, in the work undertaken to rectify that and in insurance claims. The Minister will know that I mentioned the problems of the construction industry in the appropriation debate on 8 March 1995. Since then, we have suggested to the Department many measures that could alleviate the crisis. Not only have Opposition Front Benchers drawn attention to that, but the Northern Ireland construction employers have lobbied Ministers and the Department. I also know that that concern is shared by Northern Ireland Members of Parliament who see the situation unfolding. From here, the response seems to be complacency and inertia. The main priority seems to be dogma-driven administrative reorganisation—perhaps arranging a trade sale from the Highways Agency. We are seeing political gestures rather than ways of dealing with the economic realities.

It is not as though the need does not exist. When we discussed appropriation measures in March the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs)—I see that he is present tonight—raised the need of Lame harbour and the transport system in his constituency. The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) highlighted the problem of more rural roads in his constituency. The auditor general has put the backlog of road maintenance at £60 million, while the Minister referred to an extra £1 million for road maintenance. The question one must ask is how far that will go to rectify the £60 million backlog?

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) has announced a welcome, if slightly over-hyped, expansion of the school-building programme. That lies behind the question by the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross). We have pressed the Department to accelerate the programme. We should remember that the money has already been committed and budgeted for in the Northern Ireland budget. The replies have been extremely complacent. That complacency was to some extent reflected in what we heard from the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the right hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), tonight. The money has been budgeted for and, by bringing forward the programme, we could start stimulating the construction industry.

There is a similar picture in housing. There were only 567 new starts in the public sector in the first quarter of this year, in the face of increasing housing need. There are 22,000 people on the waiting list in Northern Ireland—7,000 in the Belfast area alone. The result of all that in the industry—not my figure or the construction employers' figure, but the figure in the Government's own press release of 10 July—is a 14.5 per cent. drop in construction activity in Northern Ireland over the past year. That is the reality facing the industry and those who work in it. That reality also faces the thousands of young men who hoped to work in the industry, but who now have idle hands.

Unfortunately, for the Government, the dogmas of competitive tendering, hiving off, market testing and—a new word to have entered the political vocabulary—agentisation, are a higher priority. Not only does that distract from the urgent tasks in hand, but it is extremely worrying for the future of Northern Ireland.

The Opposition know the commitment of local councillors and local councils to working for their communities. Today, my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam), has been in Ards attending the sixth in a series of economic conferences with local councils, industry, unions and the community. My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) has also been over there. We know the impressive commitment of those local councils.

The Government, for their part, have stated their objective clearly. They say that they wish to restore greater power and responsibility to Northern Ireland's locally elected representatives within a framework of new political agreements which would attract widespread support and take account of Northern Ireland's wider relationship with the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. But the question that underlies that is: what will those locally elected representatives be left to run?

At an accelerating speed the Northern Ireland Office is forcing the pace of breaking up and contracting out, even at the expense of its own fair employment guidelines. It seems to be trying to run a scorched earth policy in Northern Ireland. The philosophy seems to be that if the Northern Ireland Office cannot run it, none of the locally elected representatives can. That is a profoundly undemocratic approach and is extremely worrying for the future and development of local authority work in Northern Ireland and attempts to give responsibility and decision-making powers to those representatives.

That approach can be demonstrated even more graphically in the health service, where the fanatical commitment to compulsory competitive tendering has united opposition across the political spectrum and the communities, not least in the Down and Lisburn area. Here the Government have chosen to allow trusts blatantly to ignore their policy appraisal and fair treatment guidelines. Yet, in response to problems raised by some of the American legislative representatives, they use those guidelines to reassure the American Administration of their good intentions in the area of equal opportunities. The Government have ignored the unequal manner in which cuts will affect women employees who face reductions in wages and conditions.

The opposition to the changes goes far beyond the immediate work force and its unions—Unison and the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union. It extends throughout the community, including local councils—I have met local representatives from all political parties—and Members of Parliament, most notably those from the Ulster Unionist party and the Social Democratic and Labour party.

The Government seem to have learnt nothing from their disastrous experience of changing the health service in Great Britain, which has caused massive disruption and a huge increase in bureaucracy. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) drew attention to some of the unfortunate results of the changes that have taken place in England and Wales. Instead, the Government are moving at break-neck speed to establish the same system in Northern Ireland, against the overwhelming wishes of the people and of their elected representatives.

Popular opposition has had some success in slowing down the Government's drive in one area. That opposition, combined with some administrative difficulties, has slowed down the drive towards privatising water. As a consequence, the Government made the welcome announcement that there would be no privatisation of water this side of the next general election.

However, it is also true that the Government's attempts to strip the water authorities of most of their functions will make them a very easy target for privatisation in the unlikely event that the Conservatives win the next general election. It will make the water authorities very vulnerable to a trade sale and, in the meantime, the water industry will be undermined considerably.

We have learnt from the privatisation of water in England and Wales that the certain outcomes are that water charges will increase, metering will be installed, and the fat cats in charge of the water industry will get even fatter. But the people of Northern Ireland do not have to look to England to see what privatisation means in practice. Electricity privatisation has not narrowed the gap between electricity prices in Northern Ireland and in Britain, which has widened to an estimated 30 per cent. That is obviously of enormous concern to hard-pressed householders in Northern Ireland as well as in terms of inward investment.

I understand that representatives from some of the Northern Ireland parties have met the Minister to discuss the issue. They have expressed their concern at the dramatically widening gap in electricity prices. They are extremely worried that, despite some expressions of concern, the Government have taken no action in that area. I hope that, in his winding-up speech, the Minister will be able to give those Northern Ireland Members of Parliament and the people of Northern Ireland some idea of what will be done to close that substantial gap, which has widened even further.

We have put forward some specific proposals. But when Northern Ireland Members of Parliament and I pressed for the transfer of sulphur quotas from England to Northern Ireland, the result was yet more inertia. It is quite astonishing that the Government can transfer carbon dioxide quotas within the European Union from the northern European countries to Spain and yet find it impossible to transfer sulphur quotas from England to Northern Ireland. That is a disgrace. The Northern Ireland Office should press the Department of the Environment to ensure that that transfer takes place.

As you can imagine, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I could refer to a host of other issues—I see the relieved look on your face now that I have indicated that I do not intend to pursue them. I recognise the state of play in this parliamentary Session—I hope to be called by the Chair to speak next Session—and I also recognise the need for Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland to put their constituents' cases.

In conclusion, I urge the Minister to pay greater heed to the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland and to draw back from the application of rigid dogma, of which I hope that I have given some examples tonight.

9.24 pm

Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South)

Perhaps the small number of Northern Ireland Members here tonight pinpoints a certain insensitivity on the part of the Northern Ireland Office—arranging the debate to suit itself—or of the business managers. Someone, it seems, was unaware that this is the high holiday period in Northern Ireland. Others can take their holidays in August with their families, but this is our holiday time. Hitherto, this debate has always been held in the last week of June. I repeat: we are right in the middle of the main holiday period in Northern Ireland.

I should like to mention another sort of insensitivity as well. The hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) mentioned a meeting of representatives of the SDLP and the Ulster Unionist party with the Prime Minister, to deal with economic issues. I confess that we sometimes wonder what the agenda really is.

That meeting should have made the headlines, but, as certain people emerged from the meeting with the Prime Minister, they carried with them—furtively—the announcement that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was to shake hands in Washington with the erstwhile Member for Belfast, West—who never sat in this place but who, when he did not win a seat, wanted to come and speak here.

As a result, we have witnessed a charade which has meant that the wrong headlines in the newspapers displaced one of the most important developments in Northern Ireland for some time. I mention that merely because I believe that the House should be aware of some of the problems. We are sometimes told that, if all the parties in Northern Ireland will work together for the good of all the people, things will happen. Latterly, it has appeared to us that there is a different agenda. Things do not happen when we work together, as the hon. Member for Warley, West said of council co-operation.

In June last year, the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), winding up the debate, chided us for not talking up Northern Ireland. He said that anyone listening would have heard only laments and groans. I said then that part of our task is to pinpoint areas of need, but today I want to record some of the promising developments in the Province.

There has been reference to cuts in the construction industry. Earlier, the Minister referred to the cross-harbour bridge. The contract for that was completed within time and within budget—one of the few occasions in the United Kingdom when such work has been completed within the contract time and budget. The construction industry could have been rewarded by being allowed to get on with the much needed second-stage development.

In Northern Ireland, we await the arrival of supermarkets which have spotted an opportunity there. Some of us have been telling them about the opportunity for a long time. They did not need the so-called peace process to give them the dividend they want. Entrepreneurial people in Marks and Spencer, British Home Stores and other groups have already discovered better returns on their investments in Northern Ireland. In the worst possible times they were prepared to do the best possible things—and they succeeded.

I hope that those who come in future will make equally successful investments; but the infrastructure could already have been under way in North Down and the cross-harbour reaches. I look forward to an early start on completing the project.

There are other important matters. In that debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) asked the then Minister how many pure visitors there were in total. We were later given a figure of one in five. I wonder whether the purity has increased, or whether the ethnic people are still coming back.

We are always accused of having showery weather, but this year we have had outstanding weather and have sent many a person back to the homeland blistered and burnt because they did not expect that it would be so warm in Northern Ireland. It is a good place for tourists and visitors. I have to be frank and admit that, as in some other places, there is a "not in my back yard" approach, because we want the beaches for ourselves. However, we welcome tourists and visitors.

As the Minister has responsibility for the environment, I hope that tonight he will help us on questions that have been regularly raised about Orlit houses. Last time, they were raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe). Will Northern Ireland and its people continue to be disadvantaged when others have been helped along with that poor housing which was built in the past?

I come now to the vote for the Department of Education, and in particular a thorny problem which is causing deep concern. I admit that we are told that it is only for discussion at this stage, and that the Minister has not yet made his decision. But we have been down this road many times, and it has been rare that Ministers in Northern Ireland have gone back on a discussion document and overruled the thinking that has come forth from the Department.

I refer to the wonderful decision that the best way to reform education provision in Northern Ireland is to cut the number of boards from five to four, and to amalgamate the Belfast education and library board with the South Eastern education and library board. That is supposed to save about £2 million. But when one takes into account the redundancy payments to those who will be laid off, I suspect that that figure will be neutralised, so that cannot be a valid reason.

The consensus among those involved is that the amalgamation is a bad idea, and is on the table only so that the Department can save face. It was not even an option in the first consultation period. It became an option only when the Department found out that its other proposals would not work. The South Eastern board represents a massive, largely rural area. The proposal has been brought forward by a Department which has meddled in a sectarian way with the administration of education in the Province.

The five boards supervised the controlled schools, the maintained schools and the integrated schools right up to the Department. As I understand it, they have worked remarkably well, but, at the behest of one branch of the Church, the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools was brought into being. As a result, the mainline Protestant denominations, who in the past were pioneers in the provision of education facilities in Northern Ireland, transferred their schools with the understanding that there would be an education system for people in Northern Ireland. They were given transferrers' rights, and, bit by bit, those rights have been eroded. Why?

I want to put it on the record that I have been invited on 2 September as a former student in Magee university college to mark the 150th anniversary of the Martha McCrea Foundation. That was a liberal arts college in Londonderry with a theological faculty attached, which was open from the outset to all students irrespective of where they came from. In my day, it was attended by members of the Roman Catholic community.

Because the administration of Northern Ireland observed the letter of the law as laid down in the Government of Ireland Act 1921, as I went to that college, I was not given a scholarship. I was qualified to attend either Queen's university, Belfast or Trinity college, Dublin; had I attended either, I would have been eligible for both scholarship and grant.

We are told that Northern Ireland has discriminated against the Roman Catholic community in favour of the Protestant community. It seems to me that discrimination at that level began only under so-called direct rule. I believe that more than £2 million has been set aside this year for the administration of the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools. Is that why one of the boards—where both Roman Catholics and Protestants are employed—must be got rid of? Is it to finance that departure in the education system?

Will the Minister reconsider the foolish suggestion that has been made? The proposed amalgamation is likely to affect the education of children in both border areas. It will create a super-board much larger than the others; administration will be unwieldy, and it is feared that the less well-off areas will siphon off a disproportionate amount of the available funds.

My hon. Friends have already raised the issue of the fabric of our schools. I am talking not only about maintained schools, but about controlled schools—schools that were built just after the war. I went to a grammar school whose prefabricated buildings were erected after the first world war; I visited the same classroom 30 years later. We are now asking young people to attend classes in prefabricated structures, 40 or 50 years after those structures were built.

One such building is in what is now known as Wellington college, in south Belfast. In an attempt to meet the Government's demand for co-education and rationalisation, Carolan grammar school—a girls' school—was amalgamated with Annadale grammar school, a boys' school, to form Wellington college. Development was promised, but it has not taken place. Now the intention is to move Deramore high school—which was a secondary modern—to Larkfield, leaving the inner city of Belfast devoid of secondary state education.

We have argued against it, but the intention is to move the growing enrolment of young people at Wellington college to the Deramore buildings. That is intended to happen in September, but no money is available for the improvements that are required to bring the school up to the standard that is needed for modern grammar school education, particularly in science. That is a scandal and a disgrace.

Other avenues must be considered. One school has had financial provision for the employment of an additional teacher this coming September. The school, however, is bulked out and no accommodation is available. When the case for the additional teacher was made, surely the school's plea for additional accommodation funding should have been heeded. Here we have an extra teacher with no place. If this summer weather continues, perhaps she will go back to teach in the old hedge schools, out in the hedges of the country.

The irony is that, one year ago, a school not five miles away was allowed to dispose of a mobile classroom for £150.

Mr. Beggs

I know a little about the disposal of mobile classrooms. The fact that that mobile was disposed of for £150 would suggest that it was in the same state as many of the mobiles in the North Eastern education and library board region, where we could not even get an offer of £150 for one mobile, because of the poor and dangerous state into which it had developed over the years.

Rev. Martin Smyth

I accept my hon. Friend's point, but the my point is that, if that mobile was available and had been used at that school, but was surplus to requirements, and if the school could not afford either a new mobile or an extended building, surely better housekeeping arrangements should have been made than disposing of the mobile for £150, and leaving a school with an extra teacher and extra children, but no place in which to teach them.

May I turn to health? A problem is developing in Northern Ireland which I have discovered has also developed in England and Wales and in Scotland. That problem involves the closure especially of geriatric facilities and statutory homes. Ostensibly, the reason for closing and disposing of many of those homes is that they are out of date, and that it would cost too much to modernise them.

Too many residential and nursing homes have been provided in the private sector. Sooner or later, we will come unstuck on that one, as the owners will not be making the profit that they should be making, and we do not have the statutory provision.

What I have discovered is causing a great deal of concern where health needs exists. Who pays for health need in a residential nursing home? Is it, as here, the local authority, under social services, or is it the health service? In Northern Ireland, that should not be a problem, because there is an integrated health and social services system. However, an elderly person was put into a nursing home not because that was the family's choice—remember "patients first", and that "patients' choice" is the cry—but because the doctor could not get the lady into a hospital. No bed was available, so they had to put her into the nursing home, and of course the family must pick up the tab.

I understood that, in the national health service, we have treatment free at the point of delivery. When that matter was raised with the Minister, the answer came back that the general practitioner was acting as the agent of the family; but the GP was acting simply as a doctor who had a patient who needed hospital care, which was not provided or available, and which had to be provided in a nursing home. That argument is false.

Having said that, I put it on record that the South and East Belfast community trust is one of the most progressive community trusts in the United Kingdom. In fact, it has been taking part in a European experiment, and will in all probability be the United Kingdom's centre of excellence for care in the community. I pay tribute to the trust's board, executive and staff, who are pushing ahead to get the best possible care for people in the community. That is the thrust of our community care programme.

People discovered, as some of us on the Select Committee said some years ago, that it may not necessarily be cheap care. Some went in for community care because they thought that it would save money on long-term care, but, if the average person is looked after in his own home, he will find that, no matter where he roams, there is no place like home. That notion is being found helpful in the south Belfast area.

I now raise a subject that affects everyone, and certainly those involved in looking after young people under five who have special needs. The bureaucratic approach is to state that a child under five can be wheeled in a pram. I remember that, when I was a lad, my mother wheeled me to school, then to hospital, and then back to school for five or six weeks, but I am not speaking now of such a situation. I am thinking of a child who might not even be expected to live beyond five years but who, at three years old, needs to be lifted and led, as they say.

I received a letter from a Minister saying that it is not the diagnosis but the effect that is the deciding factor. Therefore, a youngster who is unable to walk, who is partially sighted and who has other problems, is supposed to be left at home. I disagree entirely, because someone will have to be at home to look after him. The parents will then have to take the youngster with them, but the youngster cannot go on public transport. He needs a private taxi, because the parents cannot afford a car and do not qualify for a mobility allowance, because of a bureaucratic decision that children under five do not need it.

The Northern Ireland Office has experimented in other spheres; perhaps it should now lead the rest of the nation in acting more humanely. One may be taught the theory of social care, and one may even be involved in hospital work, but unless one is faced with a child such as I have described, one cannot understand the real problems. I ask the Minister to think again about the problem.

I shall conclude, because my colleagues want to speak. I am, however, aware that we have a bit longer than usual tonight, because of the absence of some who might have spoken for an hour if they had had the opportunity. We have been talking about building a complete European network and building tunnels, so may I ask whether any consideration has been given to bridging the most expensive expanse of water by building a tunnel from Portpatrick to Donaghadee?

9.48 pm

Mr. Clifford Forsythe (Antrim, South)

We tend, in these debates, to go round the houses, the street lamps and the pot holes, but my hon. Friends and I will do our best to keep our comments reasonably to the point and try to stick to the important issues that we can think of.

I want to mention just one constituency matter that is relevant to the Department of the Environment vote 3 on water and sewerage services. I had the unfortunate experience of making representations to have a drainage pipe fitted in Ballycorr road, Ballyclare, so that flooding of houses there, which had gone on for years, would cease. I am glad to say that, eventually, the work was done. I was assured that everything was under control and that I would not need to bring my plumbing expertise to bear any longer. Unfortunately, there was flooding again last month and there has been more flooding this month.

I raise the point for one reason. I was informed by my constituents that, when they asked why the problem had recurred, they were told quite bluntly by those who came to see them that it recurred because there was not enough money to fit the proper pipe. Will the Minister tell the House whether that was indeed the case and whether piecemeal work was done—not to solve the problem, but to keep a few people quiet? Is not that a waste of money? If the money is not supplied at the beginning and the proper size piping is not fitted, public money is wasted.

I again put on record my and—I am sure—my party's objection to water privatisation in Northern Ireland. We are glad that it is not going ahead, but we would still oppose such a proposal if it were to be presented some time in the future.

I shall move on to the Department of Health and Social Services vote and raise a matter that is dear to the heart—perhaps that is the wrong expression—of some of my hon. Friends. I refer, of course, to the Child Support Agency. As I am a member of the Select Committee on Social Security and since I have a little experience of the subject, I receive an awful lot of the complaints made to my hon. Friends which need investigation.

I had a case recently of a working wife. A court decided that payments were to be made to her. She has three children and had been receiving a very small amount of family credit, but when those payments came to the notice of the CSA, she was immediately put on its books. Unfortunately, when the assessment was made, the court order was stopped by the CSA and she received no money from the courts. Not only did she not receive court order payments, she did not receive any money from the CSA either. The CSA simply said, "Hard luck, that is the way that it works. We are afraid that we cannot do anything for you." Naturally I am raising that matter in other places, but I must put it on record that, if that is the way the legislation works—I understand that it is—it is a disgrace.

I have said before in the House that every party agreed with the child support operation and that it should work for the benefit of children and those who look after them. When the House passes legislation that creates a problem such as I have described, the sooner it is cleared up the better.

Mr. Beggs

Does my hon. Friend agree that, such is the stress and strain being put on many young men in Northern Ireland who are setting up second homes, but who feel a real duty to children by a former wife, they are almost on the point of nervous breakdown? As an alternative, they are contemplating giving up secure employment because they cannot afford to live on what is left of their earnings after the CSA payments are taken out.

Does my hon. Friend agree that greater allowance must be given to responsible fathers who seek to provide overnight stays for their children, sometimes for as many as 100 days a year, so that they can keep the family relationship going? Those men get no relief from payment and some change must be made soon.

Mr. Forsythe

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I know that such things are happening not only in Northern Ireland, but in the rest of the United Kingdom. The legislation does not allow for certain expenses, so problems occur. I am sure that the Minister, the Secretary of State and the Department concerned are examining the problem to see whether things can be made a little easier. The object of the exercise was to look after the children. It would be most unfortunate if those who are in employment were to give up their job to look after their second family.

Leaving the legislation to one side, we find that there are still incorrect assessments. We also find that, when assessments are made, they are not being paid—sometimes for good reasons. It takes too long to make assessments, and arrears may go back some time to when assessments were first made. Those who want to pay and to look after their children, and those who need the money to look after the children, find themselves heavily in debt, which causes great problems. I hope that the Department is still considering that problem, which applies—unfortunately—to the whole of the United Kingdom. Child support is an example of a very good idea that seems to have gone wrong.

In Northern Ireland, the attendance allowance board has to decide whether an allowance should be paid in certain medical cases. It made decisions about young children with diabetes, but, sadly, its decisions were different from those taken in Great Britain. When I asked the Minister about those decisions, he simply said that they were a matter for the attendance allowance board.

I should like the Minister to tell me—he can write to me if he does not have the answer now—who made the policy decision that the attendance allowance board in Northern Ireland would not treat young children with diabetes in the same way as they were being treated in the rest of the United Kingdom. It is a simple question. To say that the Northern Ireland attendance allowance board treated children in Northern Ireland differently from children in Scotland, in Wales and in England is not an answer. I want the Minister to tell me who made the policy decision that children with diabetes in Northern Ireland should be treated differently from children in the rest of the United Kingdom.

I am also rather worried about planning, where changes are proposed. Although we like changes in planning if we think that they will mean an improvement, the situation is not satisfactory if we still find different decisions being made in different parts of Northern Ireland. Planning permission is given for golf courses all over Northern Ireland, yet other applications which seem to have a good case are disregarded. There must be a lot of golfers among the planners; we certainly have a lot of golf courses.

For example, planning permission was given for a golf course in part of my constituency but, for whatever reason, the scheme did not go ahead. Quite nearby, a church required its manse to be extended but, because the existing building could not be extended, there was an application for planning permission for a new manse close to the church. When the people there inquired about the application, they were told that they had no chance of getting permission for the much-needed manse even though it was for a minister who encourages many local activities other than golf—including some sport and all sorts of other things—which are good for the rural community. I hope that, although the initial inquiry was frowned on, good sense will provide an answer.

Mr. William Ross

My hon. Friend has drawn attention to one of the cases in which the agricultural requirement for planning permission in rural areas should be set aside. The matter has been overlooked in the past. Can we rest assured that planners will be instructed to treat dwellings for clergy on the same basis as agricultural buildings?

Mr. Forsythe

I agree with my hon. Friend, and I hope that the Minister is listening. I am sure that he is. As he is a sympathetic Minister, I am sure that he will give us a good answer.

I hope that the Pensions Bill will be introduced in Northern Ireland as quickly as it is in Great Britain—even simultaneously, perhaps. There are still some aspects of it with which we disagree, such as the lack of pensioner trustees. None the less, I hope that it will be introduced in Northern Ireland as in Great Britain.

My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) mentioned the Eastern health board, which looks after Muckamore Abbey, a hospital for mentally handicapped patients that lies in the Northern health board area. Unfortunately, the Eastern board—or, rather, its successor—is thinking about making changes or, perhaps, even closing it.

It would cause great sadness if all the dedicated and expert staff were pushed to one side and disregarded. Many patients in Muckamore Abbey need to be in such a hospital. Although the hospital is funded by the Eastern board, the patients come from all over Northern Ireland. The hospital has a tremendous reputation and has been doing a wonderful job for years, so I hope that that it and the expertise there will not be lost to the whole community in Northern Ireland. It should not be beyond the scope of the Department to make its views known, and to say that the abbey should be updated to continue to look after those who are unable to go into the community. There are still many people who are not able to do that.

The last thing that I want to mention is the statement made today in the House about the Nolan report. Can the Minister tell us what the situation is with regard to the report's application in Northern Ireland? The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said today: We shall act quickly and positively on the Nolan committee's recommendations concerning appointments and propriety in public bodies". In other words, quangos. He went on to say: In particular we shall appoint a new commissioner for public appointments to offer guidance, monitor and audit departmental appointment procedures. This post will be advertised in a matter of days. Will the commissioner cover Northern Ireland? Will he be responsible for the quangos that are created in Northern Ireland? Are we to have a separate commissioner in Northern Ireland? Will we have a committee, as is mentioned in recommendations 36 and 37 in the Government's response to the Nolan committee? The recommendations say that all appointments to such bodies should be made after advice from a Panel or Committee which includes an independent element. Recommendations 34 and 35 of the Government's response to the Nolan committee really hit home as far as Northern Ireland Members are concerned. Recommendation 34 talks about merit, and says that The Government welcomes the recommendation which reflects, as the Committee recognises, a long-standing and continuing practice which is 'deeply ingrained in British public life'. Members of my party would certainly agree with that, although there have been a number of occasions when we have felt that that has not been applied in Northern Ireland.

Recommendation 35 talks about the skills and balance of those who are appointed to such bodies. I am afraid that there has not been a great deal of balance in those appointed to be members of such bodies in Northern Ireland. Even if the Minister does not tell us that all of the measures are to be applied in Northern Ireland, I hope that he will have read the Government's response to the Nolan committee report and that he will see that it is implemented as soon as possible in Northern Ireland. I can assure the Minister that that would be one case when he would have our full support.

10.8 pm

Mr. Roy Beggs (Antrim, East)

Vote 2 addresses expenditure for housing services, including certain grants in aid. Throughout my constituency, the right to buy introduced by the Government has encouraged and enabled many former tenants to purchase their homes from the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. These new owner-occupiers have made impressive improvements to their homes. Many of those who have recently purchased their homes do not qualify for any modernisation grant. Neighbouring properties still owned by the Housing Executive are undergoing extensive renovation and refurbishment, so those who recently purchased their homes and do not qualify for a grant feel, to some extent, let down. Another concern is replacement grant, with which my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) will deal.

I appeal for greater priority to be given by the Housing Executive to providing adequate heating facilities in all the older Housing Executive properties. Many of those properties are more than 30 years old and still have only one heating point. In many, the high cost of electricity prohibits sufficient heating to prevent dampness and mildew on walls and ceilings, which even causes dampness to bedclothes. The provision of adequate heating could contribute significantly to improving the general health of adults and young children in many housing estates throughout Northern Ireland.

Therefore, will the Minister endeavour to ensure that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive has sufficient funds available to approve grants to applicants who seek to carry out much-needed improvements to their homes? Families in my constituency are living in mobiles because the old farm accommodation is not up to public health standards and people have been waiting for months for approval from the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, but apparently insufficient money is available. If work is started before approval is given, no grant is payable.

So here is an opportunity, at a time when we need to assist the construction industry, to protect thousands of jobs and create hundreds of new ones, to make money available to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to enable it to grant approvals so that people can get on with home improvements.

Rev. Martin Smyth

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be even more helpful if the Housing Executive collected all the details required at once, instead of spinning it out over months and then, rather than simply allocating on the date of application, give priority to those with greatest need for weather proofing or whatever else is required in their homes?

Mr. Beggs

I endorse my hon. Friend's suggestion. When people make an application, it is important that the officer who visits the home takes a little time while he is there to offer guidance so that the applicants know precisely all that is required of them. Sadly, the Housing Executive makes too many repeat requests to applicants for additional information. Regrettably, it does not start consideration within the grant approval queue until all the information that it requests is available. I hope that managers will exercise good sense and, where it is urgently required, keep a roof over people's heads by granting approval at an early date, but if the Housing Executive's regional office does not have the funds to release, nobody can benefit.

I mentioned the priority that should be given to upgrading heating in people's homes and the difficulties experienced because people cannot afford the expense of electricity in Northern Ireland. I was disappointed that the Minister of State who opened this debate, the right hon. Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler), made no reference to anything being done in the immediate future to reduce the high cost of electricity to both domestic and industrial consumers. I simply ask when we can expect a significant reduction in electricity prices in Northern Ireland.

The water service staff of the Department of the Environment have been responsive to the cries for help from my constituents of Fernagh drive, Fernagh gardens and Fernagh avenue of Newtownabbey, County Antrim, when their properties and homes have been flooded. It is an absolute disgrace that the occupiers of those houses should lose carpets and all their household furniture on the ground floor every time there is a heavy rainfall. That occurred most recently on 11 June, when heavy rainfall draining into the sewage and storm drain disposal system resulted in a foul mix of rainwater and sewage flooding backyards and entering sub-floors through ventilators. Because that water could not get away, it built up and entered homes underneath back doors. Those unfortunate householders have lost everything, and not for the first time. The Department is aware of the problem. Help is what is needed now, not sympathy from officials.

The roadway at Fernagh gardens does not even have a single gulley to take rainwater away. If there ever were any gulleys on that roadway, they have been tarmacked over for a long time. It is obvious that the existing sewerage and rainwater drainage system cannot cope, so I appeal to the Minister to take steps to see that that nuisance does not happen again. My constituents deserve to be protected from future flooding and that will be possible only when a proper drainage and sewerage system is put in place.

Can the Minister tell the House whether any provision is being made to enable area boards to build new nursery schools or to adapt empty classrooms in primary schools to create nursery wings? Are any additional training courses being funded by the Department of Education to provide the trained staff who will be required to cater for those children who will benefit from the increased access to pre-school nursery education that has been announced for Northern Ireland, commencing in the school year, 1996–97?

Is there sufficient funding in the allocations that have been announced tonight to address the urgent need to replace old school buildings, some of which are in a dangerous condition? Is there sufficient funding to replace mobile classrooms across Northern Ireland with permanent accommodation? Will funding be made available to help voluntary grammar schools, such as Dalriada in North Antrim, where parents have already contributed to raise their share of the necessary funding for new modern facilities to enable the national curriculum to be delivered? When those in the private sector have spent years fund raising and collected the required amount, it is a great pity that progress, redevelopment and new improvements are delayed because the Department of Education cannot match that private funding.

I would like an assurance tonight that, subject to a suitable site being obtained in the Millbrook-Larne area of my constituency, such expenditure as is necessary will be made available to the North Eastern education and library board to enable Millbrook primary school to be relocated to a safer and more secure site.

In common with the hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar), my colleagues and I welcome the steady decline in unemployment in Northern Ireland. However, we have a long way to go in tackling the problems of long-term unemployment.

At this time of great expectation of increased inward investment, may I again place on record the growing perception that my constituency, as a mainly Unionist constituency, has been and is being discriminated against, and is not obtaining a proportionate share of new investment? We have lost many large employers over the years—Imperial Chemical Industries, Courtaulds, Carrera Rothmans, GEC Alsthom, Klingers Yarns and many more.

I welcome recent investment, but not enough jobs have been created to make up for jobs lost to date, in spite of the excellent record of good industrial relations throughout Northern Ireland and the fact that we have a well-educated, highly skilled and willing work force.

I endorse and fully support the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) regarding the Department of Education's proposals for change. I emphasise yet again the cross-party commitment to opposing the removal or abolition of the South Eastern education and library board. That proposal has caused widespread worry. In the proposals, it was suggested that, in future, the education and library boards might be responsible for funding the voluntary grammar schools. It would be helpful if we were told tonight what advantages are likely to accrue to voluntary grammar schools, should funding responsibility be transferred from the Department of Education to the area boards.

There is already evidence of a tourism boom in Northern Ireland, but also evidence of a serious shortage of bed accommodation. It was encouraging to hear the recent welcome announcement by the Minister responsible for economic development of new hotel developments that we can expect in the near future. May we have an assurance that the Minister will request the Northern Ireland tourist board to speed up assessment of proposals for grant aid to provide new bedroom accommodation, and to provide active help to local hoteliers instead of repeatedly moving the goalposts and delaying projects, some of which might have been completed months ago but have not started?

The hon. Member for Warley, West mentioned recent difficulties in Northern Ireland. In conclusion, I remind the House that the very limited recent disruption in Northern Ireland has been less damaging to the Northern Ireland economy than the daily cost to the United Kingdom economy of the recent rail stoppages. There is good will throughout Northern Ireland. The best way to secure the peace is to continue to attract and support inward investment and to locate new manufacturing industry in places where it is accessible to all sections of the community.

10.23 pm

Mr. William Ross (Londonderry, East)

Whenever our debate is held somewhat earlier than this one, usually several Members from Northern Ireland and several Labour and Conservative Members take part. This evening, we are confronted with acres of green leather with very few inhabitants.

Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham)

It is the marching season.

Mr. Ross

The hon. Gentleman has experience in Northern Ireland. No doubt, whenever I sit down, he will express his point of view about what should be done, as he takes a keen interest in those matters.

There is one notable figure missing this evening: Jim Kilfedder is no longer with us. He was an assiduous attender at such debates and always fought his case well for the people of North Down. He is sadly missed in the House. Although we on this Bench did not always agree with Jim, we have always been prepared to admit that he was active in pursuing his constituents' interests, not least in debates such as tonight's. One hopes that his successor will, on future occasions, adopt the same approach. He has conspicuously failed to do so this evening. Jim Kilfedder defended the interests of the people of Northern Ireland with honour and he deserves a word of praise from this Bench in tonight's debate and I am glad of the opportunity to make a few remarks about him.

There are a number of subjects that we can talk about in the debate, which involves the second tranche of Northern Ireland expenditure. It is the second bite of the cherry that we have every year. The debate is important to Northern Ireland. It is the time when we bend the Minister's. We not only ask him about expenditure for the current year, but to look forward to succeeding years so that the mistakes and problems of expenditure, which we see appearing, and which have appeared, as they always do, can be attended to. The Minister can then take steps to alter course before he makes his decisions about who will receive the money and how much they will have to spend next year and the year after.

The Minister has already heard from this Bench this evening and on former occasions what our priorities are in each aspect The priorities are sometimes party based—in relation to strategic spending in Northern Ireland—and, on many occasions, they are constituency based. The debate gives us the opportunity to make our case to the Minister.

There is deep concern on these Benches about the proposed reorganisation of the Department of the Environment. We see that as the continuing mushroom growth of quangoland. There are far too many quangos in Northern Ireland. It is no good the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss), shaking his head. When he replies, he will probably say that that has to do with next steps agencies, but next steps are just that—only steps, one following the other. The next step invariably leads to a quango, if that creature can be created. We know where that has led: Northern Ireland is being run more and more by people who have never dared to put their name on the ballot paper, and never will because they know what the result would be. Such people are totally untouchable by the electorate; their activities and power in Northern Ireland are resented by the entire population of that place. It is no good the Minister shaking his head.

Rev. Martin Smyth

rose—

Mr. Ross

Does my hon. Friend wish to intervene? I know that he has strong views on the subject and I am happy to give way to him.

Rev. Martin Smyth

I appreciate the hon. Member giving way. Does he accept that it is not a valid argument for a Minister to say that the Government are following through the pattern in this place when they regularly tell us that Northern Ireland is different and we must do other things there? Is it not time that they returned to accountable democracy so that civil servants are accountable to people who know about the issues?

Mr. Ross

I accept what my hon. Friend says—if he had let me continue for a minute or two I was about to say it myself. As it happens, I go further: we have seen the end result of such moves on this side of the Irish sea and we have no particular wish to feed the fat cats as there is not nearly as much cream in Northern Ireland as there is here. I fear that whenever they got the cream, there would be precious little left for the ordinary man or woman. I am surprised that we have not heard some hurrahs from the two Labour Members—no doubt they will get round to it when they think about it.

Many of the matters that are in the hands of quangos would be far better and properly run by Government agencies. In Northern Ireland we have a long tradition of running such matters efficiently. If we had democratic control, we would be even more efficient.

My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) expressed regret that the right hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), who opened the debate for the Government, did not refer to the cost of electricity. I did not hear him talk at length about the Washington conference either and the benefits that will supposedly flow from it; nor about the money—the peace dividend—that was to come from the European Community. No doubt in his wind-up speech the Minister will tell us what advances have been made in that area and what inquiries have resulted from the conferences in Belfast and Washington.

The Minister should also confirm whether a rush of people from the United Kingdom and the United States have inquired about the possibility of expanding their activities to Northern Ireland. Furthermore, will he assure the House that when investors appear they will be taken not only to West Belfast or Londonderry but to many locations in my constituency, East Antrim, South Antrim and to other parts of Northern Ireland which need more job opportunities, but which were largely ignored in the past 25 years whenever money and investment came to Northern Ireland?

There is a myth about rich Protestant areas. One has only to look at the unemployment figures in places such as Coleraine to realise that the people there face real hardship. There is migration out of those areas and, if we are to keep our best young people at home, we must provide investment and employment opportunities. We have seen precious little of that in recent years.

Do the Government recognise the need to support home-based industry? Home-based industry must receive treatment that is as generous as that given to foreign firms. When incoming firms seek skilled workers, will the Government ensure that there are training facilities available in Northern Ireland? We do not want to repeat the experience of the Benelux factory at Limavady, which recruited its first 10 or 12 highly skilled workers from Sligo.

There is not much point spending British taxpayers' money building a factory in Limavady to provide employment for people from the Irish Republic. Many of my constituents would have been happy to seek training and obtain employment at the factory. It is interesting that the factory managers went to Sligo and that they did not recruit their highly skilled workers in England. I have also been informed that the factory advertised for shop floor workers in the Irish Republic before advertising in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Minister will inform the noble Baroness Denton, who has responsibility for that area, that I am totally dissatisfied with the civil service answer that I received from her a few weeks ago on the issue. I shall take up the matter with her in the near future.

Will the Minister confirm that the purchase of the Apache helicopter from the United States will be accompanied by the most strenuous efforts to ensure not only that Starstreak is fitted to those helicopters destined for the United Kingdom armed forces but that every effort will be made to sell it to the Americans to be fitted to the 800 helicopters that the United States already has in service? That would be a tremendous boost to the Starstreak programme in Northern Ireland. The massive benefits that would accrue to Belfast and technological advances in the field that would flow to the United Kingdom would be very welcome indeed. We talked to people in the United States about that matter when we attended the conference. We did not spend all of our time wandering around and listening to others; we went out and did our best for the people of Northern Ireland and for our highly skilled work force at home.

Over the years, we have seen the large-scale removal of civil service jobs from the provincial centres mainly to Londonderry. That is greatly resented. We hope that when civil service jobs are moved around the Province other places will again be given some consideration. There seems to be a definite effort to shift incoming employment to certain areas to keep the natives peaceful. The view is that Protestant areas are nice and quiet anyway, so they do not need to be given anything. There is rising anger about that, some of which boiled over in Portadown a week ago.

There has been reference to restoring to the people of Northern Ireland some measure of democratic responsibility. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) mentioned that. We face the problem, however, of where any elected representatives might sit, since the Government were so good at looking after the Commons Chamber in Stormont that they let it burn down. Perhaps the Minister will be so kind as to tell us what progress has been made on the refurbishment of the Chamber, and whether it will be restored to its former glory. It was a very important public building in Northern Ireland, and there has been a remarkable silence about the whole affair for many months. We have waited long enough for firm decisions to have been taken, and I hope that the Minister will be able to make an announcement this evening. The next time water hydrants are checked over, and no water is found in them, perhaps someone will attempt to find out why.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock)

And the Senate Chamber.

Mr. Ross

I fully appreciate that; perhaps the hon. Gentleman will make his own speech when I sit down.

As the House knows, I own a farm—although it is a long time since I turned a furrow with a plough. That is sad in some ways. The work is sometimes better than here: at least 76,000 constituents cannot ring one up and issue a telling off, six days a week. There is some concern in Northern Ireland about possible changes to tenancy law. Certainly, the Department of Agriculture was asking for people's views on it. What on earth are the Government trying to do? What is the intention behind such possible changes? The system that we have has worked perfectly well for many years. It is very flexible, and there have been no problems with it.

We have another problem, too, related to agriculture. I wrote recently to the Minister about Ballinahone bog. I hope that he understood some of what I said in that letter. I hope that he realises that the matter will not rest there. I want to come and see him, as do others concerned with that area of scientific interest. It is an important bog, and there are important implications for those with peat-cutting rights in the bog. Their interests are being overridden, with no consideration given to their case. I hope, when I come to see the Minister, that those responsible for the decision will be present to defend what I regard as indefensible. People have cut peat there for centuries, and the small-scale cutting going on will never do that massive bog any harm at all.

When trees are cut down after about 35 years on bogs in the hills, a great deal of wreckage is left behind. That problem needs dealing with rather more carefully than it has been dealt with hitherto.

I turn briefly to the system of Housing Executive grants, touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, East. Formerly, such grants were related to the condition of a house. The system has now changed from that sound Conservative principle to the much more socialist principle of means testing. Perhaps this is a case of the Tories stealing some unsuitable clothing from Labour—rather than the other way round, for a change. The consequence that flows from that change has been a grant system that is totally at variance with what is needed in Northern Ireland.

We had a good system but we now have a bad system. We must look at it carefully again and try to achieve a sensible system which gives a reasonable amount of help to a large number of people rather than, as is now happening, large amounts of help going to a relatively small number of people.

My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, East referred to the long delay from initial application. I do not want the Minister to stand up at the Dispatch Box tonight and tell me that it takes only X months. If he does, I shall point out that that is not the time taken from the initial inquiry, which is where it should be, but from about two thirds of the way through the procedure. That is when the Housing Executive clock starts ticking in order to give a completely false impression of the speed with which all the applications for grant aid are being processed.

That is nonsense; we all know that it is nonsense. It is an abomination that any Minister should stand at the Dispatch Box and defend the indefensible in that matter. It is just not good enough. I hope that he will not start feeding me the nonsense that the Housing Executive has tried to feed me in the past over this matter.

The Minister knows that since I came into the House 21 years ago, I was one of those who advocated a replacement grant as opposed to a repair or improvement grant. The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) has advocated a similar policy since he entered the House. But we did not get that. We asked that whenever a dwelling was in bad condition the Housing Executive should have the choice of paying a repair grant or paying roughly the same grant to replace the dwelling. What we actually got was a means-tested grant, which can run up to £40,000 in some cases—a ridiculous sum. The end result of that is that many people now cannot get a grant at all because of the large sums that are going to individual houses.

If a replacement grant on really poor-quality rural housing that should have been knocked down, for which we had asked, and equivalent to the grant paid towards repairing a house, had been implemented, the problems that we now face would never have come about. It is because of the way in which the Housing Executive has manipulated the whole thing over the years that we have the present dreadful situation.

Mr. Beggs

Is it not the case that to qualify for virtually the full cost of a replacement dwelling, individuals will ensure that they have no assets to declare and that they will contrive to be unemployed for a sufficiently long period in order to qualify for what is a full 100 per cent. gift from Government, more than could have been saved through a lifetime of hard work?

Mr. Ross

What my hon. Friend says may well be true in some cases, but I personally have not come across that. Anyone that I know who has applied for and been given a replacement grant has been in poor health and poor circumstances. But I can see that what my hon. Friend says could be done, and if it could be done we can rest assured that humanity will do it. Of that I have no doubt whatever.

My final point concerns the problem with Housing Executive allocations to pointed cases. In the town of Limavady one or two dwellings have gone to pointed cases in the last two or three years. All the others have gone to priority cases. That is quite a large number of houses every year. I feel sure that the situation in the rest of my constituency is very much the same, especially in urban areas. The largest percentage of those priority cases seems to be made up of young girls with babies.

A social problem is not being addressed. We are merely applying some ointment by giving those people houses and allowing the state to keep them. We are leaving young married couples who want to start a family in poor accommodation. Will the Minister examine the "points" and "priority" system of letting houses in Northern Ireland, and consider what can be done to give people a fairer crack of the whip than they have been given for many months and, in some cases, years?

The non-fossil fuel obligation entered into by Her Majesty's Government has led to a messy situation. I have considered the matter in some detail, because of the hullabaloo surrounding hydro-electric schemes in Northern Ireland. I have spoken to the Minister's officials, and to officials in the Department of Economic Development. The Government seem to have signed up to produce a certain amount of electricity from renewable sources—wind, water and wave power, for instance—before anyone could quantify what was available from those sources on a sound economic basis.

Having entered into that obligation, the Government are trying to produce a certain amount of electricity by some means, regardless of cost to the environment or financial cost. I believe that they have started from, as it were, the wrong end. We are probably trapped, but we should not allow that to run away with our common sense. I am talking not about windmills—although I hope to return to the subject in a future debate—but about the whole question of the generation for sale of hydro-electric power in Northern Ireland, which will have a wider application throughout the United Kingdom.

Northern Ireland contains a good many rivers that are valuable fisheries for migratory salmon and sea trout. The fishermen, and the owners of the fisheries, have rights; they have economic assets that should be protected. Those who want to generate electricity also have rights, because they own the water-power rights on the river. They have a legal entitlement to develop such sites and make use of them. As it happens, I own such a site—although it has not been in regular use for some years, for reasons that I need not go into. Until a few years ago I ran my own domestic electricity supply from it, and I hope to do so again in the future.

The Government must find a way through the problems involved in those interlocking rights and benefits. When I spoke to officials, I was gratified to discover how much work and thought had been expended. I hope to talk to the Minister and his officials again. I know something about the matter, as an angler who has netted migratory fish in his younger days on a commercial basis, who owns a water mill and whose family has used water mills for centuries. I want a proper balance to be established. If we do not find a solution now, the problem will create headaches for many years.

Mr. David Wilshire (Spelthorne)

I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying about electricity generation. No doubt he is aware that the Northern Ireland Select Committee is considering electricity prices; has he submitted his views to the Committee? If not, would he be willing to do so? The Committee is anxious to find the cheapest way of generating electricity in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Ross

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but most of the schemes that I am dealing with this evening and that are available in Northern Ireland are small, run of the river schemes. They are a tiny proportion of the whole. Of course, I would be happy to talk to the Select Committee about the matter at any time, but I want to get my own mind clear on what can and cannot be done on this issue because it is important, although small scale in the generality of electricity generation. It is important to all individual interests in each individual river and site involved. A number of different interlocking issues are to be addressed and resolved before we go on.

Rev. Martin Smyth

My hon. Friend raises the question of non-fossil fuels. Does he agree that the people of Northern Ireland are paying the ransom because the Government decided to ignore the advice against privatisation that we gave in Northern Ireland in the Northern Ireland Committee. Now no one can develop alternative sources of generation for some more years, and the cost of electricity prices rises. Belfast West power station could be turned to waste disposal and would be an amenity to the city, yet it cannot go down that road because of undertakings given to the purchasers of the generating stations.

Mr. Ross

Of course the hon. Gentleman is correct in what he says, with regard not only to the possibility of generating electricity from waste, which has not been fully explored, although I know that some people are considering that, but to the fact that a huge quantity of lignite is sitting in the ground in Northern Ireland and could be used for generation. By doing that, instead of importing electricity from Scotland, England and Wales, we could export it down the line and make a bit of money out of it. I agree with what my hon. Friend says.

The reality is that we could touch on an enormous number of subjects such as this in Northern Ireland in this debate. I am sorry to keep a number of hon. Members sitting around just in case there is a vote; we will not divide, so they can go home if they like.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)

I have the Adjournment debate to come.

Mr. Ross

I know that the hon. Gentleman has the Adjournment debate. Hon. Members will probably stay and listen to him as well. [Interruption.] I promise that I will read the debate.

This debate is a chance for the representatives of the people of Northern Ireland to put forward the concerns that each of them has, and we have tried to make use of that this evening.

I finish by asking one simple question of the Minister. We recently had a letter from his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security telling us about the huge amount of social security fraud that has been detected, and what steps have been taken to detect even more of it. Will the Minister assure us that similar steps are being taken in all parts of Northern Ireland, and will he quantify the level of fraud that has been detected and stopped?

10.52 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Malcolm Moss)

This has been a wide-ranging debate. I shall attempt to answer as many as possible of the questions posed to me this evening, but, for the vast majority, I shall be writing to the hon. Members concerned.

I should like to take the opportunity, as did the hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar), to consider the Province's economic prospects. The distortion and dislocation that the local economy has undoubtedly suffered in the past 25 years or so may never fully be measured, but, despite the terrorist campaign, the Northern Ireland economy has performed remarkably well, especially in recent years.

The recent news on the economy is extremely encouraging. It is growing relatively faster than the national economy. The seasonally adjusted unemployment figure has fallen in 11 of the past 12 months and, in the year to December 1994, the output level of Northern Ireland production industries has risen by 5.8 per cent. In manufacturing industries, it has risen by 6.8 per cent. That optimistic picture contrasts sharply with that painted by the hon. Member for Warley, West.

As on a number of other occasions, the hon. Gentleman raised the subject of the so-called plight of the construction industry. In the first quarter of 1995, some reductions have taken place in construction output compared with 1994, but the main factor in the decrease was a drop in the private category of construction work—the category that includes retail and office developments—and not a drop in construction work funded from public expenditure. In fact, the estimated value of construction work from planned public expenditure in 1995–96 is £861 million, some £18 million higher than in the previous year. The redevelopment of the Royal Victoria hospital, at a cost of more than £64 million, which I announced recently, is only one example of how public sector projects are benefiting the construction industry.

We are, of course, helping the industry in appropriate ways by, for example, promoting a training ethos and improving skill levels among the employed and the unemployed. I am glad to be able to report that the number of unemployed construction workers in the Province has fallen by 2,058 over the year to May 1995.

The hon. Members for Warley, West and for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) continued to mislead the House and themselves with regard to the process of agentisation. Agencies will remain accountable through their chief executives to Ministers, and Ministers in turn are responsible to Parliament. The relationship between agencies, Departments and Ministers will be governed by a published framework document, which a future national or local administration would be able to amend. Agentisation does not prejudice how a devolved administration would exercise its responsibilities. Some time ago, I wrote to all Northern Ireland Members inviting them to meet me to discuss agentisation but, as yet, I have not had the pleasure of a reply from them.

The hon. Member for Warley, West also mentioned policy appraisal and fair treatment, or PAFT. He alluded to a dispute—

Rev. Martin Smyth

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Moss

If I must.

Rev. Martin Smyth

I wonder whether the Minister misunderstood the letter that was sent to us asking us to discuss development in Belfast, because we have not received any information about an agency.

Mr. Moss

I was referring to the process of agentisation in the Department of the Environment, which I know exercises the minds of hon. Members. I repeat the invitation for hon. Members to come and talk to me about it, because they seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that agencies are non-departmental bodies. They are not; everyone working in an agency within the DOE will be a civil servant.

The hon. Member for Warley, West spoke of a dispute in the Down Lisburn trust. I must tell him that the dispute was engineered by Unison to further its campaign against the Government's market-testing policy. Unison took the matter to court and lost the case. However, in the absence of a written judgment, I do not feel that it is appropriate to comment on the details of that case at this juncture, other than to say that I fully support the Down Lisburn trust in its competitive processes.

The current situation is likely to release some £700,000 each year over the next five years, a total of some £3.5 million. That is in addition to the £500,000 a year already being saved in that trust as a result of the first round of market testing, which began five years ago. To put the figures in context, let me tell the House that the £700,000 a year of savings from competitive tendering equates to a total of more than 450 elective surgery cases each and every year.

The question of water privatisation—

Mr. Spellar

rose—

Mr. Moss

I must press on. Time is short.

The hon. Members for Warley, West and for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) mentioned water privatisation. I am happy to confirm once again from the Dispatch Box that there will be no water privatisation in the lifetime of this Parliament. I see that the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) knows the words and can repeat them.

If we are to make progress, however, we need to facilitate a more commercial approach to the provision of water and sewerage services, by establishing more direct customer billing to separate funding from the overall local taxation arrangements. While detailed proposals have yet to be produced, a consultation document will be issued in advance of any change to existing arrangements. I again confirm that routine metering of purely domestic water supplies is not under consideration.

Mr. Spellar

Does the Minister believe that it is appropriate and right that health trusts should apply the PAFT guidelines in considering bids for compulsory competitive tendering?

Mr. Moss

I am happy to confirm that we have written to the trusts to say that they should consider the PAFT guidelines, but initially, because it was policy appraisal, we deemed it appropriate that those guidelines should be the responsibility of the health boards and the management executive, and not at the operational level of trusts.

The hon. Member for Warley, West also raised the question of sulphur quotas. We are looking carefully at that, but at the end of the day, there is no guarantee that it will lead to lower electricity prices. It will depend on the relevant price movements of the sulphur oil, as he well knows, but we are looking into it.

On electricity, raised by the hon. Members for Warley, West and for Antrim, East, prices in Northern Ireland have in real terms been fairly stable since privatisation. The problem we face is that prices appear to be rising rapidly because they are falling in Great Britain. Price regulation is really a matter for the industry and the regulator, but the Government are certainly prepared to help by, for example, allocating large amounts out of the European programme to the cost of the gas and electricity interconnectors. Indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State recently announced the provision of additional assistance, to ensure that Northern Ireland consumers will enjoy equivalent benefits to their counterparts in Great Britain when the nuclear levy is abolished in 1996.

The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) mentioned Orlit dwellings. I repeat what I have said in correspondence to him and his hon. Friends, that we could not justify new legislation or any spending of public money to help people who purchased Orlit dwellings in the private sector. He also mentioned the cross-harbour bridge, and I am happy to say that work has recently commenced on the first part of the direct link between the M3 Lagan bridge and the Sydenham bypass and is scheduled for completion in April 1996. That will be followed by a second contract to reconstruct the Ballymacarrett flyover and complete the link to the Sydenham bypass before the end of 1997.

The reorganisation of education boards was raised by the hon. Member for Belfast, South and others, including—I think—the hon. Member for Antrim, East. We announced proposals for changes on 10 April. The two-month consultation period ended on 9 June and the Government are now considering the various representations received before the final decisions are made. It is important to say that any proposals made for such changes were based on sound educational reasons and not the reasons that the hon. Member for Belfast, South inferred.

The hon. Member for Antrim, South referred to the Child Support Agency and the attendance allowance, which he has already written to me about. I shall write to him on that and on the Pensions Bill and implications for Nolan.

The hon. Members for Antrim, East and for Londonderry, East raised with me issues relating to the Housing Executive and grants. There were some teething problems with the introduction of the 1992 grant schemes, which resulted in a slower uptake of processing than had originally been anticipated. However, those difficulties have now been overcome and the grant approval rate increased significantly, with expenditure in 1994–95 exceeding the allocation of £32.5 million. An additional £1.6 million funding was approved. Faced with increasing demands on grant expenditure, the allocation for 1995–96 has been increased yet again to £38 million.

The hon. Member the Antrim, East mentioned some problems with flooding on a housing estate. I ask him to write to me with details of that, and I shall certainly look into it. The issue raised on nursery education and the construction of new schools is another matter that I can take up with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State.

Mr. William Ross

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister seems to be in a desperate rush, yet he has until 11.51 pm to speak, so he has plenty of time.

Madam Deputy Speaker

That is not a matter for the Chair until we reach that time.

Mr. Moss

So many questions have been fired at me in the past 20 minutes that I could not possibly have detected the answers in my brief. I promise, as I said at the beginning of my speech, to write to hon. Members on the matters that I do not cover.

The time taken to process renovation grant applications was also raised and I shall be happy to write to the hon. Member for Antrim, East showing him that, in fact, our performance in that area has greatly improved.

I now come to the contribution by the hon. Member for Londonderry, East. I have here a long list of questions that he posed to me. I know that he endeavoured on the trip to Washington with his colleagues to talk to the American counterparts on Starstreak. It may well be that some of his work there has borne fruit. I take on board his comments about speaking to our colleagues in the Ministry of Defence to ensure that the Americans are apprised of the value of that piece of equipment.

The Stormont Parliament rebuilding and refurbishment is well under way. I shall issue a statement in the near future on the matter. The hon. Gentleman is due to come to visit me to discuss Ballinahone bog and I look forward to seeing him in the near future.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 8th June, be approved.