Appropriation (Northern Ireland)

HC Deb 08 March 1995 vol 256 cc398-434

Madam Speaker

Before we come to motion No. 3, which is also on Northern Ireland, it may be helpful if I make it clear that the debate on the order may cover all matters for which Northern Ireland Departments, as distinct from the Northern Ireland Office, are responsible. Police and security are the principal excluded subjects.

Mr. William Cash (Stafford)

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It has already been drawn to your attention that there is a serious problem about common visas. I speak as a member of the Select Committee on European Legislation. The initial recommendation that the matter should be debated on the Floor of the House was made, as is very much the case these days, only after very serious consideration. The matter is now—apparently—to be put before the Council of Ministers for decision very shortly.

I see that, by chance, the Home Secretary happens to be in the House; perhaps he would like to contribute on this point of order. We are given to understand that the matter will not to be debated on the Floor of the House until after the decision has been taken. If that is the case, it is riding roughshod over the Committee. Would you, Madam Speaker, be prepared to comment, as it is a very serious question?

Madam Speaker

I am having inquiries made. I was very concerned about the point of order which was raised this morning. I have been in the Chair for most of the day, but I assure the hon. Member and the House that I am having inquiries made. I think that the situation is rather more complicated than that put to me through points of order. That is why I want chapter and verse on the matter and not simply to listen to what is coming across the Floor of the House. I intend to make a ruling on it tomorrow.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard)

Would it help, Madam Speaker, if I attempted to shed some extra light on this matter? What is for decision at the Council of Ministers tomorrow is simply the format of the visa, a suggestion that there should be a common format for visas. That was described—I speak from memory and think that I have the gist of it, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) will bear with me if I do not reproduce the exact wording of the document to which he referred—in the document as a technical matter, which is, indeed, precisely what it is. It is a matter of design rather than substance. I hope that that will go some way towards allaying my hon. Friend's anxieties.

7.16 pm

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

I beg to move,

That the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 14th February, be approved. The draft order has two purposes. First, it authorises expenditure of £198.2 million in the 1994-95 spring supplementary estimates. That will bring total estimates provision for Northern Ireland departmental services to £6.0221 billion for this financial year. The second purpose is to authorise the vote on account of £2.705 billion for 1995-96. That will enable the services of Northern Ireland Departments to continue until the 1995-96 main estimates are brought before the House later this year. As you have already remarked, Madam Speaker, the draft order does not cover expenditure by the Northern Ireland Office on law and order and other services. Details of the sum sought are given in the estimates booklet and the statement of sums required on account, which, as usual, are available in the Vote Office. I shall now turn to the estimates.

Some of the votes seek token increases only because new pressures have been offset by savings elsewhere in the vote. To give hon. Members the maximum time to speak, I shall refer only to the main areas where supplementary provision is sought. In the Department of Agriculture's vote 1, which covers expenditure on national agriculture and fisheries support measures, a token increase of £1,000 is required. Some £2 million is for additional uptake under the farm and conservation grant scheme. That is offset by savings in other areas.

In the Department's vote 2, covering local support measures, a net increase of £25.2 million is sought. The vote includes £26.5 million for the agricultural development operational programme, as a result of a higher number of claims than was originally anticipated. There is £700,000 for the disease eradication programme, and £1.3 million represents the carry forward of capital and running costs underspends from 1993-94. Those increases are partially offset by reduced requirements in other areas of the vote.

For the Department of Economic Development, increases are sought in three votes. A net increase of some £19 million is sought in vote 1. That includes £4.7 million for the provision of land and buildings by the Industrial Development Board. That is to meet expenditure on factory buildings for recent inward investment projects, and reflects the continuing success of the board in attracting competitive companies to Northern Ireland. There is £17.7 million for selective assistance to industry, mainly for existing inward investment projects. Also in this vote, £6.5 million is required for the Shorts recapitalisation programme. Those increases are offset by increased receipts totalling £8.5 million from the sale of IDB factories and lands.

In vote 2, a token increase of £1,000 is sought. There will he about £600,000 for the Northern Ireland tourist board to enable it to increase its efforts to promote and market Northern Ireland as a tourist destination. That increase is offset by increased receipts elsewhere in the vote.

The Department of Economic Development's vote 4 makes substantive provision for the expenses incurred in the privatisation of the electricity supply industry in Northern Ireland. Those costs have been met from the second instalment of payments from the Northern Ireland Electricity share issue.

For the Department of the Environment, a net increase of some £5.4 million is sought in vote 1. That includes about £4.3 million for maintenance of the road network and for additional capital works. Some £800,000 is for the Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency. Those increases are partially offset by increased receipts, including those for car parking and ferry services. Also in the vote, more than £47 million is appropriated in respect of the sale of Northern Ireland Airports Ltd.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock)

I have read press reports suggesting that the Government may have to repay to the European Community sums paid to help fund the development of Northern Ireland Airports Ltd. in the past. Can the Minister tell us whether those fears that we may have to repay substantial sums are unfounded or whether they are justified? Is the subject being explored? Indeed, has such a request been made at all?

Sir John Wheeler

As I know, the hon. Gentleman takes an informed interest in Northern Ireland Airports Ltd. I, too, read many things in the newspapers, most of which I do not believe; but if I can give the hon. Gentleman an authoritative answer to his question during the debate, or in correspondence, I shall gladly do so.

In vote 2, covering housing, token provision of £1,000 is sought. The £4.7 million required for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive includes increased resources for maintenance and to offset a fall in rental income from lower than anticipated house sales. Gross housing expenditure in Northern Ireland this year is expected to be about £564 million—£5 million more than in 1993–94.

In vote 4, covering environmental and other services, a net increase of some £3 million is sought. That includes £1.3 million for comprehensive development schemes and various adjustments between programmes. Increased expenditure is partially offset by additional receipts of £2.5 million.

In vote 5, covering office and general accommodation, £5.4 million is for new public building works, alterations and purchases.

For the Department of Education, a net increase of £2.7 million is sought in vote I. That includes about £4.1 million for grants to education and library boards, mainly for maintenance, minor works and equipment. It also provides for accommodation for Kilkeel high school following an arson attack last year. There is £1.7 million for voluntary schools, mainly for health and safety and for equipment. Those increases are offset by savings elsewhere in the vote.

In vote 2, an additional £5.4 million is sought. About £3 million is for mandatory awards and student loans, reflecting increased demand. There is £1.2 million for universities, mainly for essential equipment, and £400,000 for arts and museums, including the adaptation of premises to improve access and facilities for disabled people. Increases are also required for departmental administration, youth services and the Armagh observatory and planetarium.

For the Department of Health and Social Services, a net increase of £12.9 million is sought in vote 1. That includes £9 million for hospital, community health and personal social services and £6.5 million for capital expenditure. It also includes £1 million to provide help for persons disabled by violence. Those increases are offset by increased receipts and a reduction of £3.4 million in loans provision to trusts.

In vote 3, additional net provision of £2.1 million is required. That includes about £7 million for administration costs caused by increased work loads and capital expenditure. Those increases are offset by reductions elsewhere and by a net increase in receipts of some £4.9 million, mainly from the Department of Social Security for administering the Belfast benefit centre and the Belfast Child Support Agency centre.

Finally, in vote 4, which covers social security, £80.5 million is sought, mainly because of a greater than anticipated demand for income support and disability benefits, especially attendance and disability living allowances. That is offset by a decrease in income support and family credit.

In my opening remarks I have drawn attention to the main provisions of the order. I hope that, in replying to the debate, I shall be able to do my best to respond to the points raised by hon. Members. If I cannot reply tonight, I shall ensure that the hon. Members concerned receive a response in writing. I commend the order to the House.

7.29 pm

Mr. John Spellar (Warley, West)

It is unfortunate that tonight's debate has been curtailed by the Government. Last year, the corresponding debate went from 4.30 pm to 11.30 pm, whereas today's debate will last for less than three hours. Do the Government think that the concerns of Northern Ireland have decreased so much in the past year? The welcome changes brought about by the peace process mean that we should be devoting more time to discussing the issues, rather than less.

Front-Bench Members must now restrict their remarks so that the elected representatives from Northern Ireland—and other Members who take a keen interest in Northern Ireland affairs—can speak. We note that, during a debate on day-to-day matters of importance to the people of Northern Ireland, there is a remarkable lack of Conservative Back Benchers compared with Opposition Members.

The Government's behaviour in restricting the debate is frankly shabby, and would seem to be motivated more by petty considerations of who was in what Lobby last week than by the serious interests of the Province. In the brief time available, I shall address the order and its implications for the people of Northern Ireland.

Sir John Wheeler

I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman's remark to stand on the record. There is no question of this debate being curtailed because of the voting habits of any hon. Member. Such a proposition would be outrageous, and I strongly deny it.

Mr. Spellar

Perhaps in his closing remarks the Minister will he able to tell the House why the Government have curtailed the debate. He will have had adequate time to get an answer to that question.

We must look at what the order means to the people of Northern Ireland, and what the so-called peace dividend will mean. Planted headlines in the Tory-supporting press may claim that

Ulster people share £160 million peace bonus", but there is not much to suggest that in the figures.

If Northern Ireland's building employers are to be believed, they are facing a peace deficit. The employers' state of trade survey at the end of 1994 makes for grim reading. There has been a 15 per cent. reduction in construction activity through 1994, and inquiry levels for new work remain below the level required to maintain any significant recovery. The employers estimate that proposed expenditure on new capital projects in the next financial year, 1995-96, will be £427 million.

That represents a fall in cash terms of some £28 million, and a fall in real terms of 8 per cent. It would seem that, far from balancing out the reduction in construction activity arising from the decline in violence, the Government are accentuating it.

We welcome the Minister's recent action—following lobbying not only from builders but from representatives of Northern Ireland's political parties—to try to ensure a more regular flow of work to the construction industry, but that in itself cannot resolve the problem of the reduction in the overall volume of work coming from central Government.

Although it is likely that more private investment will follow the cessation of violence—it appears from the Minister's statement that there are welcome developments there—it now appears that, in the short term, there will be a decline. We recognise that the building industry lives in the short term. Once again, the Government—in their adherence to dogma—seem to be reinforcing the economic cycle, rather than evening it out. Ironically, the Government's actions in the construction industry run counter to their objective of reducing the levels of disadvantage between the communities, as construction has one of the highest levels of employment in the Catholic work force.

The Government have demonstrated once again their inability and unwillingness to plan, and that they have a mental block that prevents them from properly integrating their efforts with funds from outside, such as from the EU structural fund, the EU initiative for peace fund and the International Fund for Ireland. It is clear that people in Northern Ireland are concerned about the lack of any clear strategic plan from the Government to co-ordinate the way in which additional funding could be used. Earlier in the year, local councillors had cause to complain about cuts in the rate support grant which weakened their ability to provide matching funds for European programmes. That shows a lack of understanding of the realities of the financial opportunities which are available.

As the UK experienced in 1945, the major adjustments required by a shift to peace need a planned approach if major dislocation is to be avoided and investment is to be effective. Heaven knows, that investment is needed. Unemployment in Northern Ireland, as has been said many times from this Dispatch Box and elsewhere, is still—despite the recent welcome decline—12.1 per cent. of the work force, compared with 8.4 per cent. in Britain.

Of the 90,000 unemployed, well over half have been unemployed for more than one year. That compares only with the real unemployment black spots of Britain. In some areas, the figures are dramatically worse. In Derry—where I was on Monday—there is 23 per cent. male unemployment, and there are similar figures in Newry and Strabane. We will press the Government strongly to remove the restrictions on targeting investment on the long-term unemployed.

There is no doubt about the need for investment. If we take the vital area of communications, the amount of freight traffic on Northern Ireland's roads is growing by 7 per cent. a year. On the Belfast to Dublin route, it is growing by 20 per cent. a year. The Comptroller and Auditor-General has identified a road maintenance backlog of some £60 million, and the Government's own report on the condition of roads stated that much of Northern Ireland's road network was constructed in the 1960s and is close to the end of its desired life. The Minister rightly stressed the attractions that are needed for inward investment, and an adequate communications infrastructure is vital. On housing, the Government are at last responding, but that is against a background of a slump in the completion of low-cost houses from 4,572 in 1983 to 1,473 in 1993, and in the face of a rising housing list which now stands at 22,740. Quite frankly, the Government would be better served by letting the Housing Executive get on with the job rather than trying to hive off work into agencies and by compulsory competitive tendering.

On energy, the Government should stop being blinded by their rhetoric, and should recognise that many companies are facing steep increases in their electricity bills. The Government should abandon their attempts to set up an electricity pool, which would make matters worse. They should consider whether the Scottish interconnector will create or cost jobs in Northern Ireland. The Government should have a major rethink about an energy policy, and should recognise that they need a policy in the first place. They cannot leave it all to a mythical and non-existent market.

On water, rather than wasting money on expensive consultants' reports which tell them how to hive off each and every water authority activity, the Government should look for investment to reduce the 28 per cent. loss of water caused by leakage from reservoirs through to the consumers. They should take note of the widespread opposition across parties and communities—including the trade unions representing the work force—to the threats to privatise the water industry after the next general election, and also to the potential introduction of water metering as part of a review of the charging procedures.

The Minister may say that all I have discussed up to now involves the public sector and that the Government rightly wish to take the opportunity presented by the peace process to obtain a shift in the balance with the private sector, while recognising that the public sector plays a far larger part in the economy of Northern Ireland than in the United Kingdom as a whole. We endorse that objective, although we point out that the Government do not seem to have an effective short-term strategy for evening out the temporary dislocations of that shift.

What of that main objective to achieve the economic regeneration of Northern Ireland through the private sector? It is very clear that there is a window of opportunity, on which we must capitalise. In the words of the latest respected Coopers and Lybrand report, "Review and Prospects", which is produced each year:

Every effort should he made to maximise the opportunities that may arise from the international goodwill displayed towards the Province. It describes a

window of opportunity over the next 12 months to build a foundation for future inward investment. We all welcomed the investment conference in Belfast in December and we look forward to the conference in Washington in May and hope that it will help to attract inward investment. What the Minister had to say about advance factories was also welcome. The Government must recognise, however, that in the cut-throat and competitive world of inward investment a very strong and positive Government contribution is vital. They should be not merely considering new inward investment, important though that is, but studying the impact of Government measures and assistance on existing industry, which will provide most of any work force increase that helps to cut the horrific unemployment figures.

The Government should be asking the Ministry of Defence whether its ordering programme is helping or hindering the progress of Shorts as a world-class competitor. They should also be talking to the Department of Trade and Industry and asking it what backing it and other Departments will give, given the exciting developments in oil exploration away from the continental shelf into the Atlantic, to ensure that Harland and Wolff gets the contracts for the floating production vessels. What pressure will the Government bring to bear to ensure that the new generation of work comes to Belfast? It will be work not merely for that field but for a whole new generation of oil production developments around the world.

What are the Government doing for the mass of small firms in Northern Ireland to ensure adequate sources of finance to fund expansion? Again, one can see from the Coopers and Lybrand report that constraints on internal finance are one of the main reasons why firms in Northern Ireland have constraints on future investment.

What of the new industries, such as international communications-related industries, which are starting to spring up and to provide employment? The fundamental question is whether the Government will persuade the banks to invest some of the money in Northern Ireland industry that they are throwing away in the casinos of the derivatives market.

There is no doubt that the views of ordinary people in Northern Ireland hover between optimism and apprehension and that they welcome the return to normality and pray for it to become the norm. They recognise the unfinished agenda of jobs, homes, roads, water and energy. They—and we—need positive answers from the Minister tonight, to convince us that the order will begin to deal with those needs. If not, frankly, the Government should give way to a party that will.

7.42 pm

Mr. Roy Beggs (Antrim, East)

Department of the Environment vote 1 deals with transport and harbour services. I was pleased to have the opportunity this morning to welcome the Secretary of State for Transport to Larne harbour in my constituency, as he was able to see for himself recent developments which have been completed at a cost of £7 million, assisted by a 50 per cent. European regional development fund grant, under the Department of the Environment's Northern Ireland transport programme.

Larne harbour is well established as the second busiest ferry port in the United Kingdom. Last year, 1,870,751 passengers—nearly 2 million—445,885 cars and caravans and 376,680 commercial vehicles used the modernised port facilities. Those figures represent significant increases in all sectors and reflect the efficiency and reliability of the services which have made Larne Ireland's busiest ro-ro and ferry port, catering for 36 ferry arrivals and departures daily to Ardrossan, Cairnryan, Stranraer and Fleetwood.

Despite all that expenditure and further planned expenditure, however, strong rumours are circulating that the long association of Stena Sealink with the harbour may be severed in the near future and that the company may relocate its conventional ferry service to Belfast. A few weeks ago I was advised by Stena Sealink that a decision regarding the company's future use of Larne will be made at the end of this month. It has already been announced that Stena Sealink plans to launch a new high speed super-ferry service between Belfast and Stranraer in the spring of 1996.

The developments at the ports of Warrenpoint, Londonderry, Belfast and Lame have all helped to mitigate the peripherality and disadvantages of Northern Ireland, and the substantial investment and European Union grants to the ports have helped Northern Ireland firms quickly to access European markets and have helped to increase tourism to Northern Ireland. The objectives of the grants for port and harbour modernisation have been realised and we now have reliable, economic and efficient services for shipowners, importers and exporters.

I am concerned that one of the key elements of the Department of the Environment's transport development strategy, in giving Larne harbour a complementary role to Belfast as Northern Ireland's principal ro-ro and passenger port, may be thwarted if the rumoured move of Stena Sealink becomes a reality. That concern is widely shared by employees and their families, whose livelihoods depend on employment provided at Larne harbour. Businesses have relocated to Belfast in the past, but after a time the same businesses returned to Larne. If the rumoured relocation of Stena Sealink to Belfast becomes a reality, it will have damaging consequences for the future prosperity of Larne and East Antrim, where hoteliers are currently planning to increase accommodation to cope with an expected upsurge in tourism if the present peace becomes permanent.

I call on the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and on Ministers responsible for environment and economic development to initiate inquiries urgently to determine whether the higher average level of European assistance—up to 75 per cent. in the case of trust ports and Belfast port, compared with the 50 per cent. European Union assistance at Larne—has led to, or is leading to, distortions in competition.

Secondly, could business be attracted to ports prior to privatisation through very low tariff charges, perhaps made possible by cross-subsidy, with benefit expected to come on stream after privatisation, to the benefit of the new owners? Will Ministers investigate such charges and whether any inducement is being offered by any Northern Ireland port?

I also call on the Secretary of State and Northern Ireland Ministers to monitor the impact on Northern Ireland ports of the vast sums of money being pumped into the Irish Republic—estimated to be running at the rate of £1 million per day for the next six years—especially when Interreg assistance for maritime links between Wales and the Irish Republic, combined with the profits from duty free sales on ferries, could cause further distortion and competition. Will Belfast harbour privatisation result in the clawback of some European Union grants?

Part II of the Department of the Environment vote 1 deals with roads. On previous occasions, I have mentioned the necessity of upgrading the Larne to Belfast road and I urge the Minister to endeavour to advance the start date for extending the dual carriageway from Gingles corner, Larne, and to follow the example set by the Secretary of State for Transport here and to plan thereafter a succession of phased road developments until we have a dual carriageway all the way between Larne and Belfast. A start is required earlier than the 1997 date that has been promised.

I again appeal for priority to be given to the Carrickfergus to Belfast road project and for genuine sympathy, consideration and compromise to be shown by officials when negotiating with the frontagers whose homes will be severely affected by the necessary road works. The recent and current severe weather conditions in Northern Ireland have highlighted the total inadequacy of the Department of the Environment's road gritting programme in frosty conditions. I therefore ask for a reappraisal of the funding allocated and the inclusion of all school bus routes in regular salt and gritting schedules. Additional funding should be provided for the Department's road maintenance programme and future expenditure plans.

Does the Minister accept that Northern Ireland still has the lowest quality of early-years educational provision in the United Kingdom? Does he agree that children who have access to early-years nursery education or pre-school care and education are likely to achieve higher educational performance, less likely to be become involved in criminal activity in later life, less likely to have contact with welfare agencies, less likely to experience marital breakdown in adult life, and less likely as teenagers to get pregnant and become single parents?

Will the Minister confirm that the promised classroom assistants for Northern Ireland primary schools will be in post by September 1995? Will he confirm that the time allocation to each school will be based on the number of primary-one children of compulsory school age only enrolled at the school? Have the Departments of Finance and Personnel, of Health and Social Services and of Education reached interdepartmental agreement on the future funding of the Northern Ireland Preschool Playgroups Association yet? Can we be assured of equality of funding across Northern Ireland? Is it not disgraceful that in 1994 parents contributed £1 to £2.50 per day while health boards contributed only from 35p a day per child in the generous Eastern board area to as little as 10.4p per day in the Northern board area? [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] Shame, indeed.

How can funding for pre-school play groups in Northern Ireland continue to be kept lower than that received by most groups in England, Scotland and Wales? I hope that the Minister recognises the value of those groups and, in the absence of adequate nursery school provision, will better fund the Northern Ireland Preschool Playgroups Association while seeking to increase nursery school places in Northern Ireland.

I have strong reservations about the system of allocating extra funds to a school's budget for the purpose of targeting social deprivation and educational disadvantage. On what evidence was the decision made to allocate funds to schools based on the number of pupils receiving free meals in those schools? That funding is directing vast sums of money to maintained schools and significantly lesser sums to controlled schools, and is clearly perceived to be discriminating against the controlled sector. I wholeheartedly support the concept of targeting need fairly and equitably, but a more selective method of assessing entitlement to extra funds for social deprivation and educational disadvantage must be quickly found. Construction costs in Northern Ireland have increased significantly of late, with the result that tender prices being returned to education and library boards for capital projects are higher than the present permitted spend level. Will the Minister carry out an early review and raise the ceiling at which education boards can accept tender prices and award contracts? At the same time, could any future moratorium on public spending in the Department of Education be lifted sufficiently early in the financial year to enable permitted expenditure to be incurred?

I pay tribute to the Minister responsible for education for his assistance in enabling Newtownabbey community college to become established smoothly and for providing the necessary funding to meet the needs of pupils and staff of the former Hopefield and Rathcoole high schools when they came together in the newly opened Newtownabbey community college. Will the Minister assure us that, where rationalisation or amalgamation of schools has been agreed by education boards, parents and teachers, he will in future seek to provide the necessary funding for permanent accommodation to be in place at the time of the amalgamation, merger or rationalisation? Such an assurance helps teachers, parents and boards to reach agreement more easily when decisions involving school closures have to be made.

I was amazed recently when, despite the sound advice of principal teachers in Larne and the Carrickfergus area, the needs of a small number of parents resulted in discrimination against the vast majority of the population. The Minister proceeded to announce that there would be another new integrated post-primary schools in east Antrim. The existing schools require substantial capital investment. All existing secondary schools have a measure of voluntary integration at pupil and staff level, which has been developing steadily, slowly and effectively.

The decision to create a new integrated school in an area where a voluntary grammar school, two Roman Catholic maintained schools and a controlled secondary school have closed in the past 10 years, and where more than 600 secondary school places are already vacant, is irresponsible. The decision will threaten the stability of the remaining post-primary schools, whether they be grammar schools, controlled secondary schools or Roman Catholic maintained secondary schools.

The reality, which should not go unnoticed, is that the percentage of Roman Catholic children in the Carrickfergus area is 6.5 per cent. and in the Larne area the total maintained primary school population is 16 per cent. of the school population. So there simply are not enough children to produce an integrated secondary school.

Is the Minister determined to lower enrolment for a viable integrated school, and does the Department of Education expect area boards or the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools to maintain the same standard? From where will the children be bussed to that new school? Is the Minister prepared to sacrifice the voluntary integration that has already occurred? Will he assure me that the established needs of existing post-primary schools in east Antrim will receive the capital funding they need before money is released for a new integrated post-primary school?

It may be of interest to the House to know, and the Minister should seriously note, how matters are developing. Just the other day, the Braidside integrated primary school in the Ballymena area advertised for a teacher to teach Roman Catholic religious education in an integrated school. I understood that there had been agreement in all the main Churches that there was to be a common religious education curriculum. I do not think that that will be well looked on in Roman Catholic maintained schools, where children would already be having their religious education.

When does the Minister intend to audit the cost to the education service of Northern Ireland of providing free transport beyond the nearest appropriate school? I believe that the Minister will be shocked at the escalating transport costs when he carries out such an audit.

I note that in part II the sum of £416,000 is authorised for expenditure by the Office of Electricity Regulation. In answer to a recent question, I was informed that the transitional relief scheme was introduced to give industry time to adjust to the application of cost-reflective pricing following privatisation, and that it will have served its purpose by the time it ends on 31 March 1996. There is only a year to go, and there is no hope of achieving that.

I must tell the Minister that consumers, whether they be domestic or industrial, are very worried about electricity prices in Northern Ireland and would like greater intervention by the regulator, so if there is not to be an extension of transitional relief to take account of the high costs of electricity in Northern Ireland, perhaps the regulator can find a way.

I urge the Minister to consider carefully and sympathetically the application being made by Nigen for a non-fossil fuel obligation tranche in respect of its energy-from-waste project for Belfast West. The project, when operational at the Belfast West plant, would provide better environmental solutions to the Northern Ireland problem of how best to deal with waste disposal. Approval would also obviate any need for a super-dump at Magheramorne in my constituency and could make possible a major environmental and recreational project for which millennium funding will be sought.

The Prime Minister's investment forum held in Belfast was a credit to all involved in the organisation and to all who participated. We have just lost a further 100 jobs in Larne in my constituency, and my constituents and I are keen to know whether there has been any positive sign that there has been, or is likely to be, additional inward investment as a result of that conference. We in Larne and in East Antrim would like to share in that, as no doubt would other areas of the Province.

Finally, I am sure that other Members present in the Chamber would welcome an explanation of schedule part I, Department of Economic Development, paragraph 4. A sum of £1,000 has been granted, but in the appropriations-in-aid column there is a figure representing an increase of £186,131,000. I should be pleased, as I am sure would others, to know what that has to do with the privatisation of the electricity industry in Northern Ireland.

8.3 pm

Mr. Eddie McGrady (South Down)

I was disappointed by the Minister's introduction of the estimates. I thought that he might have discussed the new economic position in which we might be involved with the advent of peace in Northern Ireland. He might have discussed not only the advent of peace being the absence of violence and therefore giving confidence for economic and commercial development, but the announcement of the various additional fundings that may, and hopefully will, be available for economic development in Northern Ireland; 300 million ecu for 1996, 1997 and 1998, the International Fund for Ireland, structural funds from the EEC in addition to those that already exist and the inward transfer of money from the security budget to other departmental budgets.

I should have thought that the debate was an opportunity to make a statement about the future economic development of Northern Ireland in that new context of peace and of substantial additional funding. It appears to me that Departments of Government, the Industrial Development Board and, to a lesser extent, the Local Enterprise Development Unit and the tourist board, which are the primary job creators in Northern Ireland in the public sector, have no new plans whatsoever regarding that new dimension—that new dispensation. I find that not only surprising but very alarming, because there are about to be made available to us those very substantial fundings, which can be dissipated in short-term, poor projects or wisely invested and garnered to create long-term economic regeneration and more permanent job creation.

Tourism has already taken a distinct upward turn in the past six months. I continue to find it startling that the tourist board does not appear to have restructured its policy and agenda to take advantage of that. We need a regeneration of our tourist infrastructure and a renewal of facilities. Had the Minister done that, it would have been a useful contribution to the debate tonight, but my response to it would have been somewhat different. I would have asked, "Who will share in the economic regeneration?"

The history of the past 25, if not the past 70, years of administration shows that the area that I and others represent—south-east Ulster, roughly the local government districts of Banbridge, Down and Newry and Mourne—has suffered blatant economic discrimination. I wish to know whether the Government, at this very late stage, will take account of that.

When I make that statement, it is often said that I exaggerate the position. I do not begrudge the inward investment in Belfast, the Antrims and Derry, and I wish those people well in their new prosperity, but something more direct and positive must be done for an area that has endemic social and economic deprivation and endemic high unemployment, such as the parts of south-east Ulster that I have named.

Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way on that subject, because there is greater endemic unemployment in Belfast than in south-east Ulster. Does he accept that, in the latest figures for chairmen and directors, the director of Norbrooke Laboratories leads the list, with a salary of about £750,000 a year? Is that a reflection of poverty in the area?

Mr. McGrady

I do not know whether I welcome the hon. Gentleman's question, because it has confused me. The salary of the chairman of Norbrooke Laboratories is the pay and salary, exorbitant and disgraceful as it is. of one person, not of his employees in the town of Newry. The area that I am referring to is rural, and when there is not sufficient concentration to allow one to see the consequences of unemployment and social deprivation, one tends to think that they do not exist. However, the problems are simply scattered. The numbers are there, the people are there and the suffering is there.

I shall give an example of what has happened in my constituency. I welcome the recent announcements about inward investment, and I hope that those who will benefit from that investment will have long, successful and happy lives. In 1989-90, less than 1.5 per cent. of the total number of potential investors who visited Northern Ireland, visited south-east Ulster. In 1991, the figure was less than 1.5 per cent. and in 1991-92 it was less than 1 per cent. Under the aegis of the IDB or the Local Enterprise Development Unit, the entire area received less than 1 per cent. of visits from inward investors. The last figure that I have is for 1992–93, when there was an "enormous improvement" of 3 per cent. of visits by inward investors for the whole of south-east Ulster. To me, that represents deprivation.

The Industrial Development Board and the Department of Economic Development tell me constantly that they are striving to correct that situation. In his opening remarks tonight, the Minister referred to the sale of industrial development sites. However, no such sites have been provided in the district town of Downpatrick, in spite of much dithering in the past four or five years. According to an advertisement that I saw a few weeks ago, industrial sites are being sold in Newcastle, Ballynahinch, Kilkeel, Warrenpoint and Downpatrick. How can we have economic development if we are losing all the areas that have been designated for that development?

According to the latest information that I have received, the Department of Economic Development and the planning division are playing ping pong with the issue. They cannot sit around the table and work out which industrial sites should be allocated for inward investment.

The Department of Economic Development and the IDB say that they cannot bring investors to the area that I represent because we are too far away from the ports. It is 10 miles from the northern part of my constituency to the centre of Belfast, the biggest port—apart from Larne—in Ireland. There is also a port at Warrenpoint in the south. So that excuse is null and void.

Another excuse that I am given is a valid one. I am told that the road structure is such that it would not encourage inward investors to consider investing in my area. The hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs), who has just made his speech, spoke about completing work on dual carriageways and building new roads in his constituency. He should be thankful that there are dual carriageways in his constituency. We hardly have one single carriageway that is capable of carrying an articulated truck. How can we attract inward investment to areas of deprivation unless we have a programme of infrastructure development to go with it?

I refer specifically to the A7 from Belfast to the district town of Downpatrick and the B8 from there to the port of Warrenpoint. Not one pound of capital moneys has been spent on new road infrastructure in the entire area to which I have referred in the past 14 years. The same was true for many years before that. That is another sign of the lack of commitment on the part of Governments and agencies to the area that I represent. The fishing industry is concentrated in my area, and we all know what is happening to that. Various European Community regulations, the Hague preference, the total allowable catch and the days at sea provision are depressing the fishing industry and are affecting not only the fishermen but the food producers who are dependent on the fish harvest.

Kilkeel in my constituency is the biggest fishing town in Northern Ireland, but the fishermen cannot get in and out of the harbour because the Northern Ireland Harbour Authority will not provide a groyne to keep the boats safe. I welcome the expenditure of £6 million on another part of Northern Ireland for pleasure purposes, but I think that £3 million could be provided to establish a groyne for the economic fishing base in the harbour and the port of Kilkeel.

That development has not taken place because the Government will not finance the Northern Ireland Harbour Authority to carry out that work. The authority proposes to levy the fishermen to pay for the project, but their income is running down rapidly and they cannot afford to pay. I witnessed a good fishing boat being burnt on a beach in County Down because the owners could no longer afford to run it. That is the extent of the deprivation in that community.

Mr. Thomas McAvoy (Glasgow, Rutherglen)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am sure that he will recall that when the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs visited Kilkeel—the hon. Gentleman organised that visit, as the local Member—Committee members were appalled to learn that, because of the difficulties at the harbour, the fishermen were losing more than £200,000 in revenue each year.

Mr. McGrady

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I agree with what he says, but in fact the losses are much greater than that if the fishermen are prevented from going to sea for weeks on end.

I see that you are watching the clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as my time is running out, so I shall conclude my remarks. We can see the same pattern of non-funding in other areas. It was announced last week that some £63 million will be spent on school rehabilitation programmes, but not a penny will go to my entire area£except the money which the Minister announced tonight for the rehabilitation of a Kilkeel school which suffered an arson attack.

Because of the time constraints, I cannot comment in detail about hospitals and the provision of social services. New hospitals have been built in Antrim, Moyle, Derry, Belfast and Coleraine, yet the hospitals which serve my area have been in a queue for funding for 30 years. They have not yet received a penny, in spite of many promises. That pattern of non-funding cannot be denied. I would supply other evidence of lack of funding, but time does not permit me to do so.

The people of my area have strived to live together and we have worked hard. We have cast out from our community the men of violence and those who espouse the cause of violence for political purposes. We have accepted, by and large—there are always hiccups in every community—the diversity of political opinion and religious belief, and we have lived together. If we had blown one another apart, money would be flowing into the area, but because we have lived together like ordinary, decent people, supported one another and kept out the men of violence, we are ignored and neglected.

I will make one final request of the Minister and abandon the rest of what I had hoped to say. Will he take a message back to the Departments of the Northern Ireland Office–because he has overall charge of finance and personnel–and ask them to set up a task force for economic regeneration similar to the ones that are set up when jobs are lost in other areas? Our area never had the jobs in the first place. We would love to be facing the loss of 100 jobs; we do not have 100 jobs to lose. We want a fair share of the cake and of the development and the funding that will accompany the new era of peace and economic development. If the Minister can provide that, we shall be able to fulfil our commitment to provide jobs, reasonable wages and an adequate standard of living for the people of Down and south-east Ulster.

8.18 pm

Rev. William McCrea (Mid-Ulster)

I can understand much of the frustration expressed by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) about the lack of industrial investment and of Government finance in his area. If the hon. Gentleman believes that he has problems, he had better listen to me because there are plenty in the constituency which I have had the honour of representing in this place for the past 12 years.

I shall develop some of the important themes on which hon. Members have already touched. The vote on the Department of Economic Development certainly involves matters that must be considered and attended to.

The first vote concerns the Department of Agriculture. I come from and represent not only a farming home but a farming constituency. The farming community has been the backbone of Ulster's economy and prosperity over the years. It has been through rather difficult times and still faces grave difficulties—for example, grave concern has been expressed to me recently on behalf of pig farmers, especially those with farms of smaller unit size, about the viability of their units in future.

The matter has been raised in Europe. The European Commissioner has money to assist pig farmers, but I am told that he has stated that they must depend on market forces. I have heard that before. Having said that farmers must depend on market forces and take their place at the whim of the market, in the next breath the Commissioner tells us that those same farmers are not permitted to buy cereals on the world market, but must buy dearer cereals from Europe. Farmers in the Province find those cereal prices exorbitant and colossal, and they add to the burden placed on the agricultural sector of our community.

The same vote applies to the fishing industry. I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members have received numerous representations on behalf of the fishing industry which is under threat, particularly from the recent decision taken in the House and another place concerning the Spanish fleet.

As that decision was taken in Europe, will the Minister assure the House tonight that the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for the Department of Agriculture will seek to gain extra money from Europe to permit appropriate decommissioning of fishing vessels without taking money out of the fishing budget? I am led to believe that there is a limited budget and that the money that should go into the fishing industry will be used for schemes such as that mentioned by the hon. Member for South Down–the harbour in Kilkeel. That is essential money which should be provided.

The fishermen face one of the greatest challenges they have ever faced. They have to cope with depleting stocks and financial problems as they try to keep their families. It is disgraceful and despicable that inadequate provision is made for the Kilkeel fishermen and the harbours. I join the hon. Member for South Down in asking the Minister to provide that money.

It is appropriate to say that the present Minister with responsibility for agriculture is one of the first Ministers to have gone to Europe to fight for the position of farmers in Northern Ireland; it must be placed on record that that is appreciated. It would be remiss of me to say that there is a need for assistance but no representations are being made; the noble Lady certainly fights our corner. I hope she knows that right hon. and hon. Members will back her if she continues to fight for appropriate finances to meet the needs of the fishing industry, bearing in mind the serious challenges that it faces.

Under the same agricultural budget, I should mention the changes that have been recommended at Loughery agricultural college, in my constituency. I attended a deputation to the Minister but, unfortunately, it seems that the decision has been taken. I genuinely feel that that decision is detrimental to the interest of the Cookstown area, which has the second highest unemployment rate in the United Kingdom. The decision is regarded as a blow not only to teaching staff but to ancillary staff and local services. Many small businesses relied on Loughery agricultural college and its vibrant college campus as a means of income.

Moving on to the Department of Economic Development, I have listened to much of the talk about the peace dividend. There seems to be plenty of verbiage and witty talk and it all sounds good. It is wonderful to hear so many wonderful promises. If I believed in all the amounts of money that are supposed to be rolling into Ulster, I would not know what road to keep off, as so many tonnes of pounds and punts would be arriving—perhaps we will not get punts; they are getting them in rather than giving them out, but there would be dollars and all the rest coming in because of the so-called peace dividend.

Who will enjoy this so-called new prosperity? I have already said that I understand the fears and frustrations of the hon. Member for South Down, but, in some ways, he has to thank his own party leader, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), for the current position. When the hon. Gentleman goes to America, although he leads a particular party, he is very good at mentioning a certain part of Foyle, but he is not so helpful or good at assisting his colleagues when it comes to investment. We have listened to plenty of media coverage about how many jobs are coming from America to the Province, especially through the efforts of the hon. Member for Foyle. Perhaps the hon. Member for South Down should tap his hon. Friend on the shoulder and tell him not be so selfish.

Mr. McGrady

I should like to endorse the hon. Gentleman's magnificent tribute to the leader of my party for his great endeavours in raising funds in America and spearheading the Trojan fund in Europe. He should take on board the point that these funds are paid through Government Departments and the International Fund for Ireland and are not at the personal disposal of any individual Member of Parliament.

Rev. William McCrea

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. Perhaps he should wait for the rest of the comments before he starts thanking and congratulating his hon. Friend. After all these trips to America, we are still told by the hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar), representing Her Majesty's Opposition, about the vast and terrible unemployment of what he called the Derry area; it is actually Londonderry. Perhaps the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman needs some extra education about the part of the country he is in.

The hon. Member for Foyle has been promising plenty, but it is all promises. In actual fact, there has been little substance. Earlier in the debate, we discussed the difference between substance and the rest, but here we are told that the hon. Member for Foyle has brought in a certain number of jobs. Strabane is in the same constituency. The Bogside area of Londonderry would have a chance of getting some benefit, but Strabane has little of the prosperity from America or anywhere else, never mind places as far down the country as South Down, where there are problems that the hon. Member for South Down needs to talk over with his hon. Friend the Member for Foyle.

In the debate in July 1994 on economic development, I raised a matter concerning Omagh. I received a letter from the Minister after the debate pointing out that IBB had recently acquired a 26-acre site at Doogary. When will a factory be completed on the site, and when is it hoped that its occupant will commence operations, thus giving gainful employment to local people?

What steps is the Department of Economic Development taking to enhance employment in the Cookstown area? I attended a meeting with the divisional planning officer and one of my constituents just over a week ago, requesting the development of land near Killymoon. Surely the Government must show an active interest in getting industrial development into the area. How many major firms have shown an interest in moving into that region of high unemployment?

Education standards in the Cookstown area are among the highest in the Province. Young people are able, ready and willing to rise to the challenge, but the town desperately needs hope because of its high unemployment. The Castlederg area, for instance, continues to worry me. Previous Ministers spoke in glowing terms about new possibilities for the area; a special report was commissioned, and civil servants were deputed to examine the area's needs. My constituents, however, want not promises but action.

What has happened since we last discussed these matters? What industrial developments have taken place in Omagh, Cookstown and Castlederg? The Government must bear some responsibility for the sense of hopelessness felt by a number of people. Instead of adding to employment, the Government have caused the closure of Omagh's maternity unit, thus removing jobs from the area. They have not given the signal that they are backing industrial investment and development in the area and ensuring that essential services are in place. The maternity unit was excellent, but the Government have closed it. They have also run down in-patient mental health institutional treatment by cutting staff numbers.

Since our last debate, the Department has decided to remove Cookstown's rates office. Rather than assisting employment in the area, it has moved civil servants away from an unemployment black spot. Councillor William Larmour and I had a meeting with the senior officer, Mr. Gallagher, who expressed grave concern; but this appears to be Government policy.

We made a suggestion at that time, because we had heard that housing benefit administration was being centralised. There is excellent office accommodation in Cookstown, which will now be left empty; that could have been used. Geographically, Cookstown is the centre of the Province, so such action could not have been described as isolationist. After I raised the matter, however, the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss), wrote me a letter including the following statement:

As for Housing Benefit, Mr. Gallagher assures me that Cookstown was, indeed, one of the locations considered for the proposed centralised office. However"— the first part always cheers one up, but the next bit tramps one down into the ground—

a detailed assessment of the pros and cons of siting in a provincial town, rather than Belfast, has concluded that Belfast offered more advantages, especially in terms of availability of staff with Housing Benefit experience, proximity to the main body of claimants in the greater Belfast area, communication and greater flexibility in the efficient management and use of staff. I am told on the highest authority that there is no reason why the housing benefit office could not be centralised in the accommodation in Cookstown, which has just been upgraded. It seems, however, that it must be in Belfast. When it suits the Government, they will remove civil servants from Belfast and send them to Londonderry; if they can move them as far from Belfast as that, why can they not move them to excellent accommodation in Cookstown, in the centre of the Province?

The Government's action gives the wrong signal to incoming industrialists. If they are not interested in retaining services—and civil servants—in the area, what encouragement does that give to those who look for Government commitment? What have the Government kept in that area? Instead of showing commitment by introducing jobs, they are withdrawing them. That does not give the green light for prosperity; it gives the red light to industrialists, telling them to keep away.

That is a serious mistake by the Government. I appeal to the Minister of State to ask his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to look afresh at the centralisation of housing benefit arrangements: excellent accommodation is available for staff to walk into. The Government tell us how sad they are that the Cookstown area has the second highest unemployment rate in the Province, but they are taking jobs away and adding to its problems.

I have mentioned Castlederg. It was announced yesterday that Derg Valley hospital was to be closed. Again, rather than offering encouragement to an area with employment problems, the Government offer hopelessness. The hospital serves elderly people who provided the backbone in the creation of the health service, bringing prosperity to the Province: they paid their taxes and national insurance, and were told that the state would look after them in the later days of their lives. Now state provision in Castlederg has been withdrawn from elderly people, and is being handed over to the voluntary or the private sector.

I have no objection to the voluntary sector, which should be encouraged to become vibrant; nor do I object to the private sector. I do not believe, however, that the Government have the right to withdraw from their responsibility to look after the old and the sick. Again, the Government commissioned special reports on Castlederg's needs; I wonder what they cost. In the end, rather than sending a message that they were backing the hospital and those who were willing to put their money where their mouth was, the Government withdrew the services that it provided.

Economic development and the Bann are connected issues. As has been said, we need an infrastructure programme. We need roads. I understand the feelings of the hon. Member for South Down, who sees motorways, dual carriageways and a mass of lit-up roundabouts in other parts of the Province. All that is wonderful; perhaps part of the rest of the Province can enjoy some of it, too. Perhaps we can ensure that the industries that come to Mid-Ulster can get their goods to the ports quickly.

Remember, Cookstown is a central part of the Province. There is a bottleneck in Cookstown because it needs a bypass. Magherafelt needs a bypass. Why is the money that is rolling in not used to remove the bottlenecks in Magherafelt, Cookstown and Omagh, allowing the industries that come out to the west of the Bann to get their goods to the ports as quickly as possible? The Omagh area badly needs stage 3 of the through-pass, yet I am told that it is not on the priority list.

I appreciate the progress that has been made in stages 1 and 2, but without stage 3 it is ineffective. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) used his influence in another place to have the road recognised as a trans-European highway. I mentioned that in the previous debate and I shall keep mentioning it. It is lovely to get the trans-European highway. It sounds good, but it must be able to carry the vehicles. It must be capable of encouraging industries to come into the area. Without stage 3 in Omagh, the commercial and agricultural life of the Tyrone county town will be strangled.

Another by-product of not having that through-pass is that land earmarked on the 2002 plan cannot be developed. It is landlocked. Without the development of the third stage of the through-pass, it will continue to be landlocked. House prices are unacceptably high in Omagh town. I urge the Minister to treat the matter with urgency and seriousness and to place stage 3 on the Department's priority list so that work can commence at the completion of stage 2. It is vital that Cookstown gets a bypass and that it follows on to the bypass in Magherafelt. A small area of the road network needs help to assist the industrial development of our area.

I must press one other matter, which is outside my particular area, but it does follow on. There is an excellent road from Londonderry to Castledawson roundabout and on to Toome. Unfortunately, there is a bottleneck at Toomebridge. A dual carriageway is needed from Toomebridge to the M2. I genuinely believe that that would be of great assistance. If all this money means anything, let it be put into something productive, which would help the industrial development of our community.

In Omagh recently, Queen's university announced that it would operate a faculty unit in the technology centre. I urge the Minister earnestly to consider allowing the Department of Education to take over the former Tyrone and Fermanagh hospital. It has 3,000 sq m of excellent buildings, which have recently been refurbished to a high standard. It is an historic building. It is situated in a mature campus ground of more than 300 acres, with student accommodation, recreation halls, outdoor sports facilities and other excellent amenities. It is sitting there for the university to take up. Surely it should be considered as a campus site at a European level. That would be a great advancement educationally and economically for the western area.

My constituents face many problems. I believe that it is vital that the House gives due consideration to them. We must ensure that there is less rigid planning in the countryside. The farming community is not able to allow its sons and daughters to build in the countryside, and we need to consider that.

Pre-school nursery education has been mentioned. There is a tremendous lack of it within the community.

The hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) mentioned the extra funds that were allocated between the maintained and the controlled sector.

We were told that we had to put up Irish signs so that people could read in Irish as well as English. I read something very interesting in the paper today. I read that this person, Adams, the Sinn Fein president, went to the Arran Islands at the weekend. The article says:

He opened his address to the crowded hall in Irish but then, admitting that his knowledge of the first tongue wasn't the best, switched to English. And he has the audacity and the front, which the Government drank hook, line and sinker, to say that we should spend public money, at a time of great restriction, and put up Irish signs, which fewer than about 3 per cent. of the people can read. Even Adams himself, who is paraded all around America as the great hero, cannot read Irish. He started his speech in Irish and then had to apologise that he knew nothing about it. That is not the only thing that he knows nothing about.

There is a great need for expenditure in the Province. My constituency needs it, as do other hon. Members' constituencies. I am not saying that mine should get more than others, but I do believe that, in the past, my constituency has not had its fair share. I believe that we have a right to demand that it does.

8.46 pm

Mr. Clifford Forsythe (Antrim, South)

I hesitate to talk about the roads and new industry that I have in my constituency. Perhaps I should mention them briefly, as time is going on.

The policy on the sale of Housing Executive houses is good; people like to own their own homes. But it has created a difficulty, as the houses that are sold are beside Housing Executive houses that have not been sold. Unfortunately, the Housing Executive does not keep the area in a good condition. That, unfortunately, means that people who have bought their own homes live in a "through-other" area, as we say in Northern Ireland and cannot sell their homes. That is extremely unfair on those house owners. It is about time that the Housing Executive got its act together and did something about that.

The Housing Executive should also look at some of the objectionable neighbours that it puts into its houses. Perhaps I should explain what I mean by that. Unfortunately, we have in Northern Ireland what are known as "druggies" houses, where people dispense drugs. The people who live in them fortify their houses in such a way that, if they are suspected of having drugs and the police arrive, by the time the police get into the house the drugs have been burnt–in a fire that is always burning, both winter and summer.

It is also known that certain flats contain animals that are not supposed to be kept. We know of flats in which two large rottweilers are kept in the one flat, simply to keep out the law, if it happened to come along. It is time that the Housing Executive, the police and the Northern Ireland Office got together to see whether some way can be found to sort out that problem, because it is very serious in certain areas.

A more mundane but no less important matter is that the coal advisory service is changing, because of the privatisation of British Coal. How will the solid fuel boilers and flues and so on be looked after? I hope that that matter will be looked at quickly and seriously.

Northern Ireland still has giro drops, which do not seem to be understood in some circles, and they must be investigated. If legislation is required, it should be introduced. I would accept a letter from the Minister, as well as a few remarks in reply at the end of the debate. Perhaps he could have a look at why grants are processed so slowly. I think that it takes about 12 months to get a Housing Executive grant.

A Bill relating to pensions is currently in the House of Lords. Part of that Bill will not apply to Northern Ireland and I assume that the legislation will be brought in by order. Perhaps the Minister will let me know whether that is so. An important aspect of that Bill is how trustees are selected to represent pensioners. I should like the legislation changed so that pensioners can democratically elect their trustee rather than have one appointed.

In the past I have had some knowledge of water privatisation, and I am rather concerned that it is still being visualised for Northern Ireland. Of course, there may be a change of Government and it may fall by the wayside. I am quite sure that, if the Opposition become the Government, they will not privatise. Northern Ireland has an excellent water system. Belfast water commissioners were renowned throughout the world and, usually, the operation was run by local councillors. That was an excellent idea and it would be a great pity if the system were changed. We, of course, oppose the privatisation of water in Northern Ireland.

The Department of the Environment vote 1 deals with roads. I support the aim of my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) to complete the dual carriageway to Lame. I was rather afraid to mention that, because colleagues have different views on roads in Northern Ireland. I should certainly like to see the dual carriageway finished. Perhaps I could make a local plea for the A26 between Antrim and Ballymena.

I was interested in a letter from the Minister with responsibility for the environment in Northern Ireland to my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross). It referred to EC funding for unadopted roads. I have several times mentioned such roads in the House and I hope that they are being looked at, because the issue needs to be sorted out. I hesitate to get into mundane matters such as those involving travellers and gipsies camping on lay-bys. However, in a year in which the resource element to councils has been cut, it is not right to have 40 or 50 caravans parking on a DoE lay-by and then leaving. I estimate that the cost of clearing up and putting right the damage to the site would probably be about £600, and that does not include farmers' fencing and so on that was badly damaged and burned. It is time that that was examined and perhaps an effort made to make sure that only those with a legitimate reason for parking for a short time are looked after.

I spoke about councils. Ratepayers are complaining because, no matter what percentage the councils put on the rate, the regional portion is always much greater. For instance, if the council adds 3 per cent., the regional rate is generally about 9 per cent. and is portrayed as 6 per cent. Councillors have to carry the can for that 6 per cent. when they put on only 3 per cent. That is most unfair to councillors, most of whom do a good job with what they have.

I am pleased at the number of new industries that have come to my area. I congratulate the Industrial Development Board on its good work along those lines. I hope that difficulties that have been mentioned in the newspapers about other projects are overcome and that new industries will come to the Province as quickly as possible.

I am a bit concerned about vote 2 of the Department of Economic Development, because the tourist grants, to which we are now paying much attention, seem to be causing difficulty. I had a couple of cases in which the grants seemed to take a long time to come through. There seems to be an inclination to give grants for hotels and other projects coming into Northern Ireland rather than to the entrepreneurs in the Province who are trying to start up their own hotels and the like.

In the context of the privatisation of Belfast international airport, we are opposed to the privatisation of air traffic control. There was a suggestion to that effect, although I think that the idea has been deferred. We support those in the rest of the United Kingdom who are totally opposed to the privatisation of the air traffic control system. It is essential to have confidence in those systems, and they should remain as they are.

I have a criticism related to tourism which involves an airport outside Northern Ireland. I hope that I am not ruled out of order for mentioning it. We have an excellent new airline which started last week and uses Stansted airport. I had the unfortunate experience of sitting for hours in a plane on an apron at Stansted because it appeared that the proper de-icing equipment, or enough of it, was not available. There certainly did not seem to be enough snow clearing equipment and there was only I in of snow on the runway. Perhaps the Minister would speak to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport about that.

Sir John Wheeler

I may be responsible for what happens to every blade of grass in Northern Ireland, but I am not responsible for Stansted airport. However, I shall ensure that my right hon. Friend is made aware of the hon. Gentleman's concerns.

Mr. Forsythe

I thank the Minister for that. The spirit of co-operation would be helped if we had more tourists coming through Stansted to Northern Ireland.

I had intended to make a few comments about the Department of Health and Social Services in Northern Ireland, but I shall restrict them. One of them is about family credit, which does not seem to be taken up because of the large amount of paperwork involved. People who send in pay slips, as they are supposed to do, find that they either get lost, are out of date or are the wrong ones. They do the same thing again. I know people who, even though they need the money, stop trying to get it. If the benefit is there, it is only right that people who deserve to receive it should do so. The fact that it may be difficult for some people should be considered.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) wants to discuss health matters. It has been reported to me that, in certain parts of Northern Ireland, people over 75 years of age are being directed to geriatric-type hospitals instead of to normal hospitals. Apparently, those people do not have much going for them. I am sure that the Minister will draw attention to that.

The National Playing Fields Association is issuing information on a multi-game wall where one plays all sorts of games. If one has a small area, one can put up such a wall and kick a ball against it, or play basketball and cricket. That is a good idea. If there is no room for a proper sports ground, erecting such a wall should be considered. I remember as a boy kicking a ball against a wall. It did me no harm. I recommend that to the Minister.

9 pm

Mr. Thomas McAvoy (Glasgow, Rutherglen)

I am conscious of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) on Northern Irish colleagues' time allocation in this debate, so I shall be brief.

The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) concentrated on agriculture for a large part of his speech. The Minister mentioned that the Government are seeking to spend only £1,000 extra in the agriculture sector.

Within the past couple of months, the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs has taken evidence in public from the Ulster Farmers Union and the Department of Agriculture in Northern Ireland. One point emerged: the importance of agricultural employment in Northern Ireland.

As the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster said, that has been a backbone of Northern Ireland's economy. There has been a drop in employment in that sector. Although that drop is mirrored throughout Europe, it is considerable. For instance, in the early 1970s, 10 per cent. of civil employment was due to agriculture; now it is 6.4 per cent.

Agriculture is still a considerable source of employment, but the position could still be better. When we were taking evidence in public from the Department of Agriculture in Northern ireland, one of the points I asked about was the capacity for developing the principle of co-operation in farming. There are a large number of one-person or two-person farms in Northern Ireland, so surely the capacity is there to bring the farming communities back together in co-operative ventures. They may have all sorts of names and undertake all sorts of activities in various aspects of farming, but the potential is to develop that principle of co-operation. At one point, it was mentioned that the Northern Ireland farming community seemed to be apprehensive about co-operative ventures, but other organisations in the farming community did not accept that.

I also asked whether co-operation was valued as a principle by DANI. It is a hard world. Commitment to a particular principle is a measure of how much of DANI's allocation for its activities has been devoted to developing the principle of co-operation in the farming community.

The answer I received was that £300,000 per year was allocated for the development of co-operative ventures in the farming community. That is not a lot. I should like the Minister to take on board the view that, if co-operation can improve efficiency—that is what the modern world is all about—I for one would like greater priority given to encouraging co-operative ventures in Northern Ireland.

I have picked up some concerns in relation to the Department of Economic Development. Some of them might just be perceptions, as is often the case in Northern Ireland, but perceptions must be dealt with.

We are all in favour of inward investment. We have to listen only to our colleagues from Northern Ireland to see how much that is needed, but a feeling exists that, in the drive and enthusiasm to encourage such investment, somehow the indigenous companies are being left out on a limb and ignored. That is not being done in a deliberate or culpable way, but those companies are being left to wither on the vine.

All hon. Members should agree that, if an indigenous company is operating and a competitor comes in that is supported by the public purse, that surely gives the competitor an unfair advantage over the indigenous company. We all should be in favour of, and should encourage, inward investment, but we should be careful to ensure that we do not endanger the secure basis of the indigenous companies in Northern Ireland.

The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster and my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) mentioned Kilkeel fishing village. In an intervention on my hon. Friend, I mentioned that the Kilkeel fleet was tied up because of the harbour entrance, and that more than —200,000 would be lost to the local economy. I am not sure whether I said £200,000 a year, but the briefing is clear that the loss would be £200,000 a week. Kilkeel loses a massive amount of money per week because of that.

It was extremely generous of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster to support my hon. Friend the Member for South Down in mentioning it. Generous gestures can sometimes be thin on the ground in Northern Ireland, because, obviously, rivalry exists between constituency Members of Parliament. It is to the hon. Gentleman's credit that he mentioned that.

The position at Kilkeel impressed me greatly. Here were successful people and who were willing to work, to get on with it and, through their own efforts, to get on in the world and to contribute to the Province, yet the harbour at Kilkeel left a lot to be desired.

I have another document on port spending by the Department of the Environment. I am not complaining about any expenditure, because clearly more expenditure is required. I saw what was happening at Kilkeel and then saw the spending of the port section of the Department of the Environment on the royal harbour at Donaghadee and on Newry harbour, and the assistance to Moyle district council for ports at Rathlin and Ballycastle harbours and elsewhere.

Although Kilkeel is certainly pressing its own case, and rightly so, I have still not received a satisfactory answer as to why it has been left. In view of the all-party support for Kilkeel, I should like to hear from the Minister at some point how Kilkeel harbour is regarded by the Government.

I am conscious of the lack of time available to Northern Irish colleagues on the Floor of the House, so I conclude my remarks at this point.

9.8 pm

Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South)

I appreciate the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) and think that the Minister will confirm that I, too, feel strongly that the promotion of home-based industry is best. Home-based industries are tied to the place, and do not pick up their belongings and leave when the going gets difficult. In that context, I support what the hon. Gentleman said. Some might offer reasons why Portavogie and Kilkeel, as fishing ports, have not been properly looked after.

Roads have been mentioned, and I could spend some time talking about a generous letter I received from the Minister responsible since I raised the matter of traffic flow in Belfast. In his letter, he tells me that the inner Belfast box is now scheduled to open in 1999, providing funds are available. It has been going on since the early 1970s and is not yet completed. We are talking about the capital of Northern Ireland, with the emphasis in the Great Victoria street area on attracting people with an outstanding hotel complex at the Europa, while, a little way down the road, there is land that has been vacant for years.

Vote 2 deals with the Department of Education, and I shall refer to a particular constituency issue. It has been brought to my attention that the Sports Council for Northern Ireland, which is headquartered in my constituency, is to be reorganised. Will the Minister tell me now, or later in writing, what will be the duties of the four sub-committees and the duty of the main committee?

It seems that someone has been charged with reorganising the Sports Council on the grounds that it was in a mess, although I had not heard that description of it hitherto. The suggestion that it has to work in a particular way or there would be no funding especially concerns me, because it was made in the context of the Special Olympics. Those who know the work that people such as Evelyn Greer have done with Mencap over the years will understand my concern.

Will the Minister assure us that young people will he encouraged to take part in the Special Olympics, and perhaps explain why there has been a breakdown in communications? It seems that people with disabilities in Northern Ireland prefer to take part in the wider United Kingdom games. I refer now to the Department of Health and Social Services, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) said, is my more familiar subject of interest.

I have several concerns about vote 1. I understand, for example, that money from the national lottery intended for community purposes is to be held and distributed by NICVA, the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Authorities. What safeguards are in place to ensure that small charities will get their fair share, and that members of NICVA do not favour their pet projects? I ask that deliberately because I know that there have been difficulties in the past. If funds are now being channelled through NICVA, I want a clear understanding that distribution will be equitable.

In the past year, and indeed before, there has been much discussion in the House about changes in the health service and the increase in the number of GP fundholders. It was argued that they would become strong players in the purchasing of services, but I wonder how far the concept has spread in Northern Ireland. Is there any significant evidence that it is spreading?

A few weeks ago, I was invited to visit a practice in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker). It was an inner-city practice, where the doctors were completely sold on the concept of fundholding.

They made bold to claim that in their practice, they had no real waiting lists. They said that they had been able to break the stranglehold that some consultants had on the choice of patients. On occasions, they had made choices not simply on clinical grounds, but on other grounds.

I was fascinated to discover this, because one of the arguments propounded in the House is that fundholding does not work in inner cities. The doctors in this practice, in an inner-city area of deprivation which crosses the community, asked me to put on record their experience of fundholding.

From the answers to my parliamentary question of 2 March, I see that trauma and orthopaedic operations in the Musgrave Park hospital showed a marked decrease of 300 cases between 1992 and 1993. However, between 1993 and 1994, there was a dramatic increase of more than 400 cases.

Is there a reason for the fluctuations? Is it the heralded power of the GP fundholders, or does the increase reflect the hospital's ability to attract patients from elsewhere in Northern Ireland—and even, because of the skills of the staff there, from other parts of the United Kingdom? Is the hospital dealing with matter efficiently enough to bring down the waiting list in orthopaedics?

Still on vote 1, can the Minister say whether the Causeway hospital at Coleraine will be affected by the finances set aside for capital expenditure? There is some concern that the demands of Belfast trust hospitals will have an adverse impact on the Causeway development. A laboratory site has been provided. I would not like to think that there would be no further development for some years while capital funding was diverted to Belfast because the Causeway hospital was in the queue much earlier.

I have two concerns about vote 4. The first is a mobility allowance for under-fives. I appreciate that this is an aspect of the social security system in Great Britain. It is fascinating that, when I send a letter on social security policy to the Social Security Department here—I normally send a copy to the Department of Health and Social Services in Northern Ireland—I get a note from the Great Britain Department to the effect that this is a matter for the Northern Ireland Department. The Department passes the shuttlecock over. I therefore have no hesitation in raising the matter in a Northern Ireland appropriation debate.

Many in the House may not be aware of the Government's bizarre rule that disabled children under five are not entitled to the mobility allowance available to those over five years of age. The argument has been that children under five cannot get the allowance because, until they are over five, one cannot be sure whether they will walk.

Parents with disabled children under five have enough problems to cope with, without being denied financial support, especially when it is denied because, according to the Government, it cannot be proved before that age whether a child will walk. I urge the Government and the Northern Ireland Department of Health and Social Services, if it is a matter for that Department, to take the lead and to cease discrimination on such petty grounds. The inability to walk is not set forth as the only ground for mobility allowance.

My second point was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe)—the time taken before people receive housing grants and social security payments. Often some time elapses before people come before a tribunal. They then go through the agonising period of wondering what will happen. There is also a tendency not to look ahead during the review process.

Recently, a constituent went to cash his cheque. He knew that his book was finished, but he then discovered that it could not be renewed, and that instead, he would be paid by giro until he went again before a medical assessment board. The man was fair-aged. The law of averages says that, far from improving over the age of 70, people are inclined to go downhill.

I could not understand why the administration had not booked him in earlier for that medical review, so I raised the issue with the Department. The review is not to take place until at least the end of March, yet the man has not received his cheques for January and February.

We all know that, after a tribunal or a medical review, it takes time to write up the notes and for those notes to get back to the administrative executive. Indeed, the internal postal system is even worse than the postal system from which at times we suffer in Westminster. Meanwhile, people are left high and dry without their proper benefits. It is not enough to say that they will be paid in due course, for people on low incomes have to pay their bills promptly. Only large businesses can afford not to pay bills on time. The ordinary person has to pay the bill, or there will be a row. Will attention be given to that matter?

Before I sum up, I have one concern over vote 5, which involves the costs of funerals. The Minister may be aware of the increasing costs of burial, not only in Northern Ireland but throughout Great Britain. I question whether the available grant covers the cost of a decent funeral. I hope that we shall not return to the pauper's burial.

Mr. McGrady

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the circumstances of burial in Northern Ireland are quite different from those in England and Wales, and that, potentially under the new rules, burials will be more expensive? Around 84 per cent. of funerals in Northern Ireland are interments, and only 14 per cent. are cremations. There are only two crematoria in Northern Ireland, so long distances have to be travelled and much expense incurred by many people. There is an additional problem in the north.

Rev. Martin Smyth

I welcome the hon. Member's intervention and thank him for it, as it was perhaps more helpful than my intervention in his speech. Although I am arguing about the Northern Ireland appropriation order, increasing costs of burial also affect people in the nation as a whole. I certainly concur, however, that there are added expenses in Northern Ireland.

On a more general note, I welcome the publication of the chief medical officer's report. In that document, she highlights areas of concern, and I shall comment on two of them.

It is alarming that 20 per cent. of patients fail to keep their hospital out-patient appointments, which incurs a subsequent loss in the Departments. Is there a communication problem? Are the patients not aware of their appointments? I know that patients are sometimes told of their appointments a long time in advance, but I wonder whether there is a chance that, just as for in-patients, people get their appointments at the last minute and that they are out on business on the day that they are supposed to report to hospital.

Could it be, however, that many out-patients arrive on time for their appointments but get fed up and go home when the department is running an hour or more behind schedule? Despite improvements in the system, I have faced that scenario myself. Certainly, the inability to connect a patient with his or her clinic is a substantial waste of health service resources. What efforts have been made to find out why that is happening, and to sort the problem out?

Also in the chief medical officer's report, there is evidence that asthma is the main cause of ill health in children and young people. The Minister will be aware that air pollution is considered a major contributory factor in asthma, which is one of the fastest growing diseases in children. Will the Minister ensure that finance is set aside and research encouraged so that the causes of the increases are identified and eradicated? It is not good enough to say that the cause of asthma is unknown and that there are many exacerbating factors in the environment. We need more detailed research.

9.24 pm

Mr. Spellar

With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate, which has been wide-ranging and has covered many issues. As I said in my opening speech, one of the opportunities that the peace process has created has been a move towards the normalisation of political life and issues in Northern Ireland, allowing us to debate issues of common concern which relate in many ways to Members of Parliament from Scotland, Wales and England, too.

Many of the themes which have arisen in the debate have been familiar to Members from other areas of the country. As we have repeated several times, including in the debate earlier today, we support the Government's efforts in the peace process, but on the economic and social issues we are as divided from them in Northern Ireland as elsewhere.

The debate, which unfortunately has been short, has highlighted several such issues. Indeed, when I was listening to the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) talking about objectionable neighbours, drug addicts, giro drops and travellers, I thought that he could have been any Member of Parliament from the midlands conurbation, all of whom are facing similar problems to an equal or even a greater degree.

All of us, especially in urban areas, face such problems, which are common throughout western society. We need to try to achieve practical and realistic solutions to them all and to ensure that, especially in cases such as those that the hon. Gentleman described, the broad majority of the population are protected from an offensive and objectionable minority.

The hon. Member for Antrim, South would be well served if he considered the action taken by several midlands councils on precisely the sort of common nuisances that he described–action which has often been tough and effective. He may have read reports in the papers recently about Coventry council taking to court some individuals who were causing havoc on council estates and getting them barred from those estates.

The hon. Gentleman may also have read that, when individuals who have been using their premises for drug dealing are convicted, that is treated as a breach of their tenancy agreement and eviction proceedings are taken against them. That is greatly welcomed by the vast majority of residents on an estate, and especially by parents who are concerned that their children may be dragged into a life of drug use, which we know leads quickly to a life of crime. Lessons learned in other areas could well be applied throughout the country to reduce such problems and keep them in hand before they move way out of control.

The hon. Gentleman also expressed surprise that people over 75 are being referred to geriatric hospitals rather than ordinary hospitals. That causes concern and fear in my constituency, too. I have had correspondence from pensioners who are approaching the age of 75 but who are in full possession of their mental and physical faculties and who are terrified at the prospect that, if they have an accident or fall prey to an illness, they may be shunted off to a geriatric hospital and, as they would see it, written off, as people who have finished their useful life. That fills them with fear and trepidation, and the hon. Gentleman was right to raise the matter. Health boards and health authorities should be alert to the problem and should take account of the fears and wishes of the people concerned.

The hon. Gentleman also spoke about water privatisation, and I hope that the Minister took note of the general opposition to that idea. Indeed, opposition to it is all that we hear, not only from politicians representing constituencies in Northern Ireland but from the community in Northern Ireland and, as I said earlier, from the people who represent the work force in the water industry. The Government have said that they will not introduce water privatisation this side of a general election, but the people of Northern Ireland fear that creeping privatisation is taking place. They have seen the Capita report on attempts to hive off a series of functions of the water industry, and they are also concerned that the change in the charging regime for water will be a prelude to privatisation.

A common issue across the country—it is not just a matter related to Stansted airport—is the question of air traffic control. The Select Committee on Transport has stated that the privatisation of air traffic control would not be in the interests of air travellers, or in the interests of Britain's reputation as a safe and secure air traffic centre. The Minister ought to take note of those concerns within Northern Ireland and elsewhere.

I shall move to some of the issues raised by hon. Members. I am sorry to have concentrated on the remarks of the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe), but he raised a considerable number of relevant and widely applicable issues.

The hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) raised the issues of Larne harbour and the road transport system. I said in my opening remarks that the need for quick and effective communications to attract industry into Northern Ireland is paramount. The road system is important because many companies use containers to move goods to ports and then into the European transport system. That is a vital part of their economic success. The hon. Member for Antrim, East rightly identified the problems facing his constituency in respect of the variability of European Community grants, and all Members will have faced such difficulties.

The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) drew attention to a problem that is forgotten by many of us who represent substantially urban constituencies. I have one small farm with about two fields in the whole of my constituency. The hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out that unemployment and poverty—even if they are widely spread in a rural area—still cause great feelings of hopelessness. We should not forget the poverty of people in rural and semi-rural areas.

The hon. Gentleman also identified problems with roads in his constituency. The effect of the peace dividend on those areas which have managed to avoid violence was a strong point very well made by the hon. Gentleman, and it should give us all pause for thought.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman talked about the problems in his constituency associated with the decommissioning of the fishing fleets, and that point was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy). Fishing communities around the country are concerned about the loss of employment which is a result of the unsatisfactory deal arrived at with regard to the Irish box. That obviously has implications for employment and, frankly, additional funds will not solve the problem. At the very least, however, an increase in the money available to assist the process of decommissioning is not only desirable but extremely necessary.

A further aspect of European Community policy was raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea), who talked about the vagaries of the common agricultural policy and how it affects livestock producers who are faced with one regime when selling their produce and another regime when buying their raw materials. We need to ensure that the Government are representing the interests of farmers in all parts of the United Kingdom as effectively as some other European Governments represent their farmers. I am sure that he found much common ground in the Chamber with his comments on the common agricultural policy.

The hon. Member for Rutherglen mentioned co-operative ventures in farming—that is not surprising, given his strong links with the co-operative movement and his history—and the inadequate amounts of money available for that, especially as the agricultural community moves into difficult times.

We are also considering the significant importance of agriculture to the Northern Ireland economy, in terms not only of primary production but of manufacturing and production based on agriculture. That is extremely important throughout the community, especially when we take in the argument of the hon. Member for South Down about the need to maintain employment and activity in rural areas. I am sure that the Minister took on board those arguments in relation to the need for assistance to the co-operative sector of agriculture.

The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) referred to the problem of children under five who cannot get mobility allowance. That is a nationwide problem, which has been raised by a number of Members of Parliament, and we have found the responses to be fairly unsatisfactory, especially when one takes into account the difficulties facing parents if their children are not only unable to walk but genuinely immobile and also becoming larger and heavier—for example, when trying to get them from the clinic to the car. The authorities should be more flexible and understanding. I hope that the Minister has taken those arguments on board.

The hon. Member for Belfast, South rightly stressed the fact that, while applications for grants have to be properly checked and assessed, unnecessary delay can cause considerable hardship. I am sure that we have all had people in our surgeries and advice bureaux who have got themselves into fearful difficulties as a result of gaps in income. While expenditure continues, they get into debt and incur the charges of those who are trying to recover the debt, whether it be the local council, the electricity board or some other organisation. They get into a spiral of debt and difficulty. I hope that the Minister recognises that problem and will convey to the proper authorities the need to ensure proper speed when processing claims.

I shall conclude shortly so as to allow the Minister time to answer the many questions raised in the debate, which is a welcome return to discussing the main, normal issues which face people day in and day out—the ordinary problems of getting by in life, earning a living, bringing up children and ensuring that they have a decent life with some hope for the future. The peace process has given some hope for the future. We need to ensure that people are able to fulfil those hopes and aspirations in their economic and social life. This debate will be part of a long series as we press the Government to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland have the future and the prosperity that they deserve.

9.37 pm

Sir John Wheeler

This has been a detailed debate on the "Northern Ireland Spring Supplementary Estimates 1994-95". It reminds me somewhat of autumn, in as much as I am obliged to deliver at the outset a rather tedious speech, in which I announce the spending estimates and priorities for the coming period. That enables many hon. Members to raise very detailed matters, and I am placed in the position of responding to the autumn leaves falling—they are so many, varied and numerous—but, during the time allowed to me, I shall endeavour to reply to as many of them as I am able.

All the points made by hon. Members from Northern Ireland who contributed to the debate will be carefully considered by Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office and, where possible or appropriate, if I cannot refer to any of the issues that they raised this evening, they will receive a reply. Five hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies have been able to speak during the course of this debate: the hon. Members for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs); for South Down (Mr. McGrady); for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea); for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe); and for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth). I am particularly anxious to put their constituencies on record because they are all, in various ways, doughty champions of their constituents' interests. They have endeavoured to speak for others who could not participate in tonight's debate in so many of the important issues that concern the people of Northern Ireland.

In his opening remarks, the hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) mentioned expenditure in Northern Ireland. May I tell him about the positive developments that have taken place and the substantial resources that are available? During 1994–95, the Government will make available no less than £7.5 billion to maintain the services at a high level and promote a range of developments and activities.

Those include—some of these points were touched on by hon. Members—expenditure on education services this year, which will be £1,301 million, an increase of 4 per cent. over 1993-94; and expenditure on health and personal social services, which will be £1,433 million, an increase of 7.3 per cent. over 1993-94. Over the past 15 years, spending on education rose by 35 per cent. in real terms and on health and personal social services by 52 per cent. Those impressive achievements illustrate the impact of the Government's policies on matters that are important to everyone in Northern Ireland.

In his opening remarks, the hon. Member for Warley, West, suggested that, were he in government, there would be substantial additional expenditure over and above that which I have just described to the House. What he did not say, however, is whether that additional expenditure would be found from increased taxation on the citizens of the United Kingdom as a whole, or whether other Government services and activities would be reduced. He owes an explanation to the public in due course about that.

The hon. Member for Warley, West said in his closing remarks that the Government had failed in their negotiations over the fishing issue. I strongly refute that. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food fought vigorously for British interests and produced the best deal for the UK fishermen. Had he not succeeded, fishermen would have been worse off and would not have had the arrangements in respect of the Irish box.

Rev. Martin Smyth

During the debate it was suggested that more funds should have been made available for decommissioning. Was not that the position taken by the Government of the Republic of Ireland, giving fishermen in the Republic more money for decommissioning, which is why they were reasonably satisfied?

Sir John Wheeler

Yes, I take the hon. Gentleman's point. Northern Ireland fishermen have benefited from the decommissioning schemes, with the removal of 43 vessels under the 1993 and 1994 schemes. The additional £28 million earmarked for decommissioning over the next three years highlights the Government's commitment to giving assistance to rationalise the capacity of the UK fleet towards a level which fish stocks can sustain. I hope that the hon. Gentleman found that helpful.

Mr. McGrady

A matter requiring clarification has just arisen regarding the deal that was done at the Essen conference. As the Minister has now said, 43 boats are bound to be decommissioned, but 40 boats from the Spanish fleet will be permitted to enter the Irish box. Can the Minister explain whether that refers to 40 specific vessels or 40 vessels at any one time—in other words, the entire Spanish fleet by rotation?

Sir John Wheeler

The hon. Gentleman will understand that that goes somewhat outwith the Northern Ireland supplementary spring estimates and outside my jurisdiction as a Minister for Northern Ireland, but I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food considers the hon. Gentleman's question and gives him as much help as he can by way of explanation.

I wish to respond to the brief intervention by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), who is in his place, about Belfast international airport. The hon. Gentleman asked about the possible clawback of EC funds for Belfast international airport. On 16 August 1994, the Commission requested information about the terms and conditions relating to the sale of Belfast international airport and details of all the European regional development fund aid paid to the airport. That was to enable the Commission to consider whether clawback of ERDF aid would be appropriate. That information was sent to the Commission by the Government on 26 September 1994, but to date nothing has been heard from the Commission. I hope that the hon. Gentleman found that helpful.

The hon. Member for Warley, West was very selective in his references to surveys of the Northern Ireland economy. Almost without exception, those have been reported as showing growing confidence and success, and were a theme of the debate this afternoon. The Northern Ireland economy has grown faster than the national economy. Seasonally adjusted unemployment has decreased in 10 of the past 12 months. Put another way, in the year to September 1994, the number of employees in employment in Northern Ireland increased by 6,300, to reach 553,720. That represents an all-time high for employees in employment in Northern Ireland as a whole.

Mr. Spellar

Will the Minister tell us the breakdown in that increase between full-time and part-time jobs?

Sir John Wheeler

The hon. Gentleman may know the answer, but I would say that jobs in Northern Ireland are welcome, whether they are called full-time or part-time, and the Government are in the business of encouraging the economy of Northern Ireland to find more jobs. I shall now press on. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Warley, West may care to ignore the facts, but the fact is that the Government's policies are strengthening the Northern Ireland economy and targeting social need, and are making significant improvements for all sections of the Northern Ireland community.

The hon. Member for Warley, West mentioned several other matters. I can confirm that the routine metering of purely domestic water supplies is not under consideration. Expenditure on roads maintenance, which has been referred to by several hon. Members from Northern Ireland, will be £41 million in 1995–96—evidence of the priority that the Government give the roads programme.

I know, as a result of travelling throughout Northern Ireland and meeting councils and others, that everyone wants his specific road priority scheme to be dealt with this year, if not sooner. I understand the enthusiasm of the councils, the hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies and others to see the road system improved as often as possible.

The hon. Member for Warley, West also referred to assistance for the long-term unemployed. The Government recognise fully the problems faced by the long-term unemployed, who are unlikely to gain employment unless their skills are updated and their motivation is improved. The Government have a radical new approach, which aims to put a large percentage of the long-term unemployed back to work.

We propose to introduce a pilot scheme which we shall call the community work programme. It aims to provide the long-term unemployed with opportunities to obtain useful work to allow them to rebuild their skills and regain their confidence. The pilot scheme will provide for at least 1,000 places in 1995-96 and, if it is successful, it will eventually provide up to 2,000 places. I am sure that hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies will be particularly glad to hear that.

Mr. Beggs

I assure the Minister that we all welcome the prospect of the creation of additional jobs. However, will he assure the House that areas beyond Belfast and Londonderry will benefit from those jobs?

Sir John Wheeler

A theme of tonight's debate has been the determination and enthusiasm of the five hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies in championing the causes of their constituents. I understand, and sympathise with, their aims. Of course, serious pockets of unemployment—often long-term unemployment—can be found all over Northern Ireland. They occur for different reasons. The Government's new scheme is intended to benefit, and to provide hope and opportunities to, people throughout Northern Ireland. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, when the scheme is applied, the responsible Minister will ensure that the hon. Gentleman's concerns and interests are taken into account.

One way of helping the unemployed is by sustaining and encouraging small businesses. The Government's programme of support for the small business community is provided mainly through the Local Enterprise Development Unit—LEDU—which operates either directly or through an extensive network of some 40 local enterprise agencies. That organisation has an annual budget of more than £30 million. It seeks to assist small manufacturing businesses through a wide range of schemes and initiatives which aim to improve competitiveness and to stimulate increased sales, particularly export sales. LEDU, in liaison with the local enterprise agency network, provides support to individuals who wish to become self-employed and stair up new businesses.

The hon. Member for Warley, West and others also referred to housing expenditure. The Government's public expenditure contribution to housing is some £224 million in 1994-95. When supplemented by rental income and capital receipts, gross resources for housing should amount to £564 million. Those substantial resources will enable the Housing Executive to spend £33 million on building new houses.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the difficulties experienced by some of those in the contracting industry. They will welcome that additional expenditure because it means an opportunity for jobs for their employees. In addition, £96 million will be spent on repairs and maintenance, which will offer further work opportunities to building contractors. Some £73 million will be spent the rehabilitation and improvement of the existing housing stock. Expenditure on grants to private house owners is likely to be some £33 million and gross expenditure by the housing associations will amount to £45 million. All that expenditure is designed not only to improve the housing stock, but to feed back into the opportunities for employment.

Contrary to the claim by the hon. Member for Warley, West, the Government have a clear energy policy, which was set out in the Department of the Environment document, "Energy for the nineties and beyond". It includes energy efficiency, the clean provision and use of energies, lower cost and the provision of consumer interests, diversion of energy supply and security of supply.

The hon. Member for Antrim, East raised a large number of points and I shall endeavour to deal with as many as I can. I fully appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern about the relocation of the Stena Sealink from Larne harbour to Belfast. It is, of course, solely a matter for the commercial judgment of Stena Sealink what services it operates and on what routes. The Government are not in any way involved in that process. No European Union assistance will be available for any move of Stena Sealink's conventional ferries from Larne to Belfast. I understand that Stena Sealink will announce next month that it is relocating its Stranraer service from Larne to Belfast.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to roads serving Larne port, particularly the Belfast to Larne road, in which I know that he has a great deal of interest. About one third of the Belfast to Larne road is of motorway or dual-carriageway standard. As he says, the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland plans to bring forward a scheme to dual the remaining single-carriageway section. The first stage is scheduled to start in 1997–98. The remaining stages will be taken forward as funding permits and I know his desire to see that process speeded up will be well understood by my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for these matters.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to capital spending on schools. Capital provision for education and library boards in 1994–95 is some £47 million, of which almost £15 million will be spent on major building works and some £17 million on minor capital works, school buses, site purchases and equipment. The remainder of the budget is for earmarked provision and includes £11 million for capital projects associated with education reform. I note the hon. Gentleman's point about the capital moratorium, and will draw it to the attention of my hon. Friend who is responsible for these matters so that he may give it further consideration.

Reference was also made to nursery education. I recognise, and am an enthusiast for, the value of nursery education in the development of pre-school age children, particularly in areas of social need, so I noted the hon. Gentleman's point with much interest and support.

The policy statement on early years provision for Northern Ireland, which was published jointly by the Departments of Education, of Health and of Social Services in September 1994, affirms the Government's long-term commitment to providing one full year's nursery education for all children, while focusing initially on areas of greatest need. It also provides a framework within which future services for young children will be developed.

The statement raises a number of issues which the Department wishes to take forward. Initial discussions with education and library boards and the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools have already taken place, and it is intended to have further discussions shortly and I shall respond to the hon. Member's other points on education by way of correspondence.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned electricity prices. I note his concern, but as I believe he knows, it is more expensive to produce and distribute electricity in Northern Ireland than in Great Britain because power stations are smaller, the reserve margin is higher and customers, on average, are more dispersed. He also referred to the possible extension of the transitional relief fund scheme. That scheme was introduced to give industry time to adjust to the application of cost-reflected pricing following privatisation. It will have served that purpose by the time it ends, on 31 March 1996.

It being Ten o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion, pursuant to Order [3 March].

Question agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 14th February, be approved.