Northern Ireland

HC Deb 21 June 1999 vol 333 cc862-900 9.59 pm

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Paul Murphy)

I beg to move, That the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 9th June, be approved. The order authorises £4,282 million for Northern Ireland Departments in the current financial year which, together with the £3,120 million voted in February, brings the total to £7,402 million for the current financial year.

In many ways, the debate should not be taking place here. The Assembly should be debating the figures, but that has proved impossible. Even if devolution occurs soon, we could not have left the debate until later in the year. We could not afford the risk that our vital services in Northern Ireland, including health, education, agriculture and local government, might run out of money. After devolution, it will be for the Assembly to approve any supplementary estimate. I know that most hon. Members join me in hoping that this will be the last time that the House has to debate the estimates in this way.

We face a crucial two weeks in Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are meeting with parties in Northern Ireland in the next few days. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach of the Republic of Ireland will join us later this week. Our aim is to end the current impasse and to ensure that devolution can occur by July in Belfast as well as in Cardiff and Edinburgh.

The 10 Departments are decided, as are the six north-south bodies. The Assembly has made extensive preparations for its operation. The other aspects of the Good Friday agreement, including the Human Rights Commission, the Equality Commission and the Police Commission, have been implemented or are in the process of being implemented. We are left with two key issues: how to set up the Executive Government and how to make sure that decommissioning happens as the agreement sets out. As all Northern Ireland Members will testify, we face difficult times in July, but I believe that the agreement is robust and that a majority of people in Northern Ireland approve of it.

We are committed to healing the divisions in Northern Ireland society. We recognise the work done by many groups to bring about mutual understanding, respect and reconciliation. We support initiatives to that end and we have provided £9 million for community relations programmes.

I emphasise that the estimates for the Northern Ireland Assembly can only be provisional. They are intended to sustain it through the summer recess. It was always recognised that further provision would be needed. There is no dispute about the fact that some items were omitted from the original projections and others were underestimated. Assuming early devolution, the revised provision can be voted by the Assembly as soon as possible after the recess.

The Government recognise that the £14 million determined in the comprehensive spending review last year is only an interim figure. I am fully persuaded that it will not be enough for the Assembly after devolution. I acknowledge that if devolution occurs next month, a figure of up to £27.6 million could be needed this year to finance the Assembly's plans. The final figure will depend on the state of devolution, when additional support staff are recruited and when other services become fully operational. The Northern Ireland assigned budget has sufficient flexibility to cover those costs. That will be reflected in a supplementary estimate later in the year.

The Government's position is clear. The creation of the Assembly is a key aspect of the Good Friday agreement. There can be no doubt about the importance of establishing and paying for that major advance for Northern Ireland.

Mr. William Ross (East Londonderry)

Can the right hon. Gentleman clarify the position? Everyone has heard him with great interest, but when he talks about flexibility and a further estimate, is he saying that any further sums needed for the Assembly will come from what was voted in March and what will be voted tonight, or will there be a supplementary estimate to draw further money down from the United Kingdom Consolidated Fund?

Mr. Murphy

The answer is no. Further money will not come from the Consolidated Fund in that the Government have made it clear that for devolution in Northern Ireland, as much as in Wales and Scotland, costs for the Assemblies must be found from the block grant. However, the hon. Gentleman knows that during any financial year, financial monitoring takes place on a three-monthly and then a six-monthly basis. On those estimates, we will look clearly at the situation and sufficient money will be provided for the operation of the Assembly. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I could not estimate a precise figure six or seven months ago, when we were not sure exactly what arrangements would be necessary. Of course, we still do not know precisely when the Assembly will operate from. We will find the money from the existing provision.

Mr. Ross

That implies that any additional sums needed will have to come from provision made under other headings. Has the Minister any idea which they would be? Most Departments, especially those dealing with hospitals and education, find it difficult enough to manage already.

Mr. Murphy

I understand what the hon. Gentleman is getting at, but he will not get me to agree with him on this. As we get to the middle of a financial year and consider estimates in a budget of almost £8 billion, we sometimes find enormous underspends while there are overspends in other Departments. The whole budget tends to balance out in the middle of the year. We knew that when the budget was formed, but it would have been wrong for us initially to put in an indeterminate figure. We now believe that we have a firm figure, if and when devolution occurs in Northern Ireland in the next few weeks. We do not know precisely when that will happen, but provision will be made. We cannot allow a situation to develop in which the Assembly cannot be paid for, but it is in a very different situation from Cardiff or Edinburgh, in that we knew precisely when the Assembly in Wales and the Parliament in Scotland would start. We do not know precisely from when the full devolved Assembly will operate in Northern Ireland, but today, we are indicating that, in the event of it starting at the beginning of July, we could have to find the figures that I mentioned earlier. We are confident that they will be found within the provisions of the budget.

Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South)

I understand the Minister's point, but he said that there was a miscalculation and that certain figures had been overlooked. The total originally worked out at about half the amount that is now required. That is the point we are pressing because that was surely a mistake in the original estimates. It would be wrong to take money out of the block budget for a Government planning mistake. It may not be needed, but I would like the Minister to reconsider his statement that the money must be found from the block grant if a mistake has been made at the start.

Mr. Murphy

The comprehensive spending review extended over not one, but three years. It is more difficult to estimate for something when we do not know when it will start. That is a totally different situation. Since then, we have benefited from the expertise of those in the Assembly, particularly the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission, who have examined in detail what the Assembly has to provide. I have had several meetings with the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and others who have made perfectly clear what it is likely to have to deal with in coming years. There are other aspects, such as the payment of salaries and other on-going matters, for which we must make provision.

The Northern Ireland Assembly is different—I repeat this point—because we do not know the precise start date. We know the situation in Cardiff and in Edinburgh. The people of Northern Ireland voted for the Assembly. I believe that they desperately want it to be established as soon as possible so that there can be local accountability—and we must pay for it.

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Inverclyde)

The Minister mentioned the Parliament in Scotland. I hope to be at its formal opening next week—subject to the agreement of the Whips. I am the husband of a Member of the Scottish Parliament, so I should be there. The Minister referred earlier to the Human Rights Commission. Am I correct in thinking that its members are preparing a draft Bill of Rights? If that is so, has the Minister any knowledge of when that draft might be published for consultation purposes?

Mr. Murphy

I hope that my hon. Friend joins his wife at the opening of the Scottish Parliament next week—but that will depend upon the Whips. The Human Rights Commission is working hard on the Bill of Rights to which my hon. Friend refers. I do not know precisely when it will evolve, but I shall bear in mind his remarks and ensure that the widest possible consultation occurs.

Mr. Peter Robinson (Belfast, East)

As a general principle, does the Minister agree that it is much easier for Ministers to add money to a budget than take it away? Therefore, would it not have been better if the Government had allocated the amount that they deemed might be necessary for the Assembly to that head of expenditure, rather than subtracting it from other heads of expenditure as soon as devolution occurs? Has the Minister not left an unpalatable task for the new Finance Minister, should devolution take place? His first act will be to take money away from health, education, agriculture or some other head of expenditure.

Mr. Murphy

The matter ought not be looked at in the context of removing money from this or that. Even if we had allocated the money to which the hon. Gentleman refers to the budget in the first place, the same argument could have applied some months ago—as it may apply some weeks hence. I hope that we will face this problem because it will mean that there is a fully devolved Administration in Northern Ireland.

I raise the matter in some detail this evening because the hon. Gentleman, I and other members of the Commission have discussed it. I do not want it to be thought for one second that the Government are reneging on their responsibility to pay for the Assembly. However, the figure is obviously difficult to pin down—whether we have it now or had it six months ago. I think that we are in a better position now to work out precisely what we think could be spent in the event of devolution. It is a matter of judgment whether we should have allocated the money some months ago. The Government accept absolutely the responsibility of paying for the Assembly. That is what the people of Northern Ireland voted for and it is what democracy is about.

I must refer to Belfast port as several hon. Members may refer to it during the debate. The House should be aware that the estimates before it tonight assume a receipt from the sale of Belfast port as part of the Chancellor's economic initiative. I made it clear to the Assembly when I addressed it some months ago—my ministerial colleagues have reinforced this point—that the sale of the port is an essential underpinning of that initiative. We are making every effort to promote a successful sale and we have encouraged extensive consultation about an acceptable proposal from the Belfast harbour commissioners.

However, if, for any reason, it is not possible to complete the sale during this financial year, there will have to be adjustments to spending plans. In that context—and as a contingency—we are, for the moment, holding back some future spending. If necessary, some projects may have to be delayed until the receipt is available. That is a prudent safeguard that may be needed in order to live within our budget. We will clearly have to examine the figures in the weeks and months ahead in the light of what I have explained to the House.

We have included £17 million for European Union and national agriculture support measures, and £153 million for other agricultural services. That includes estimates for farm support, for the development of agricultural industries, for the enhancement of the countryside, for forestry and fisheries, for rivers and for rural development. I know that Northern Ireland Members place a high premium on the agricultural industry in Northern Ireland; it is one of the major employers and is extremely important to the economy.

Economic development is vital for the future of Northern Ireland; we have set aside £153 million for the Industrial Development Board. I believe that the Good Friday agreement provides us with a unique opportunity for attracting new investment.

We have allowed £15 million for the Northern Ireland tourist board; continued peace will undoubtedly enhance tourist potential. We estimate that there will be a 4 per cent. increase in visitors this year—1.53 million people will come to Northern Ireland—and 15,000 jobs depend on that. If we achieved the same levels of tourism as the Republic of Ireland, we could create a further 20,000 jobs in Northern Ireland. We have allocated £265 million for the Training and Employment Agency, and £72 million for welfare to work. Almost 3,000 employees have signed up for the new deal agreement. We have allocated £61 million for more than 11,000 places under the job skills training programme.

The amount provided for education in Northern Ireland is £1.536 million: that is a 6 per cent. increase over last year for schools, libraries, youth and further and higher education services—for all types of school in Northern Ireland. We have included £17 million for arts and museums, and £5 million for the Odyssey millennium landmark project.

Another of the Government's priorities is the health service; we are spending £1,666 million for hospital, community health and personal social services. We have set aside £33 million for grants to voluntary bodies and certain other services. There has been increased provision for winter fuel payments and for payments into the Northern Ireland national insurance fund.

Finally, the Department of the Environment covers many areas of spending in Northern Ireland. There will be £147 million for our roads, £20 million for road passenger services and £13 million for the support of our rail services. There will be about £605 million available for housing, and £209 million for water and sewerage systems. We are targeting £30 million on areas in need of social and economic regeneration.

Those are high figures for a population of 1.5 million, and are similar in scale and proportion to those for Wales and for Scotland. That is deserved in Northern Ireland, as it is in Wales and in Scotland. The difference in Wales and Scotland is that, after 1 July, democratically elected men and women in the Assembly in Cardiff and in the Parliament in Edinburgh will be able to run their own affairs. We want that to happen in Northern Ireland. The purpose of the next 10 days is to ensure that we arrive at a solution to the current problem, so that when UK devolution goes live in Wales and in Scotland, it can also do so in Northern Ireland. The £7,000 million plus to which I referred will then properly be the subject of debate and discussion in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Above all, the Executive who will be formed in that Assembly will themselves be held accountable to, and elected by, the people of Northern Ireland. That is the prize that awaits us during the next 10 days.

It is important to understand that the world is looking at Northern Ireland. There is a great deal of good will among all the nations of the world for this process to succeed in Northern Ireland, and we shall do our best to achieve it over the next 10 days.

Mr. William Thompson (West Tyrone)

The Minister compares Scotland and Wales with Northern Ireland, but perhaps he would acknowledge that, although the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly are democratic and have democratic Executives, an undemocratic institution is proposed in Northern Ireland. If people elect a party, the policies of that party cannot be carried out because of the system. That is completely undemocratic.

Mr. Murphy

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman; he will not be surprised at that. We have disagreed on these matters for some time. He holds his views sincerely, as we all do. In Scotland, some 70 per cent. of people voted for the system of government that they will have. In Wales, we voted for a change, too—by a much narrower margin, but we had a majority. The biggest percentage of people who turned out to vote was in Northern Ireland. Of those people, in a referendum that was specifically geared to an agreement, which every household in Northern Ireland received, 72 per cent. voted yes. We may disagree with that and hold our different views, but there is no doubt in my mind that the system of government—with the Assembly and the Executive—was approved by the people in a plebiscite. I believe sincerely that the majority of people in Northern Ireland still want what was approved.

In these coming days, the burden and duty on those of us who will be in Castle buildings will be to follow the wishes of the people by ensuring that the agreement is implemented and that there is an Assembly. Why should people in Northern Ireland not have an Assembly when the people of Wales and Scotland will have such bodies in a fortnight's time? They want one. That is why we should be absolutely certain that this is the very last such debate in the House of Commons, and that the next one will be for the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Several hon. Members

rose—

Madam Speaker

Order. Before I call another Member, it may be helpful at this stage if I remind the House that debate on this order may cover all matters for which Northern Ireland Departments, as distinct from the Northern Ireland Office, are responsible. Police and security matters are, of course, the principal excluded subjects.

10.22 pm

Mr. Malcolm Moss (North-East Cambridgeshire)

I shall start by echoing some of the Minister's remarks. We are debating this order against the intensification of efforts by both the British and Irish Governments and the Northern Ireland parties to break the deadlock in the peace process. The Opposition hope that those efforts will be successful and that an agreement can be reached by 30 June. We are anxious to see the formation of the new Northern Ireland Executive, and we want all eligible parties to take their seats in the Executive, in accordance with the Good Friday agreement.

As the Minister rightly pointed out, this is not a debate on decommissioning, but the Opposition are clear that only parties that have established a commitment to exclusively democratic and peaceful means can take their seats in government. As we have said on many occasions, there can be no question of Sinn Fein members taking on Executive responsibilities without a credible and verifiable start to decommissioning.

One of the reasons why we are so keen for the Executive to be established is so that responsibility for the matters that we are discussing can be rightly determined in the Assembly, in Northern Ireland itself. These are particularly important matters, relating to public expenditure on several key areas in Northern Ireland, such as health, education and transport, yet they are being addressed late at night in a debate on an order which is limited to just three hours. Of course, that has been one of the perennial defects of direct rule, which the establishment of the Assembly is intended to rectify. How much better it would be if these issues could be determined by a local Administration sensitive to local priorities.

Many of us thought that, once the Northern Ireland Act 1998 had become law, we had debated the appropriation order on the Floor of the House for the very last time. I suspect that that concerned appropriation order No. 1—No. 2 is of course before us—although I share the Minister's wish that this is the last appropriation order to be debated by this House.

As the Minister helpfully said, the order covers the main estimates for the Northern Ireland Departments and authorises spending of some £4,282 million for the current year. It does not, of course, cover the money spent by the Northern Ireland Office, including on matters such as security, policing, prisons and compensation. Many hon. Members will look forward to the sums spent on those areas being reduced in the context of peace becoming a firmly established feature in Northern Ireland. Regrettably, that is not yet the case, so those areas must continue to be top priorities for Ministers in the Province.

The order covers areas of expenditure across all Northern Ireland Departments, but I want to focus my brief comments on the Northern Ireland economy. One of the key by-products of peace will be the boost to the economy, which will make Northern Ireland a much easier place to sell to potential inward investors. In that context, I note the money being granted to the Industrial Development Board, which comes to just over £81 million.

The IDB has done an extremely creditable job over the years, attracting many prestigious inward investment projects. To a large extent, they have been attracted by a combination of policies—low taxation, flexible labour markets and less regulation. We fear that the present Government risk throwing away many of the competitive advantages that the Conservative Governments of the 1980s and 1990s fought so hard to gain. That would be particularly damaging, especially given the exceptionally high growth rates currently being enjoyed in the Republic of Ireland, not to mention some of the tax incentives there.

Let us look at Labour's record. Instead of making it easier to employ people, the Government have been piling extra red tape, regulations and burdens on to business. The social chapter, the working time directive, the national minimum wage and statutory union recognition will all saddle business with extra costs. [Interruption.] There are groans from those on the Government Benches, but these views are borne out across the board.

After the last Budget, Chris Humphries, director-general of the British Chambers of Commerce, said: I do not believe we are yet seeing the evidence of the business friendly face the government promised in its manifesto. Business is more heavily taxed, more heavily regulated than we were two years ago. The smoke and mirrors Chancellor has not given us the whole picture. The net effect of Tuesday's Budget is that businesses will be £500 million worse off in 1999, £1.5 billion worse off in 2000, and £1.2 billion worse off in 2001". That is an increased burden of £3.2 billion over the next three years, and it comes on top of the extra £5 billion a year in business taxes that Labour has already imposed.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the national minimum wage. Can we work on the assumption that, at the next general election, the Conservative party will totally oppose the national minimum wage and, if elected, will ensure that it is dropped?

Mr. Moss

We have said all along that we oppose the Government's proposals on the minimum wage, and we continue to do so.

I know that one of the particular concerns of hon. Members representing Northern Ireland was the massive hike in fuel and excise duties in the last Budget, including a 12 per cent. increase in fuel duty. The Government are clobbering the road haulage industry and, in Northern Ireland, giving a green light to the racketeers and smugglers across the border with the Republic. We believe that most of the proceeds of such racketeering and smuggling go into the pockets of the terrorist organisations.

Although we welcome the extra money for the IDB and the amounts being spent on economic development generally, let us be clear in our minds that it will be money wasted unless the Government wake up to the reality of the damage that their policies are doing to business.

I shall pick out a couple of matters for comment. Significant amounts of money are being devoted to the Training and Employment Agency—rightly so, as it is very important. However, perhaps the Minister would give an idea of the cost of each job created by the new deal in Northern Ireland. In the United Kingdom as a whole, the cost is in the order of £11,000 per job, making it the most expensive job creation scheme in history. Also, in the country as a whole, almost half of those who go on to the scheme come off it without any positive result. They move on to other benefits or disappear entirely.

The Government make much of the comprehensive spending review and the extra money being given to health and education. We have made it clear that we welcome that extra money.

Those concerns aside, I offer the Opposition's support for the order and hope, as I said earlier, that the next time it is debated will be in the Parliament buildings at Stormont, with the Minister of Finance and Personnel moving it.

10.30 pm

Mr. Eddie McGrady (South Down)

I endorse the Minister's hope that this will be the last time that an appropriation order is debated in the Chamber, and that the democratic will of the people of Northern Ireland, so clearly expressed and so passionately sought, will be fulfilled over the next couple of weeks. In the meantime, it behoves us all to use our best endeavours to honour the will of the people as expressed in the referendum on the terms of the Good Friday agreement, which the people endorsed and are entitled to have delivered. That does not mean that we have to agree with all of it, but if we subscribe to democracy, we have an obligation to ensure that the will of the people, so clearly expressed with a 70 per cent. margin, is delivered by the parties in Northern Ireland within a very short time.

The need for a local Administration is apparent each day. In all the Departments of Government, many measures have been shelved and not brought into effect. They are awaiting proper debate by the people of Northern Ireland, through their representatives, in the context of what best suits the Administration there. It is essential that that proceeds as quickly as possible.

I share the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) about the task of the new Minister of Finance and Personnel—who we hope will be in office before too long—in the light of the shortfall in provision for the expenses of the new Assembly, which were grossly underestimated by officials in many Departments. As the Minister noted, they have reached £27.6 million, instead of £14 million.

The new Minister will have to deal with the debacle that has resulted from the Chancellor's May 1998 so-called bonanza. The Good Friday agreement was endorsed by the Chancellor's statement that funds would be provided for an £87 million programme of essential and urgent major roadworks. Those included the Banbridge to Newry section of the Dublin-Belfast arterial route, the West Link in Belfast and the Toome bypass. On 21 April, a major roadworks programme was launched for 1999–2000 to 2002–03 by the Minister. That was in addition to the £87 million that was to come out of the Belfast port sale.

Examination of the proposal of the Belfast harbour commissioners, which was accepted, showed that it was wanting in many respects. I am deeply concerned about the indications given in the ministerial introduction to the debate that the funding shortfall, be it temporary or permanent, will mean that not only the roads programme, to which the money from the harbour sale was specifically dedicated, but other aspects of the budget will be affected.

I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that the budget of the Housing Executive for social housing, that for the agricultural and farming community and a number of other budgets will not be restricted because of failure to receive, or delay in receiving, receipts from the proposed privatisation of Belfast harbour. It is most important that we know that as soon as possible.

We all know that duty on fuel is part of the escalator. We in Northern Ireland, along with the rest of western Europe, accept our share of responsibility for achieving a greener and better environment, but the problem is that we are suffering disproportionately from the application of that tax. When we were debating clause 2 of the Finance Bill, I said, as did people from all parties subsequently, that increased fuel and road tax duties were causing great difficulty for haulage and transport companies and petrol retailers in the border areas.

The only land border between the United Kingdom and any other country is that with the Republic of Ireland. The enormous differential in fuel costs and road tax levy costs between the UK and the Republic of Ireland is already on record. In that debate, I suggested that, although the scheme implemented by the Netherlands Government in respect of their problem vis-a-vis the German fiscal system has created a differential, it is not nearly as big as that between the UK and the Republic of Ireland. I have pursued that suggestion ever since.

I understand that the Netherlands Government give a grant to Dutch border companies within 10 km of the German border sufficient to equalise the fuel prices of Germany and the Netherlands. In the area between 11 km and 20 km from the border, a levy grant is given to alleviate the difference, making it half the differential between the products of the two fiscal regimes. I am terribly disappointed that, despite many representations being made by many parties, we do not seem to be any nearer receiving an answer; because of that, there is further unemployment in Northern Ireland, and the transfer of companies to the Republic of Ireland is growing apace. It is vital that we receive an answer on the scheme as soon as possible.

One difficulty is that the matter of who is ultimately responsibility for whether such a measure is a tax concession or a levy concession from the estimates seems to travel back and forth like a shuttlecock between the Chancellor at Westminster and the Northern Ireland Office. If the measure is introduced, as I hope it will be, and the money has to come out of the Northern Ireland block grant, provision must be made for that. The Confederation of British Industry is deeply concerned about the long-term impact that such a huge differential will have on the economy of Northern Ireland. I shall not quote from its lengthy document on that; it is sufficient to refer the Minister to it.

The Department of Health and Social Services deals with long-term care. Some years ago, under the previous Administration, there was a great push to create private nursing homes at the expense of the public or statutory nursing homes. I participated in the struggle to ensure that there was a choice between those two sectors for the less well-off in our community. It appears that economic circumstances are being created in which the private sector is being pushed out of existence. I take as an example the case in the southern part of my constituency, where some 73 bed closures took place in a relatively short time because the funding was not sufficient to meet the cost of care and had not risen in line with inflation. If that process continues, the state will have to pick up the difference and supply the residential beds that have disappeared from the private sector.

The whole question of long-term care seems to have been put on hold. Some of the health boards that administer parts of my constituency have been instructed not to proceed with further implementation of long-term care projects because they cannot meet the justifiable increases in the cost of their staff and doctors. They will have to cut services to provide the funds for those—quite proper—increases in salary, which should have been properly funded to enable the new salary scales to be paid and to allow existing services to be at least sustained, if not improved. The long-term care document says that expenditure on the care of the elderly in our community should be increased. That now seems destined not to happen.

I know that many other hon. Members want to speak, so I shall make just one final point. It concerns the Government's road transport policy. Will there be a new ferry between Strangford and Portaferry, or are we to sink the next time we cross that piece of water? The proposal has been on and off for as long as I can remember. Will the Minister either take up that point, or take it away with him and come back to us another time with some affirmative action to replace the aged ferries known as the Motor Vessel Strangford and the Motor Vessel Portaferry? I am sorry to end on that parochial note, but I had to get it in somewhere.

10.42 pm

Mr. Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire)

The Minister said that he hoped that this would be the last time that we debate these estimates, and I very much agree with him. Now that Wales and Scotland are enjoying devolution, we must remember that it is never too late to delegate. I continue to hope—for the sake of fulfilling many of the dreams and ambitions of constitutional reform, but, even more, for the sake of securing peace in Northern Ireland—that Northern Ireland takes its rightful place in what is becoming a federal United Kingdom.

It is worth bearing in mind that £4.2 billion is a lot of money. It is more than £3,000 a head in Northern Ireland, which continues to be the part of the UK most dependent on public funding. In the medium to long term, we want that to change. As Northern Ireland's economy benefits from the peace dividend, I should like to think that the proportion of income generated through private enterprise will increase.

I welcome the money for health and education. The increase in the education budget is about 6 per cent., which is well above inflation. That is very much in line with what the Government promised; more to the point, it is in line with our expectations of proper investment in education, which, for many years, has been starved of that sort of investment across the UK, including Northern Ireland. I therefore award the Minister a big tick, a "well done" and a 2-1 for that.

What concerns me most is the continuing question of the funds that will accrue from the sale of the port of Belfast. Last year, the Chancellor announced under the roads programme a special package for Northern Ireland, which amounted to some £70 million. The money was to come from the privatisation of Belfast harbour through a public-private partnership. As the Minister knows, I have grave reservations about the privatisation process, although I do not intend to pursue those now. Other hon. Members from Northern Ireland may wish to discuss that.

However, I remind the Minister that it is widely acknowledged that such a flotation would raise much more than £70 million, probably in the region of £110 million to £120 million. Lord Dubs has consistently informed Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly—my contacts are in the Northern Ireland Alliance party—that any money in excess of £70 million would be retained within the Northern Ireland budget. We have since learned that that may no longer be the case, and that the £70 million will be spent not only on road schemes, but on projects such as new school buildings and beef marketing. Great pressure has been put on the Committee of the Assembly to support the privatisation plans. If those plans are not agreed, the threat is that the projects will be delayed or even shelved.

Is it still Government policy, as outlined in Lord Dubs's submission to the ad hoc Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly on the privatisation of Belfast harbour, that any money in excess of the £70 million contained in the Chancellor's proposals should be retained in the Northern Ireland budget? To underline the point, I remind the Minister of the reply that Lord Dubs gave to Mr. Neeson of the Alliance party on this subject. He said: The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave an undertaking that the proceeds from the sale of Belfast harbour would stay in the Northern Ireland block and therefore would be spent for Northern Ireland purposes. The Secretary of State and I have reiterated that on a number of occasions. I cannot see that the Assembly would do otherwise, because it would be their money. It is unusual for the Treasury to give such a commitment in relation to a privatisation, but one has clearly been given in this instance. It is there in black and white. Will the Minister confirm that all the money from the privatisation will be ring-fenced for inward investment in Northern Ireland, and will not be drawn out of Northern Ireland by the Treasury and put into the collective coffers for the United Kingdom? That is an extremely important point. The Minister is obligated, especially on account of the Government's statements in the House and in the other place, to reaffirm that the money will be protected for Northern Ireland interests.

I congratulate the Minister on his confirmation that the current figure in the estimates for the cost of running the Assembly will be modified and increased if the Assembly begins to operate in line with its full intended purpose. I assure the Minister that he has saved the House from a long and tedious list of on-costs and unaccounted costs, which I would have read out had that assurance not been given. In reward for his far-sighted and fair-minded considerations, I shall spare him a whole page of my speech—a rare occurrence.

I want to comment briefly on a matter of continuing concern: rural life and farming in Northern Ireland. I looked at the figures, and I understand the Minister's comments in justification of the investment in agriculture. I am still concerned that agriculture is under great pressure in Northern Ireland, as in other parts of the United Kingdom. I hope that the Minister will be flexible on the need for further investment to protect a traditional way of life in the Province. It is a political decision to support smallholdings and family farms. Indeed, Northern Ireland has much in common with Wales, including the area that I represent. It is important to acknowledge the Government's warm words of reassurance for Northern Ireland farmers. I hope that those words are backed up by action, especially if the crisis deepens for any reason.

I am duty bound to comment on my continuing hobbyhorse and favourite worthy cause: Armagh observatory and planetarium. Having considered its budget, I can see that the increase from £798,000 to £818,000 is in line with inflation. The Minister is to be congratulated on his continuing concern for something that really is a centre of excellence in the United Kingdom. The Armagh observatory, in particular, is now participating in a proactive way in the international effort to track and catalogue asteroids and other heavenly objects that might collide with the earth.

You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that when I first raised this matter I was regarded as something of a crank—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] I thank hon. Members for their consolation. I am glad to say that, following an Adjournment debate on that very subject a few months ago, both the national and the international specialist press have acknowledged the substantial step forward that was taken by Ministers in recognising first that asteroids pose a genuine threat to life on earth, and secondly—specifically—that Northern Ireland's Armagh observatory makes a significant contribution to the investigation of what I would describe as a developing area of astronomy. An inflation-linked increase for Armagh observatory could be the most important investment that the Minister has ever approved.

Mr. William Ross

I assume that the hon. Gentleman has read the report of a recent debate on this subject in the other place, and has also read an excellent document on near-earth objects, which sets out the dangers very clearly. There is a copy in the Library.

Mr. Öpik

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have read both. I congratulate him on his interest in the subject, but I fear that I shall be ruled out of order if I stray any further into the subject of space. I commend both the documents that he mentioned to any other hon. Members who are interested.

Finally, I want to raise an issue that others have mentioned: the importance of recognising that we should have fewer debates on Northern Ireland here. This is one debate that I hope very much will pass from us to the Northern Ireland Assembly. As I am about the only member of my party who is not standing for its leadership, I thank Northern Ireland politicians for giving me a chance to keep myself busy in the evenings; but I would rather be idle than see this debate return to the House of Commons next year. I think that we all hope sincerely that, next year, we shall be debating and commenting informally on decisions made on the budget by Northern Ireland politicians, rather than their debating ours.

10.52 pm

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Inverclyde)

I am sorry to hear that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) is not standing for the leadership of his party.

In his opening remarks, the Minister compared and contrasted the present condition of political devolution in Northern Ireland with that obtaining in Wales and Scotland. I visited the Scottish Parliament a few days ago in its temporary accommodation on The Mound in Edinburgh. I need hardly remind the Minister that First Minister Dewar—as he is known in Scotland—has already published details of eight Bills dealing with matters with which a Northern Ireland Assembly would deal in the round. As the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), will acknowledge, some of those Bills are less popular than others, but that is another story.

Along with the hon. Members for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) and for Montgomeryshire, I sincerely hope that this is the last occasion on which we shall discuss orders of this kind. There are, of course, profound differences between Belfast and Edinburgh and Belfast and Cardiff, but let us hope that Ministers in a Northern Ireland Assembly will, in the near future, engage with their Back-Bench Committees in the furtherance of legislation in their Province.

I want to ask the Minister some specific questions about the order.

Vote 2 deals with fisheries and other matters. Although we hear a great deal about agriculture in Northern Ireland—which is right and proper, as it is a very important industry—we hear rather less about Northern Ireland's fishing industry and fishing communities. Will the Minister confirm that he and his ministerial colleagues are anxious to ensure renewal of the older parts of Northern Ireland's fishing fleet? Especially in smaller fishing communities, it is essential that skipper owners should be given the opportunity and encouragement to replace old vessels.

In Scotland, we have similar problems with our fishing fleet, and Brussels—some might say unfortunately—is the final arbiter over their resolution. Nevertheless, it is essential that we should maintain a lively fishing industry, which must be based on a modern catching sector.

Are moneys being found to encourage training of young fishermen? These days, I probably should have added "young fisherwomen" to the end of that question, but it is primarily young males who take those fishing jobs. The Minister may not be able to answer those questions today, but I should welcome answers to them later.

Vote 7 deals with, among other things, ferry services, which were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady). Many ferry services already link Scotland to Northern Ireland, and we welcomed establishment of the Ballycastle-Campbeltown service. However, what discussions have been held between the Minister's officials and ferry companies on developing a service between Northern Ireland and Port Glasgow—which, as the Minister will know, is not in my constituency, but is not far from it. Such a service could be an important development for Northern Ireland, especially for its tourist trade.

I have no wish to harm the interests of people in Stranraer or in Troon, but there is keen interest on the lower Clyde in development of another service between Northern Ireland and the Firth of Clyde that uses the most modern ferry vessels—such as those built in Australia, as the Australians seem to be the experts. Have any discussions on developing more such ferry services been held between the Minister's officials, P and O Stena and other companies?

Vote 12 deals with expenditure on education. Recently, I received a letter from the chief executive of PlayBoard, on a matter which the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and other hon. Members are interested in and concerned about. The letter states: PlayBoard recently wrote to Assembly Members, MPs and other key Members of Parliament within the GB political parties on the lack of infrastructure support for the New Opportunities Fund in Northern Ireland". After being approached by PlayBoard members, I wrote to the Minister on that very issue, to solicit his observations and advice on PlayBoard's mildly critical view of the Government and their officials.

The letter also states: The Minister refers to a Development Worker funded in each Area", but claims that No decision has been taken on this yet. PlayBoard is acutely aware of the target to create 12,000 out of school childcare places and secure enough applications from Northern Ireland to spend the £9.9 million budget. Such targets require much more than one Worker in each area, providing advice and support to hundreds of community groups. Neither does it respond to the crucial training needs to ensure appropriate standards of quality and skills. I would be grateful if the Minister could address that critical view of what has and has not been done.

On the funding of training for industrial skills, I remind the Minister that Harland and Wolff is one of only two shipyards in the whole of the UK that is capable of building vessels and structures in excess of 40,000 tonnes of gross registered tonnage. It is essential that that company be given assistance. I know that it is now specialising in the fabrication industry, but it is essential that training programmes are maintained to enable youngsters to use their skills in that shipyard.

Welding is an important skill in the construction of any kind of maritime vessel or offshore structure. A welder needs to be out of work for only a month or six weeks for him or her to be unable to meet the rigorous standards set by the major international insurance organisations.

There is a need to ensure that the facility survives, as it is one of only two such facilities in the UK—which had a once-famous, vast shipbuilding industry. The other is in Barrow-in-Furness. While the Minister has responsibility for such matters—before it is passed to Opposition Members or their friends in the Assembly—I[...]urge upon him the need to ensure that that kind of training programme is maintained in the interests of that important shipyard.

I sincerely hope that this is the last time that we debate such orders. Despite the immense problems facing the negotiations in Northern Ireland, I hope that the Assembly can, in the near future, get down to the everyday work that, even this side of the formal opening day of the Scottish Parliament, Members of that Parliament are already engaged in. Committees are being set up there—more powerful than our Select Committees—and I look forward to the day when similarly powerful Committees which can hold the Executive to account are at work on similar Bills in Northern Ireland to those that will go through the Scottish Parliament. I hope that that day is not far off.

11.3 pm

Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson (Lagan Valley)

The Minister dealt at length with the reasons why this House, and not the Northern Ireland Assembly, is considering the order this evening, and I want to comment on some of his remarks.

The Minister referred also to the referendum that was held in Northern Ireland last year which endorsed the Belfast Agreement and gave rise to the new institutions that have been proposed for Northern Ireland. Those of us who voted no in the referendum are not, as some suggest, against the concept of devolution for Northern Ireland. Indeed, many of us have campaigned for years for accountable Government to be restored to Northern Ireland. We want to see an Assembly working in Northern Ireland, and we want greater accountability. That must include the whole issue of appropriation. We, too, look forward to the day when these matters will be discussed in the Assembly.

The Minister touched on the reasons why power has not yet been transferred. I remind the House of the words of the Prime Minister. In the Irish News and the Belfast News Letter, on the morning of the referendum, he wrote: Representatives of parties intimately linked to paramilitary groups can only be in a future Northern Ireland government if it is clear that there will be no more violence and the threat of violence has gone. That doesn't just mean decommissioning, but all bombing, killings, beatings, and an end to targeting, recruiting, and all the structures of terrorism. When the same Prime Minister came to Belfast last week, and spoke again on the transfer of power to the Northern Ireland Assembly and the establishment of an Executive, I did not hear those words repeated. I heard a lot of condemnation of Ulster Unionist Members who have taken a particular political line, but I did not hear condemnation in the same terms of the terrorist organisations that are preventing the transfer of power to the Assembly through their failure to honour their obligations under the agreement.

I hope that, on the issue of the transfer of power, which would include decision making on appropriations, the Government will come down firmly on the side of the democrats. The argument is not between the Ulster Unionist party and Sinn Fein-IRA, but between terrorism and democracy. The Prime Minister said that one cannot blur the line between terrorism and democracy, but I see considerable blurring in his present attitude.

The Government cannot sit on the fence; they have to support the democratic parties. For power to be transferred to the Assembly, there has to be at least the beginning of the process of decommissioning illegal terrorist weapons, primarily by the IRA, as only the IRA's political representatives in Sinn Fein stand to gain from seats on the Executive.

To use the Prime Minister's own language, violence is continuing in Northern Ireland on the part of all the paramilitary groupings, but particularly the IRA. There have been three murders by the IRA this year, and last week there was the attempted murder of Martin McGartland. According to the Prime Minister's own criteria, set before the people of Northern Ireland, Sinn Fein-IRA should be ineligible to take up their seats on the Executive, against the backdrop of the continuing violence and their failure to decommission their weapons.

Let me be clear about where the Ulster Unionist party stands on this issue. We will not fudge the issue of decommissioning. As my party leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said recently, it is no guns and no government for Sinn Fein-IRA, and that will not change.

Right hon. and hon. Members have referred to the privatisation of Belfast port. The Chancellor made provision in his special package for about £87 million for additional road works in Northern Ireland, to be drawn from the proceeds of the port privatisation. My party is not opposed to the privatisation in principle, although I note that Labour was opposed to it in opposition, so we find it a little surprising that it should be so enthusiastic about it now. What is important is the method of privatisation that is used, and I understand that a public-private partnership is the preferred option. However, safeguards must be built in to ensure that the public interest is protected. We do not want a repeat of what happened with Belfast international airport, when individuals lined their pockets at the expense of the taxpayer. That must not be allowed to happen in respect of Belfast port.

There is more flexibility in expenditure than the Government pretend. I hope that important infrastructural improvements proposed recently by Lord Dubs in the five-year roads programme for Northern Ireland, which included a number of improvements to our major roads network, will not be sacrificed in order to proceed with the roads measures proposed in the Chancellor's package simply because there is a delay in the privatisation of Belfast port.

The Minister mentioned the considerable underspend on certain aspects of the Northern Ireland Departments and I hope that the flexibility provided by that underspend will ensure that the projects in the major roads works programme for the next five years will proceed as planned. I welcome that programme, especially the improvements proposed to the A1 dual carriageway—the Belfast road which runs through Newry, across the border and towards Dublin—and the improvements to the Hillsborough road junction in Dromore and the Rathfriland road junction in Banbridge, which have seen several fatal accidents in the past few years. Those improvements are essential and I hope that they will proceed in the next financial year, as envisaged in Lord Dubs's announcement.

We welcome the additional moneys that have been made available by the Government to promote and expand nursery education in Northern Ireland. I welcome the presence of the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who has been very active in promoting nursery education in Northern Ireland. We welcome the expansion of nursery education, because there has been a gap in our education system. We are very proud of our education system, and we feel that the provision of extra nursery places can serve only to enhance educational attainment.

The Government are keen to focus much of the expansion in areas of high social need, and my party is not opposed to that in principle. However, we have been concerned by the implementation of the new admissions criteria, which link prioritisation of places specifically to children whose parents are in receipt of certain social security benefits. I do not say that there is no place for doing that, but the feedback I have received in my constituency suggests that the system has problems. I urge the Minister to review again the implementation of those special criteria. I support the targeting of nursery places in areas of high social need, but I am not convinced that we have got the balance right. I hope that once the present intake has been dealt with, the Minister will learn whatever lessons arise and review the criteria as required.

The Minister referred to economic development and we welcome the progress that has been made in Northern Ireland, especially in attracting new investment. We were pleased last week by the Government's selection of the Bombardier Aerospace Raytheon team's project for the airborne standoff radar system—ASTOR—for the United Kingdom. That will benefit Shorts in Belfast significantly. The firm's main plant is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). He and other hon. Members from Northern Ireland have lobbied the Government in support of the project, and we welcome an announcement that will bring employment security to Shorts, our largest engineering employer.

That is the type of success story that we want in Northern Ireland. We welcome inward investment and its promotion, but we also want our indigenous companies to grow and to export their goods throughout the world. We must get that balance right, and the expenditure on economic development provided under this order is very important. We want peace and progress in Northern Ireland, but we must provide employment, especially for our young people. Employment gives them a stake in the community, and that is vital for progress.

The order contains provision for redundancy payments to be made following the demise of the action for community employment schemes. I was among those hon. Members with Northern Ireland constituencies who supported the ACE schemes, which brought important employment into areas of high social need. Some of the schemes were very successful.

The ACE project was very different from the new deal system, which I also welcome and which I have promoted in my constituency. However, the demise of the ACE schemes has caused problems. In the Seymour hill area in my constituency, the end of the ACE schemes has been much lamented by the local community. They assisted local people tremendously, and I am worried that the new deal arrangement does not provide the same community service. I urge the Government to examine the matter to see whether the new deal arrangement, which obviously provides new opportunities for people to gain employment, can also be matched to community needs.

The appropriation order also includes provision for the fire service. The present dispute is not exclusive to Northern Ireland, but stems from union unease about the withdrawal of national negotiating rights throughout the United Kingdom. Many fire brigade officers in Northern Ireland are concerned about the withdrawal of those rights, and I hope that the Government will use their influence to support their retention for fire services. It is very important to the men and women in the Northern Ireland fire service that we maintain a standard that applies throughout the United Kingdom.

The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) spoke of the plight of Northern Ireland's petrol retailers, and the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) referred to the road haulage industry and to the impact of the increase in fuel excise duties on those industries. That is a major problem.

Recently, the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) and I led a delegation from the Road Haulage Association to meet the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. She undertook to bring their case to the attention of the Treasury, but we still await a response. I hope that the Northern Ireland Office will take the matter seriously, as the road haulage industry is suffering as a result of the difference in fuel prices and vehicle excise duties between Northern Ireland and the Republic. We are part of an island, so the road haulage industry is essential to our ability to export, and the matter needs to be given priority.

I endorse the comments of the hon. Member for South Down, who cited the example of the special arrangements in the Netherlands to deal with price differentials across the frontier with Germany. I hope that the Government will examine that seriously. As a member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, I look forward to the report that it hopes to publish on fuel in Northern Ireland. I hope that it contributes to the debate. It is important that the Government should move quickly to deal with the problem, because it is having a serious impact on petrol retailers, particularly in border regions, and on the road haulage industry.

We look forward to the day when we have devolution in Northern Ireland, but it must be achieved on the basis of the principles of democracy, just as it has been in Scotland and Wales. It is easy for hon. Members to compare Northern Ireland with Scotland and Wales and say how beneficial it would be for all three of those regions of the United Kingdom to achieve devolution at the same time. That would be nice, but it has to be done on the basis of democracy. Just as it would be wrong for people who are linked to terrorist organisations that remain fully armed and engaged in violence to be in the Governments of Wales or Scotland, so it is wrong in Northern Ireland. We should be happy to see a devolved Administration with democrats creating accountable government in Northern Ireland, but those who are involved in that Government must be committed to exclusively peaceful means. That can be the only way forward.

11.22 pm

Mr. Peter Robinson (Belfast, East)

We have had an interesting debate. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) was chasing heavenly bodies around the firmament. The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) wanted to improve the road to Dublin. I am glad that I have a new friend and colleague, sitting on the Government Benches, who supports the introduction of more training schemes, particularly for shipyard workers. I have long campaigned for that cause and have been in touch with Ministers from this Government and previous Governments many times. A lot of work could be done, particularly on welding, because much of the work with oil rigs at Harland and Wolff requires a higher spec of welding. A training scheme in Northern Ireland would allow many local people to use welding skills in Harland and Wolff rather than bringing in workers from outside. The use of subcontractors has been a source of discontent in the shipyard for a long time.

I declare my registered interest as a shareholder of Harland and Wolff, although I assure the House that it is a modest shareholding. I should like to make some comments about the Belfast port. As a major land user in the port, Harland and Wolff has an interest. However, I shall speak against my recorded interest, because my position would not be to the benefit of any shareholding in Harland and Wolff. The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and I jointly proposed a motion in the new Northern Ireland Assembly to set up an ad hoc Committee to look at the future of the Belfast port. We had an undertaking on record from the Government that they would leave it to the Assembly to decide the future of the Belfast port. I always thought that it was slightly mischievous of the Government to say that they would leave the future of the port to the Assembly and then put into their estimates for the year £70 million contingent on the sale of it. However, perhaps that allowed the Assembly to decide which way it would cut the port's throat.

The Assembly Committee that is dealing with the matter has been working diligently and has spoken to all the interests. I do not believe that I am telling tales out of school in saying that there is a clear impression among those who know of its work that it is not as Thatcherite as the Government about the future of Belfast port. Indeed, it would probably take the view that Labour took in opposition about the privatisation of Belfast port. I remember standing shoulder to shoulder with the then Opposition on this issue, in line with the trade unions, which recognised that certain functions made Belfast port a very bad candidate for privatisation.

A few days ago, the Committee met Lord Dubs, who expanded on what the Minister said tonight and said that in the absence of the £70 million from the sale of the port, they were looking where to cut back in other areas. I am sure it is only a coincidence that the cuts suggested just happened to affect each member of the Committee. No doubt they will not take anything that he said into consideration in dealing with the principles involved.

As was said earlier, the sale of Belfast port would probably raise considerably more than the £70 million mentioned in the estimates for this year. I rather suspect that the Government intend to pocket anything beyond the £70 million and put it back into the Exchequer.

Rev. Martin Smyth

Does the hon. Gentleman suspect that the person who miscalculated the amount required for the Assembly might have been the mathematician who divided the development land from the harbour land and took some land that was not really development land?

Mr. Robinson

Perhaps it was the same person who worked out the amount required for the Assembly in the rest of the financial year. We will come to that in a moment.

I believe that it is possible to gain something in the region of £70 million by privatising the port functions of Belfast port without taking away any of the land involved. The Committee will no doubt consider that. It would be far better, not least because if we can get £70 million and hold on to the land with the Exchequer getting nothing back, it is a much better deal than handing it back to the Government. We could put that gain in our treasure chest.

I am concerned that the Minister is getting bullish on Belfast port. One might almost say that there is intimidation because pressure is being applied to Assembly Members in respect of the consequences of their not taking such action. I hope that he will be able to assure us in his reply that the clear public commitment given to the Assembly that this task would be left to it is still the Government's policy and that they will not seek to sell the port off behind its back without reference to the Committee's views as expressed in its report.

Before I turn to the Assembly's budget, I see that the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—who is responsible for education in Northern Ireland—is on the Front Bench and clearly intends to reply to the debate. I take this opportunity to remind him of the great needs of Cregagh primary school. The Minister was good enough to see for himself the state of its buildings. Local people were impressed by his knowledge of, and interest in, the matter—he expressed his understanding and recognised the needs at that school. Feasibility and other studies have been conducted, but the matter appears to be dragging on. While we do not doubt what the end result will be, we fear that the issue will drift on for another year. The school has been blighted, and we must have a clear statement from the Minister at the earliest possible moment that the school will be rebuilt, and will therefore survive. I hope that he will make that statement before the Assembly assumes responsibility, as he has taken an interest in the matter thus far.

I want to make some substantive comments about an issue that has dominated not only many speeches this evening, but the debate in the other place a few days ago. Any argument for reform of the House of Lords was reinforced by the contributions to that debate, which were full of much ill-informed comment. Probably the best-informed speaker was Lord Molyneaux, who had clearly been briefed and who put the figures on the record. The result of that debate was, in many ways, most unfortunate. The debate was massively reported in the Belfast Telegraph, the main newspaper in Northern Ireland, and created much concern in the community and among the general public. It is important to set the record straight.

My view of the present process is different from that of most hon. Members. I opposed it before, during and after the referendum. Everyone knows where I am coming from on that issue. Therefore, they might take it better if I make it clear that I believe that the Assembly has been very badly treated on this issue. When asked to perform a task, the Assembly Commission must do so in the context of the existing structure. It did not invent the structure: it was not responsible for determining that there would be 108 Members, for instance.

I did not hear some of those who have complained about the cost agreeing with us when we said that the Assembly had far too many Members and was far too costly. When it was decided that there should be 10 Departments instead of the existing six, I did not hear any of them complain. They opted for the more costly option. Therefore, the Assembly Commission has costed a year of the fully functioning Assembly on the basis of the architectural drawings prepared and passed by the House and the other place. It therefore ill became Lord Fitt to speak in the manner that he did a few days ago. He said that the Assembly Commission's figure of £36 million had been produced with gay abandon; it had been pulled out of the air. The reality is that the most reckless statements were those that he made. He made remarks with no acknowledgement of the facts or of the details, but, having served in this House with the noble Lord when he was the Member of Parliament for Belfast West, that comes as no surprise.

The facts are that the Department of Finance and Personnel produced a figure of about £14 million; and the Assembly's shadow Commission produced an estimate of £36.9 million, but they were pricing for completely different items. The Department of Finance and Personnel was pricing for a version of the old forum, whereas the Assembly's Commission was pricing a fully functional, full-steam-ahead, legislative and administrative Assembly. There is a world of difference between the two. That is clear and it was immediately clear to the Assembly Commission.

Far from pulling figures out of the air, recklessly or with gay abandon, the members of the Commission took the task so seriously that they met officials of this House, who were most helpful in relation to the staffing that would be required in the Assembly. We spoke to the Stationery Office about the likely costs for printing. We spoke to the Scottish consultative body about its estimate of costs. The costs prepared for the Northern Ireland Assembly are less per capita than for Scotland, for this House and, indeed, for Dail Eireann.

I should explain that I mean "per capita" in terms of the number of Members of the Assembly—not of the population. An Assembly to look after 2 million people will cost the same as one that looks after 10 million, if it has the same number of Members and functions in the same way. The Northern Ireland Assembly was set up with 108 Members by the Labour Government, although half that number would suffice. Indeed, the Members sit in a Chamber that originally held 52 Members. The old Northern Ireland Parliament functioned perfectly well with 52 Members. The pudding is being over-egged in order to bring certain interests into the Assembly—namely paramilitary interests.

The Assembly is cost-effective when compared to this House, to Scotland and to Dail Eireann—although I should not automatically choose to make the latter comparison. The amount of £14.3 million proposed by the Government does not take several factors into account. First, some costs have been underestimated, one of which is the stationery bill. The cost allocated for publications and printing was a few hundred thousand pounds. The Government obviously did not realise that a fully functioning Assembly will have to print Bills and a report of its proceedings. There will be Committees, which will have reports. There will be notice papers, business papers and so on. The eventual bill will be about £3 million, rather than £200,000 or £300,000. Several costs were underestimated.

Some matters were completely omitted from the costs. In several areas, set-up costs—where the transitional programme or training kicks in—which would of course be non-recurring, must be taken into account. There are a number of areas in which there are transferred costs, too. The Department of the Environment, for instance, is currently responsible for funding the repairs and maintenance of the Parliament buildings. After devolution, that responsibility will be transferred to the Assembly Commission.

The present figure that the shadow Assembly Commission is running to is in the region of £26 million. The only difference between the £26 million that it is now considering and the previous £36.9 million is the length of time of full devolution during the financial year. The base figure is still the same, but the amount that will be required, should devolution occur on 1 July, is in the region of £26 million. I am glad that the Minister has to some extent recognised that tonight.

I think that the Government have been involved in a little sharp practice on this issue. As one who is involved in preparing estimates for several different bodies, I know that one looks to the year ahead and decides what provision is required. On occasions, one must recognise that the money might not be spent. A head of expenditure is included if one thinks that it is probable that it will be spent. If it is not spent, the money can either be released for other purposes or put into the reserves. One has such an opportunity later in the year.

Either the Government do not believe that devolution will occur—they have no faith in their own policy of devolving powers to Northern Ireland—and therefore are allocating only £14 million ticking-over money, or Ministers are saying to themselves, "Why should we get our hands dirty in taking money away from education, the environment, some of the very important job-creation schemes, agriculture or housing projects? We'll leave that to the people who come behind us. We will put the low figure in for the Assembly costs, knowing full well that it is not sufficient, and let those fellows after us come in and take money away from various heads of expenditure." That is the job that has been left to a Northern Ireland Minister of Finance should devolution occur.

During debate in the House of Lords, reference was made—I think by more than one of the noble Lords—to the Assembly's functions, particularly the cost of what they called "democracy in Northern Ireland". As a devolutionist, I happen to think that a devolved Assembly is good value. The fact that I do not think that there is much democracy in the Assembly takes some of the glitter away from it.

The type of assembly to be set up in Northern Ireland is more costly than the kind now set up in Scotland—

Dr. Godman

That is a Parliament.

Mr. Robinson

Well, I am talking about a parliamentary Assembly. The Scottish structure is not based on the same committee structure. The Committees in Northern Ireland undertake a considerable function; they have even more powers than a Select Committee in this House. The staffing of those Committees was not even taken into account in the Government's £14 million, so it is very clear that the underestimate was the Government's responsibility, and that the figure proposed by the Northern Ireland Assembly was not an overestimate. It is important that those facts are on the record.

Finally, in relation to the possibilities of devolving power, some comments have been made during the evening that that is what the people of Northern Ireland voted for in the referendum. I do not believe that it is. I believe that the people of Northern Ireland were seduced into believing that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom meant what he said when he made promises in and outside the House that there would be no prisoner releases until violence was given up for good.

The IRA have killed four people since then. They have been breaking legs and shooting legs. They have been racketeering. They have been involved in all kinds of violence. The fact that they do it under an alias does not make it any less a breach of the IRA's ceasefire. The Prime Minister did not keep his word on that issue.

The Prime Minister did not keep his word on the future of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Reports of the work of the Patten commission make it very clear that it is talking about a new—yes, completely new—police service. The RUC is on the altar, to be destroyed as part of this process, and the Unionist community will not easily forgive those who have placed the RUC there.

The Prime Minister is about to break the promise that he made about the membership of an Executive by Sinn Fein-IRA. He made it abundantly clear that there was no place in government for those who were still wedded to violence and had not decommissioned their weapons. He is back-tracking daily on that pledge.

The people of Northern Ireland did not get what they voted for. They were given a second opportunity to give a verdict on that issue and, in the European election, no less than 60 per cent. of the Unionist electorate showed that they had no confidence in the process. The Government would be making a grave error if they were to disregard that voice.

It is abundantly clear that the Unionist community does not support the process. The Unionist community has given, in democratic terms, its verdict on the Belfast agreement, and I suggest to the Government that they think twice before they push that agenda forward. It must be reviewed. It must start to move towards a Unionist position instead of being dictated solely by a nationalist agenda.

Several hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Before I call another hon. Member, perhaps I should remind hon. Members of the statement made by Madam Speaker at the start of the debate as to what is permissible within discussion of the draft appropriation order.

11.48 pm

Mr. William Ross (East Londonderry)

I am always mindful of comments made by Madam Speaker, as she tends not to see people who disobey them. Therefore, I shall keep strictly in order.

I am grateful to the Minister for the letter that he sent all Northern Ireland Members on 3 June, stating the reasons why the appropriation order is before the House tonight. We all expected it to come in the normal course of events, so some of us are not surprised to find ourselves sitting in the Chamber at this hour of the evening. The mere fact of our presence shows that the Government's optimism about the establishment of the Assembly has not been realised. For that reason, the fact that the Minister is answering on some of the items that Members have indicated that we regard as sharp practice places him on the altar of having to answer for the decisions that have been taken in drawing up the estimates.

Given that the Government apparently expected someone else to reply to the debate this evening, I am looking at the figures with an even more jaundiced eye than usual to see whether the sums granted match the expenditure that is detailed. I was not greatly encouraged by what was said earlier. It seems that we are to have a block grant. Although we will be able to move the sums around a little within the block grant, in future years, there will be no question of coming back in March with a further appropriation order stating, as was the case earlier this year, that Her Majesty makes a grant of further sums. In that case, on 10 March, it was any sum or sums not exceeding in the whole one thousand six hundred and thirty-three million pounds"— that is £1.6 billion, in plain language.

If, in future years, sufficient money is not granted in the block grant, too bad; we are stuck with it. If I am wrong, I shall be happy for the Minister to tell me so in his winding-up speech. It seems to me that if there is a shortfall, it will be a matter of, "Hard cheese, boys. You are stuck with it. The block grant is fixed at the start of the financial year."

We heard an interesting and telling speech from the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) on the cost of the Assembly, and others have raised the matter too. The sum last year was considerable—£10,642,000. In March this year, we looked for £7,650,000 and we are now looking for another £6,628,000—a total sum of more than £14 million, which falls short by £22 million of the sum arrived at by the Commission of the Assembly.

I listened to the Minister's comments this evening. He said that there was so much flexibility—so much fat on the sums granted to Northern Ireland—that there would be no trouble finding the £22 million out of some little corner. I am sorry, but I take that with a great big fistful of salt, not a pinch. That £22 million is already earmarked for expenditure under other headings. It has to be brought from somewhere else to go to the Assembly. It is clear that the Government intended the new Ministers to make cuts totalling £22 million in other earmarked expenditures.

It will be interesting to see where that sum is to come from. The estimates and the orders are laid before the House. We can go through them and compare them with last year's. The ways of Government never fail to amaze me, and I should like to know how they propose to find that £22 million. There are often overspends, but rarely underspends. When people in the public service get their hands on a few million, they will find something on which to spend it, even for the long term, such as on vehicles, rather than give it back to the Treasury and go looking for more next year. We all know that that happens.

Having drawn attention to the potential black hole in the finances, and having listened to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) and others on the sum that we are supposed to get for the roads programme from the sale of Belfast harbour, it is apparent that there is a considerable dent in the money available for capital expenditure on other requirements in Northern Ireland.

That leads me to another item about which I am somewhat concerned. Although it may appear that I shall trespass on the bounds of order, I can assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I shall not do so. I shall simply ask questions about where certain sums are to be found, because they are being expended in Northern Ireland.

I have tabled a number of questions about the inquiry into events in Londonderry on 30 January 1972. The Secretary of State provided me with some information on the sums expended in the past financial year—slightly under £7 million. In my latest questions, I have asked where provision is made in the estimates for those sums, which are certain to increase considerably this year; indeed, I understand that considerable sums have been spent since the beginning of April. The answers are surprising.

Legal aid is normally set by the taxing master and varies for a solicitor from £64.50 an hour to double that sum in some cases, although that is rarely paid. The taxing master is a judicial appointment; he is a judge who fulfils a certain, specific function. The inquiry has what is described as an independent cost assessor presently negotiating with the solicitors for the families, and there is no agreement as yet. The Secretary of State has told me that hearing and witnesses costs to the end of March were £4.25 million. I wonder how much of that money is for solicitors and barristers, and what their hourly rate is.

It is not clear to me why it is necessary to have an assessor. I ask the Minister specifically whether the money for the inquiry is coming from the legal aid fund or from the Northern Ireland block grant. If so, it will have an impact that cannot be measured because we do not know what that sum will be. Is the money coming from some other fund which has been set up specifically for that purpose? Can we please have an answer to that simple question this evening? How much will it all cost and where will we find the sub-heading under which that provision has been made? The Secretary of State did not tell me that in her answer to my last question. I believe that unless the money has come from sources outwith the Northern Ireland block grant, there will be implications because the sum is considerable. The people of Northern Ireland need to be told exactly what the position is.

On a number of occasions, I have raised in the House the issue of care of the elderly who require nursing care; the Minister and I have debated it before. He will recall that, in the debate of 28 January in the Northern Ireland Grand Committee on the hospital services, I highlighted the problem of elderly people in hospital who should have been in nursing home beds and pointed out that looking after them in hospital cost roughly double looking after them in a nursing home. A lot of other problems from that time may have eased with better weather.

The Minister subsequently commissioned a special survey, which said that, on 26 February, there were 26 such persons in the Eastern health and social services board area, 30 in the Southern HSSB area, 65 in the Northern HSSB area and one in the Western HSSB area, adding up to a total of 122 elderly people who, for one reason or another, were in a hospital bed when they should have been in a nursing home. I appreciate that the number involved changes month by month, and possibly week by week, but there are still far too many people blocking hospital beds when they should be in nursing homes or, in some cases perhaps, receiving domiciliary care.

The Minister told us that he would do something about the problem. He said in his winding-up speech to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee on 28 January that he had earmarked £25 million for community care. Can he tell me this evening whether the domiciliary care element has been resolved? If it has, is its resolution permanent or temporary? Will that extra £25 million be available this year, next year and from here on out to deal with this on-going problem? Although the money is welcome, it applies only to domiciliary care. What extra provision has the Minister managed to make, in the current estimates and for future years, for residential care? That problem must be attended to. It has gone on for far too long, and if the Minister looks at it carefully, he will realise that savings could be made by putting those elderly folk and some of the very frail into the cheapest accommodation that is capable of meeting their needs. There is no reason why that should not be done when nursing home places are available.

I have been listening with interest to the various statements that have been made on the roads programme this evening and reading what has been said about it in the Northern Ireland press. I have also read the papers issued by the Northern Ireland information service on 16 June, which say that £155 million is to be spent on the roads programme during the next year. I am not too clear about what it will be spent on. We are not told, for instance, whether it embodies the Belfast harbour money, but apparently £155 million is available.

Interestingly, the chief executive of the Roads Service, Mr. McCoubrey, said: Roads are the backbone of Northern Ireland's social and economic life and it is essential not only to preserve this important asset but also to make the best use of it. None of us would deny that, although sometimes when we look at the Government's policy on taxing lorries and fuel, we begin to wonder whether they really understand the vital necessity of a sound road network in Northern Ireland and of transport for what is essentially a rural community.

I believe that roads are the backbone of Northern Ireland's social and economic life. Too little money has been spent on them, especially on major rebuild, bypasses and maintenance. I therefore hope that much more money will be found and that the Government will set out a long-term programme of major works, giving some idea of when they will come up and prioritising them, and will stick to it. We have had enough chopping, changing and shifting about over the past 20 years to last us three lifetimes, never mind one. People have been told time and again that bypasses will be built.

The bypass in my local town, Dungiven, has been on and off the programme for many years. I declare an interest—or rather a loss—in that regard, as I have a small portion of ground that will be taken up for that road when it is built. When I was in my late teens or early 20s—nearly 40 years ago—a roads officials came round to the house and told my father that we would probably lose that bit of field within the next couple of years. My father and I debated seriously whether we should go ahead with necessary land drainage. We have done it a couple of times since and the road is still not there. It is not the most important bypass in my constituency. I think that the most important is Limavady, although others may disagree.

I hope that when we have a priority list, with the main road from Belfast to Larne at the top, we will stick to it until it is completed and not allow ourselves to be blown off course when somebody else comes in screaming their head off a bit louder than the folk who rely on the word of Governments and officials.

There is much that I could say about agriculture, not least about the perilous state of the pig industry. If my hon. Friend the Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will be far better able to expand on that than I. The remaining hon. Members have nearly an hour in which to put their points before the House and to the Minister.

12.5 am

Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South)

I shall not take the line that some hon. Members have developed, but I shall refer to the concept of democratic control in the light of the experience of the Angolan Parliament. Angola elected a Government of national reconstruction, but people quickly returned to their weapons, and the country continues to be in turmoil. Some of us are concerned about what may be going on in Northern Ireland.

Can the Minister tell us whether expenditure on water and related services will be required to deal with the problem of lead pipes? They are still around. I raised the issue in the House the last time we discussed appropriation orders and in the Northern Ireland Grand Committee because there is much concern. Action is being taken on one estate to which I drew attention, but larger areas are affected.

Vote 12 deals with expenditure on education. I pay tribute to the work that is being done in our schools, from the youngest to the oldest. I particularly pay tribute to Rathmore convent school in my constituency, which again won the bar competition. Methodist college still shines in the performing arts, and will be in the Olivier theatre on 12 July—that will be an appropriate evening, even though it may bring me back earlier than usual.

Has the Minister any information on the number of families affected by the decision on nursery education to which my hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) referred? Many people in gainful employment who want to purchase places find it difficult to obtain them, and others who are in the state system of nursery education have been told that although their names were on a list they could no longer be accepted. How will that affect employment patterns?

I represent at least three of the wards of greatest deprivation in Northern Ireland and many other parts of south Belfast where there is need. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley, I support the concept of helping families that need help, but we must also be careful not to destroy a sector in which people have been working hard and making sacrifices to make an economic contribution to society.

The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) welcomed the 6 per cent. increase above inflation. We must also bear in mind the fact that Government policies have unfortunately added to the cost of the education budget in Northern Ireland. We have the controlled sector, which is the state sector, the maintained sector, which is the voluntary sector, and now we have the other voluntary sector, the integrated sector. Some people want Irish-language schools. I appreciate that, in its own way, each sector is meeting particular needs. None the less, that fragments the whole education provision and, given structural and staffing costs, it eats into the budget. That aspect is often forgotten.

Under vote 14, can the Minister tell us what will happen with the hospital development programme in the light of the judicial review of the Jubilee hospital closure? Has money been made available so that the new maternity provision will be up and running very shortly, or are the Government relying on people voting with their feet? That new maternity provision may not be required, because people will go to other hospitals outside Belfast.

What impact will that decision have on the provision of new cancer services on the city hospital site? The spectre of cancer is overshadowing the whole community. Although we welcome development in the area, the harsh reality is that the specialist centre for cancer research and provision that was planned for the city site is vital to deal with the growing problem.

I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) said about long-term health care. I want to raise two other aspects. Has proper attention been given to those with multiple sclerosis? The Multiple Sclerosis Society in Northern Ireland has done commendable work: it recently opened one of the finest training and research centres in the United Kingdom. Some time ago, however, it was asked to move from Peter Scott Martin house at Cullybacky to the Dalriada unit at Ballycastle. Most folk are reasonably conservative. They do not like moving; old habits die hard. However, I suggested that the society visit Ballycastle, because I thought that it would provide better services than Peter Scott Martin house. It did so, and thanked me for my guidance. It has now arranged to transfer its provision to Ballycastle.

Under the purchaser-provider system—which, theoretically, has now been done away with—boards purchased not to provide specialist services in Dalriada but, quite often, to provide them in residential or nursing homes in their own areas, where it was cheaper. That meant that MS sufferers were not receiving the treatment and conditions that were available in Dalriada. I have written letters about this, and await responses. In the budget, has any consideration been given to rebuilding the provision of care in Dalriada?

Another problem is myalgic encephalomyelitis, or ME. In parts of the kingdom as a whole, and particularly in Northern Ireland, there are medical practitioners who have not a clue about it. No one on the Western health and social services board has made any special study of it, and as a result people are not receiving the services that they require. Too many people still accuse sufferers of malingering. I understand part of the problem. It is possible to malinger with back pain, for instance, and I realise that medical people are sometimes caught by means of that diagnosis. None the less, it appears from approaches made to me that more provision is needed for ME care in Northern Ireland.

Let me now raise what I realise are narrow points. I do not expect specific answers tonight, but I hope that the Minister will be able to respond in writing.

On vote 18, are we really satisfied that social security benefits are going to the right people? Some people might wonder why I ask such a question, or tell me that I should not believe everything that I read in the newspapers—I do not believe everything that I read in them, but usually read between the lines so that I might get a sense of what is really happening. However, there is something wrong with the social security system.

When we asked the previous Government whether Gerry Adams was receiving social security payments, we were told that he was not. Subsequently, however, we discovered that he was receiving such payments, although a job was available for him. Anyone who thought that there was an unemployed barman in Belfast was not living in the same Belfast that I was.

Now, the weekend's newspapers have reported that Paul Downey, one of the latest victims of terrorist murder—in the drug scene, it is true, but we dissociate ourselves from anyone taking the law into his own hands and murdering anyone—not only owned several houses and his own firm, but was, in the jargon, signing on the dole each week. Will the Minister clarify whether Paul Downey was being so paid, or whether another poor clerk was made to fear for his or her own life and allow the benefit to be paid, rather than passing the matter to a senior person, who receives protection, to take the decision not to pay it?

We should not allow flagrant abuses of the social security system. Many men and women have worked faithfully all their lives, but are made redundant when their firm ceases trading. They go through purgatory, with social security staff asking them why they are claiming benefit. In other cases, however, people who are well known in the community for their practices are wrongly claiming and receiving social security benefit.

We have to address those issues—that is one of the reasons why we are in this place. I pay tribute to many of those who work in social security and social services and who are doing a magnificent job. Nevertheless, there seems to be a continual waste of money that is vitally needed elsewhere, especially if, ultimately—as has been said—there might be a hole in appropriations for Northern Ireland.

Many issues in the appropriation order require closer attention. I look forward to the day when we shall have proper scrutiny in a Northern Ireland Assembly, but regret that the House did not have an opportunity properly to debate the report of the constitutional convention of 1975, when Northern Ireland's democratic structures were set aside. We could have had such an Assembly long since. Nevertheless, as the old saying in Ulster goes, "Marry in haste; repent at leisure."

The House quickly abolished the Northern Ireland Parliament, but has found it very difficult to restore to Northern Ireland a proper democratic structure. Although I trust that we shall have such a structure in the reasonably near future, I do not share the confidence expressed today that this will be the final Northern Ireland appropriation order debated in the House.

12.18 am

Mr. William Thompson (West Tyrone)

I, too, would be surprised if this were the last Northern Ireland appropriation order debated in the House. Given the nature of the new Assembly, and particularly the nature of the proposed Executive—which is completely unworkable—the idea that we shall produce proper local government in Northern Ireland seems to be only a remote possibility. Nevertheless, today's debate gives us an opportunity to say that, as part of the United Kingdom, we welcome the fact that we enjoy the prosperity enjoyed across the United Kingdom.

There are those who tell us that we would be better off looking towards the Irish Republic, where there is a glowing economy which would be good for us. However, we in Northern Ireland are well aware that something that is happening now may not be happening in a year or two. Therefore, it has always been our view that we will do best as an integral part of the United Kingdom, rising and falling with the fortunes of that kingdom.

Had the people of Northern Ireland known that the Assembly would cost them £36 million per year, they might not have been so keen to vote for it. Having voted for it, they now know that it will cost that amount—if it ever gets off the ground.

I refer first to the Department of Education. We welcome the fact that more money has been given to pre-school education, and we welcome the numbers given to the various boards for PEAG pupils. We have heard this evening that the children of parents who are on social security benefits will get preference over others. There is a problem with that, because the children of parents who are not on any of those benefits will be left behind.

The real problem is that there are not yet enough places. I appreciate that the programme will last for three years but, from the figures that I have seen for the Western education and library board, we will need additional places and a continuation of the programme to fulfil the existing need. I trust that the Minister will consider that.

On the Department of Environment and the roads, I am interested in the sale of Belfast port, because the programme announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer included two bypasses in my constituency. I know that design work is going on in connection with these bypasses, but I was concerned when the Minister said this evening that if the port sale did not go through quickly, the schemes might be delayed. These schemes are at an early stage, and it will be some time before the design work is completed and the land is available for them. I hope that that situation will not arise and that the promises will be kept.

As for agriculture, we all know of the tremendous blow suffered by farmers, especially pig farmers in Northern Ireland, many of whom are in dire straits. We had hoped that there would be an upsurge in pig prices. There has been a slight increase, but it is nowhere near the point at which profits can be made. I encourage the Department of Agriculture to look at every possible means of bringing aid and assistance not only to the pig industry, but to the other farming sectors such as beef. I hope that the Department will do everything possible in Europe to get the date-based scheme up and running as soon as possible, so that an adequate number of animals can be killed and their meat exported.

On health and social services, the Public Accounts Committee reported on the scandalous abuse of prescriptions. It is a disgrace that money that could be better used to help needy people and to provide better medication should be wasted. I know that the Department is trying to introduce more accountability. I certainly hope that those efforts will continue and that the scandalous abuse will be stopped.

I am glad that we are a part of the United Kingdom. We benefit from the arrangement, and I trust that it will continue for many years to come.

12.26 am

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. John McFall)

This has been an interesting debate. Some of the contributions have certainly kept us awake. For example, the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) wanted the rocky road to Dublin to be smoothed out round about Hillsborough. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) was unabashed in his enthusiasm for the Assembly, and his sentiments would have done Jimmy Reid proud when he was working at UCS on the Clyde. The comments about my colleagues and me being Thatcherite will live with me for some time.

This is an historic debate, because it will be the last time that Northern Ireland appropriations are discussed in the House; thereafter, they will be a matter for the Northern Ireland Assembly. I will answer as many points as I can, and I promise to write to hon. Members about those that I cannot cover.

The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) spoke about the Industrial Development Board and said that £84 million was available; in fact, about £153 million has been made available in 1999–2000. That is a considerable commitment of resources to assist the Northern Ireland economy. The economy that he described was not the Northern Ireland economy; the output of manufacturing and production industries in Northern Ireland continues to rise at a rate well above the national average.

For example, over the past four years, Northern Ireland's manufacturing sector has increased its output by almost 12 per cent., compared with growth of only 0.5 per cent. nationally, and there has been significant improvement in the Province's gross domestic product relative to the United Kingdom's, with GDP per head rising from 76.9 per cent. of the national average in 1990 to 80.4 per cent. by 1997. The economic scene is good.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the national minimum wage. He will be aware that low pay is more prevalent in Northern Ireland than elsewhere in the United Kingdom, so the minimum wage will benefit people there very much. I have yet to hear any criticism of its introduction from any quarter in Northern Ireland.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about the cost per place of the new deal. I will write to him with the details, but I can tell him now that, in 1999–2000, £72 million has been allocated for the new deal for 18 to 24-year-olds, providing about 9,000 places, and we will have about 16,000 places for over-25s. We also have a very good record on the new deal in Northern Ireland, especially in the number of employers who have taken an interest. They have reacted enthusiastically to our proposals and almost 3,000 have signed agreements to deliver the employment option and 7,000 long-term unemployed have entered the new deal for the 25-plus. To date, 745 have gained employment.

It is also important to remember that the new deal also has a quality training element. It is a welfare-to-work programme. The hon. Member for Lagan Valley mentioned the ACE programme, and I sympathise with the comments I have received from hon. Members about that programme. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I have met several delegations and, in the past week or so, I have met the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and his colleagues. I take the issues they have raised very seriously and I have established a dedicated team, made up of officials from all Departments in Northern Ireland. I consider it a problem across the subjects—health, education and agriculture—and it is important for that dedicated team to consider the problems.

The hon. Member for South Down mentioned the Belfast port, as did the hon. Members for Lagan Valley, for Belfast, East, for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) and for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth). Because of the timing and the size of the receipts from the port, programmes beyond those exclusive to the projects in the Chancellor's initiative would be affected in the short term. All possible steps will be taken to minimise the effects, but they cannot be totally eliminated because the receipts were included in the spending proposals at the early stages.

The hon. Member for Lagan Valley asked about the effect on the roads programme. If receipts are not forthcoming, some road schemes will have to be delayed. Shortfall on the block may help, but there will be many urgent claims on the money for other programmes in, for example, health and education. As the hon. Gentleman knows, in the comprehensive spending review, we chose our priorities, and health and education were at the top.

The sale of Belfast port will be a matter for the Assembly. In 10 days' time, when the Assembly takes over, hon. Members from Northern Ireland will be dealing with the issue themselves. It is for the Belfast harbour commissioners to bring forward a proposal for the sale. Their current proposals merit careful consideration. After devolution, that will be a matter for the Assembly.

The hon. Member for South Down mentioned the Chancellor's initiative and the implication for other budgets, especially education. Until the position on the sale is clarified, it is only prudent that we should delay entry into some capital commitments. It will affect the start date for several school projects and it will also be necessary to hold back some minor works. However, I emphasise that no schemes have been cancelled and we expect projects still to commence before the end of this financial year. These are contingency measures only.

Mr. Donaldson

Will the Minister clarify what he has just said about the receipts from the privatisation of Belfast port? I understood that the Chancellor's package, which arises out of the privatisation of the port, related specifically to special roads programmes. I was not aware that it had any impact on schemes involving schools and I would be concerned if that were the case.

Mr. McFall

The thrust of what the hon. Gentleman said is right, but the timing of the projects is crucial. There may be a short delay with the schools projects, but there is no chance that any will be cancelled. It is very important that that message is sent out tonight.

The hon. Member for South Down asked about the Strangford ferry.

Mr. Öpik

Before the Minister moves on, will he answer my question? Will he confirm that all the receipts from the sale of Belfast port will be ring-fenced for reinvestment in Northern Ireland, and that the Chancellor will not put money from the sale into the Treasury's coffers?

Mr. McFall

The hon. Gentleman said that £70 million was expected to accrue from the sale of the port. The normal procedure is that that money would go to the Treasury, but my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made a specific commitment that the money from this sale would go back into Northern Ireland and the block grant. However, discussions are in hand between my right hon. Friend and Lord Dubs on this matter.

The hon. Member for South Down asked whether the Strangford ferry would be replaced. He gives a unique resonance to the saying that all politics is local: whenever I go to his constituency, he has a plethora of matters for me to attend to. I can tell him that the Government are fully conscious of the importance of the Strangford ferry. We will be making funding available to provide a replacement as soon as possible.

The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) mentioned the Armagh observatory and planetarium. Having followed him in hot pursuit on a visit there, I know of his family interest in such matters and of his grandfather's great contribution to that excellent institution. Although the hon. Gentleman will know that we allocate budgets across a wide range of priority demands, I can assure him that we have found a way to way to maintain the real cash value of the grants to the observatory and the planetarium.

The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire also mentioned rural development. The Government have worked with local communities to introduce 76 regeneration projects, bringing a total investment of more than £37 million to disadvantaged rural areas of Northern Ireland. The result will be the creation of 380 jobs in those areas, where there are often few alternative employment opportunities. The Leader II programme is set to create more than 300 jobs and almost 130 new businesses.

The hon. Members for South Down and for Lagan Valley mentioned the differential in petrol prices between Northern Ireland and the Republic. The Government fully accept the concerns expressed about that differential, and about its adverse effect on petrol retailers, especially in the border areas. The differential is mainly the result of the different tax regimes in the United Kingdom and the Republic. I am aware that there has been some pressure for the introduction of a rebate scheme in Northern Ireland, similar to that which operates on the border between the Netherlands and Germany. However, the European Commission has questioned the legality of that scheme, and any such scheme would have to be able to meet European rules. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State has received representations on the matter, and is considering them at present.

My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) asked about the link between Port Glasgow and Northern Ireland. He will appreciate that that is a commercial undertaking, which the Government cannot support directly. However, any new service would have to be considered on the same terms as exist at present. My hon. Friend will know that P and O in Troon has already taken advantage of that. Given the advent of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the greater economic opportunities, I am sure that we shall hear more from my hon. Friend on this important issue as the weeks and months pass.

I defer to my hon. Friend on the subject of fisheries. I shall write to him about the issues that he raised. He also talked about training at Harland and Wolff. The Government have put great emphasis on training. In my Department, more than £260 million is being made available in the current financial year through the Training and Employment Agency. Almost £135 million of that is for promoting and improving the skills of those seeking work. The job skills programme, aimed at 16 and 17-year-olds, has achieved a 60 per cent. success rate at NVQ level 2. The modern apprenticeships programme aims to provide the skills needed by manufacturers, including Harland and Wolff. We are alive to the issue.

My hon. Friend also mentioned PlayBoard and the support for development officers. I have had a range of letters from Members of Parliament and Assembly representatives on that. The Government are committed to investing in the young people of Northern Ireland. We have initiated a major programme for the development of pre-school facilities. That will be further assisted by the valuable resources coming from the new opportunities fund. In that context, I am happy to look further at the issues that my hon. Friend has raised. They have to be considered in the context of pre-school provision.

When the Government came to office in May 1997, there was only 45 per cent. provision of pre-school places in Northern Ireland. Under our four-year programme, it will be 70 per cent. by September this year and 85 per cent. in September 2001. We are thus providing an expansion in pre-school places.

Concern has been expressed in the media about the social criteria. The Government looked for the best way to assist education for the young people of Northern Ireland and we decided to target resources at an early stage. All education research, right back to Lyndon Johnson's headstart programme in 1960s America, shows that we have to start early and put money into socially disadvantaged areas, because that provides greater educational opportunities.

The Government have tackled the issue in Northern Ireland. I want to demolish the notion that only those from socially disadvantaged areas can get into nursery schools. From September, two out of every three parents will have their wish for a nursery school place granted. Some 60 per cent. of them will be from non-disadvantaged homes. The bulk will go to the non-disadvantaged, but there is a place for the disadvantaged.

Our policy has run up against several problems. The hon. Member for Belfast, East and others have told me about the problems of open enrolment and multiple applications. People ask me why we cannot determine the places now. One family could apply to 12 nursery schools. With no central record of where they have applied, that causes problems. After receiving representations from hon. Members, I established what in good Labour party terms could be called a focus group. I called it a working party, but one of my officials called it a focus group. The group consisted of members of the Department and the boards to try to find out what was happening on the ground. We have tightened the arrangement between the Department and the boards so that we have that information, know what direction we are moving in and can ensure that, by 2001, 85 per cent. of the population will get pre-school places. I hope that I have gone some way to reassure hon. Members on the admission criteria and on our aims.

The hon. Member for Lagan Valley asked about ACE, the action for community employment programme. Again, he is correct; the issue is causing us problems. When the Government came to power in May 1997, we decided that our macro-economic policy would be the new deal, or welfare to work. We take people, particularly young people, from welfare and unemployment and give them good training so that in a global economy and flexible market they will be equipped with the skills to get jobs. That has clashed with the ACE programme, which was set up in Northern Ireland in the early 1980s for very good reasons. Unemployment was almost 18 per cent., compared with today's figure of slightly more than 7 per cent.

Three regions in the United Kingdom, including Scotland, have higher unemployment than Northern Ireland. We are adapting the new deal programme for good reasons, but as far as possible, we do not want to lose the good work that is going on locally. Again, I have established a dedicated team to look at what is happening on the ground and encourage the 180 ACE groups to transfer and make a good fit as between ACE and the new deal. I do not hide the problems, but hon. Members know that we are trying to ensure that ACE fits in as well as possible with the Government's macro-economic priorities in the new deal.

The hon. Member for Belfast, East mentioned Cregagh primary school. I well remember my visit with him and the impression that the concrete cancer there made on me. More particularly, I remember the impression that the local community made on me, particularly the women whom I met. I would go back and examine that issue. In the schools programme, we announced projects worth £64 million, the biggest capital development programme ever for schools in Northern Ireland. I was sorry that Cregagh was not part of that, but no economic assessment and development programme had then been established by the board.

I am as keen as the hon. Gentleman is to ensure that we get a replacement for the school, because we must support the community. Those people were burning with pride at the contribution of their school to the community. The school and community went hand in hand. I took that image away with me. In the 10 days to 1 July, it is unlikely that I will make great progress on that, but I will certainly leave a file for my successor to illustrate the deficiencies and the community's need for another school.

The hon. Member for Belfast, East made much of the Assembly estimates, but my right hon. Friend the Minister covered that comprehensively in his opening remarks. We have acknowledged the problems, but it is clear that the new Assembly will get the funds that it needs. In future, it will be responsible for voting its own provision. I do not think that we should say much more on that.

The hon. Member for East Londonderry mentioned the block expenditure and the limits on it. As he knows, expenditure plans are reflected in the estimates. Some expenditures slip as the year proceeds and needs have to be reallocated. New provision may be made in the national Budget. Those facts are reflected in the supplementary estimates. That will continue to be the case under the United Kingdom Government and the Assembly, so it will be considered under the supplementary estimates element. The hon. Gentleman also asked about the Saville inquiry, and the expenditure on legal aid and whether that was charged to the Northern Ireland block. I can state categorically that it is not. The charge is met from the Lord Chancellor's budget, so it has no impact on the block.

Mr. William Ross

In the circumstances, why are the negotiations not being dealt with in the normal way? It appears that the negotiations, the fees for solicitors and all the rest are being dealt with in a novel fashion.

Mr. McFall

The hon. Gentleman has information that has not been shared with me or with other hon. Members. I will examine the matter and, in the usual tradition, write to the hon. Gentleman about it.

Rev. Martin Smyth

Joined-up government.

Mr. McFall

That is what hon. Members are getting tonight.

With my health hat on, I am very much aware of the deficiencies in community care services in Northern Ireland. I deliver a little sermon on this issue wherever I go, but I will not bore the House with it tonight as time is short. There is a need to change priorities in the health service and concentrate on primary and community care.

Northern Ireland has 16 acute hospitals—all singing, all dancing hospitals—to serve a population of 1.5 million. That situation cannot continue if we are to provide the best possible health service for the people of Northern Ireland. We must introduce some changes, but we cannot do that overnight. As the hon. Member for East Londonderry knows from the documents that I produced in November, entitled "Putting it Right", which was about the hospital service, and "Fit for the Future", about organisational arrangements, it will take a little time. Meanwhile, it is important to address the concerns of community care.

The Government's priority is to support people at home or in their own communities and to respond flexibly and assess need sensitively. We provided an additional recurring £5 million for community care in the 1998–99 programme. Several months ago, I released an extra £6.5 million to help ease the pressures on health and social services over the winter months. We have allocated a further £25 million this year for general community care services, which includes the domiciliary care to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Some £5 million of that funding will be spent on providing better services for people with learning disabilities and mental health needs. I suggest that that is a substantial allocation that will enable boards to restore public confidence in community care services.

The hon. Member for East Londonderry knows that I gave Eastern health board an extra £39 million several months ago, of which I asked that £10 million be spent on community care. The board decided to use the funds to pay off some of its debt, but I met board members and made it clear that the Government wanted the money to be spent on community care. There is a problem with the present structure of the health service and the debts that some trusts and boards have. However, it is important to send that key message, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue.

The hon. Member for Belfast, South mentioned maternity services and acute hospital reorganisation. He referred to Justice Coghlin's decision that the Jubilee hospital case must be reviewed. The petitioners made their case on three grounds and, following consultation, Justice Coghlin said that the Department would need to re-examine the third ground. The Department is obviously disappointed that the result means further uncertainty for mothers-to-be, and it is my priority to remove that uncertainty as soon as possible.

I will be back in Belfast tomorrow morning and I will certainly consider the Jubilee hospital review. I will issue a consultation paper on the matter shortly. I hope that the consultative process can be completed by the end of September and that I—or the Assembly—can announce the decision soon after that. There are implications for cancer care services, as the hon. Member for Belfast, South pointed out, so it is important to remove uncertainty as soon as possible. With that in mind, I shall be dealing with the matter.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned lead in water supplies, and he has written to me and to my noble Friend Lord Dubs on that matter. He also raised it during a Grand Committee debate earlier this year. After the hon. Gentleman's meeting with my noble Friend on 2 June, the latter asked water service officials to investigate other, related issues so that the hon. Gentleman could be given a substantive response within the next two weeks. He should receive a letter on that matter.

The hon. Member for Belfast, South made some points about the provision of care for sufferers from MS and ME; those points have a resonance with all Members. We are continually petitioned by constituents who suffer from those debilitating diseases and we are told that, as a community, we do not do enough. The hon. Gentleman has raised that issue with me several times; I shall write to him on the specific points that he made.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to cancer services. In line with the Campbell report, the health and social services boards have produced area-strategic services for cancer, and plans for the development of a cancer centre and designated cancer units are well under way. The health and social services executive has identified cancer services as priorities for development. An additional £2 million of the current allocation for 1998–99 and an extra allocation of £7 million in 1999–2000 will allow boards and trusts to make further progress in implementing many of the sound recommendations in the Campbell report. I hope that I have satisfied the hon. Gentleman on that.

The hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) made several points that also threaded through the concerns of other hon. Members. He addressed the issue of the fall in agricultural income. As 1998 unfolded, the Government were aware that the situation was serious. We took steps in the form of aid packages—the most recent of which was announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in November 1998. The prospects now look a little brighter; the beef export ban has been lifted, albeit with restrictions; some commodity markets have strengthened; and interest rates have fallen in recent months. In the face of competing demands for finite resources, Agriculture Ministers have secured the best deal possible. It must be understood that there is a limit to the Government's ability to provide direct financial assistance to the farming sector.

To sum up, we have had a full and worthy debate. The Good Friday agreement and the establishment of the Northern Ireland Assembly have been mentioned. Tonight, we have discussed the real bread-and-butter issues—those that affect each of our constituents. I am delighted that Ministers were able to respond, in part, to people's concerns, but I shall be even more delighted—like other right hon. and hon. Members—when such responses become a proper function of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 9th June, be approved.