Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1981

HL Deb 23 July 1981 vol 423 cc411-33

7.20 p.m.

Lord Elton

rose to move that the draft order laid before the House on 17th June be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 which was laid before this House on 17th June be approved. The order is being made under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974. The purpose of the draft order is to authorise the issue of nearly £1,368 million out of the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund and to appropriate this sum for the purposes indicated in the schedule. The sum mentioned represents the balance of the main estimates for Northern Ireland departments for 1981–82 and three excess votes incurred in the financial year 1979–80. The Committee of Public Accounts in another place has examined these excess votes and has raised no objection to their being voted. Noble Lords should be aware that a sum on account amounting to £944 million has already been appropriated for 1981–82 under the Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, which was approved by this House on 11th March. That brings the total main estimates provision to £2,312 million.

More detailed information on the draft order can be found in the Estimates Volume itself and in the Statement of Excesses 1979–80—a rather charmingly named document—copies of which have been placed in the Printed Paper Office. An Explanatory Memorandum has also been circulated to those of your Lordships who took part in recent appropriation order debates.

I should now like to refer to some of the major aspects of the draft Order. Noble Lords will note that, within the £48.7 million provided for agriculture, fisheries and forestry, a sum of £3.8 million is included under Class I, Vote 2 for agricultural support. I should like to make it clear to your Lordships that that does not include the £10 million special assistance which has been allocated to Northern Ireland's agriculture industry following two years of rapidly falling incomes. This package includes the special aid agreed with the European Community's Commission for the development of beef cattle production announced in another place on 3rd April by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It will also benefit the milk and intensive livestock sectors. Supplementary estimates amounting to some £7.7 million for those will be presented to your Lordships' House in due course. Pending approval of those supplementary estimates, expenditure on these new services in Northern Ireland will be met by advances from the Northern Ireland Civil Contingencies Fund. The balance of the £10 million assistance, relating to the existing suckler cow subsidy, will fall on a United Kingdom vote.

Moving on to the fields of industry and employment, noble Lords will see that Class II, Votes 1 and 2, cover a wide range of expenditure aimed at the support and regeneration of the Northern Ireland economy. These votes provide inter alia some £14.4 million towards the Department of Commerce's factory building programme; £57.8 million for industrial development grants to encourage the establishment and development of industrial undertakings; £11.7 million for assistance to Short Brothers, the Northern Ireland aircraft manufacturer; and £46 million in assistance to the Harland and Wolff shipyard in Belfast.

In commenting on the expenditure proposed in Class II, Vote 3, (Functioning of the Labour Market), I must re-emphasise the Government's concern about the high level of unemployment in Northern Ireland at present. As in the rest of the United Kingdom, significant and lasting improvement of the unemployment situation can come only with the strengthening of the economy. That is the central objective of our policies.

Meanwhile, strenuous efforts are being made to sustain viable projects and to promote new employment through the industrial development programme to which I have already referred, and to ease unemployment through various special employment measures. These measures include an expansion of the Youth Opportunities Programme during 1981–82 from 7,000 to 10,000 places, for which £11.9 million is included in the main estimates. They also include the introduction of a new scheme, Action for Community Employment (known as ACE), which has as its primary objective the creation of temporary employment opportunities for long-term unemployed adults. Some £2.1 million is included for this scheme.

I shall turn now to those votes related to energy. Class III, Vote 1 deals with expenditure associated with the Northern Ireland gas industry. Of the £24 million provided in this vote, £13.9 million is required to meet ongoing operating losses incurred by undertakings, and the remaining £10.1 million is to assist with conversion of consumer gas appliances. Noble Lords will be aware that the Government have announced their intention to carry out further studies on the feasibility of a supply of natural gas to Northern Ireland from the Republic of Ireland's field at Kinsale. We cannot, however, at this stage, predict the outcome of those studies, and if the project cannot be demonstrated to be viable, then we shall have to continue with the arrangements for the run-down of the industry. For the time being, however, they have been suspended.

Still in the energy field, provision is sought in Class III, Vote 2 for a grant of £79.8 million to the Northern Ireland electricity service. Noble Lords will be aware that, as part of the 1977 financial reconstruction of the service, the Government agreed to make available £20 million in each of the five years from 1977–78 to help keep industrial and commercial tariffs in line with those in the rest of the United Kingdom. Because of Northern Ireland's heavy reliance on oil for electricity generation, the very rapid increase in oil prices since that arrangement was made caused further financial problems for the service and led to tariff increases, which were imposing an unreasonable burden on electricity consumers. The Government decided, therefore, that for 1981–82 industrial electricity tariffs in Northern Ireland should be on a par with the highest in England and Wales and that domestic tariffs should be 5 per cent. above the highest in England and Wales. This differential will be completely removed in 1982–83.

From next year, therefore, domestic tariffs in Northern Ireland will be exactly the same as the top levels in England and Wales. These tariff relationships will be maintained thereafter. The Government consider that this has been a most important step, which has enabled the Northern Ireland electricity service to limit tariff increases this year to an average of 5 per cent. rather than the 35 per cent. which would otherwise have been required. To implement this decision a sum of £59.8 million is required, in addition to the amount of £20 million to which I referred earlier as being the final payment under the 1977 financial reconstruction. The balance of the support for the Northern Ireland electricity service from public funds in 1981–82 will be net loan from Government.

In the field of housing the Government, in their allocation of public expenditure in Northern Ireland, are giving high priority to tackling the serious problems which exist, especially in Belfast. Class V, Vote 1 includes provision for £143.7 million in assistance to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. The executive's 1981–82 budget for revenue and capital is £328 million, split broadly between £226 million revenue and £102 million capital. That compares with a total figure of £293 million for 1980–81, and represents a slight increase in real terms over the 1980–81 figure. In addition, the resources available to voluntary housing associations in Northern Ireland have been substantially increased from £13 million in 1980–81 to £19 million in 1981–82.

Passing on to provisions for education, some £199 million is sought in Class VIII, Vote 1. This is largely for payment of teacher's salaries, but also includes provision for grants on capital expenditure at voluntary schools. Class VIII, Vote 3, provides for the recurrent and capital expenditure of the education and library boards, which carry the ongoing running costs of most schools in the Province. As elsewhere in the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland is experiencing a very considerable fall in school rolls as a result of the decline in the number of births since 1964. In this connection, I would wish to draw the attention of the House to the Department of Education's publication in March of this year entitled Schools and Demographic Trends—A Backcloth to Planning. This paper suggests criteria which school authorities might apply in considering the necessary rationalisation of schools provision, and preliminary discussions on this paper have already taken place. That sort of rationalisation cannot be achieved overnight, and planning must start at the local level.

I now turn to the health and personal social services programme. In Class IX, Vote 1, the provision sought in the estimate is £441.2 million, made up mainly of £430.7 million for current and capital expenditure by the health and social services boards. Although this level of provision imposes a tight discipline, the sum available provides for an increase in real terms in the current expenditure of the boards which is in line with the rest of the United Kingdom. It will be used mainly to bring into operation new facilities which are now ready or which will come on stream during the current year. Regrettably, the planned capital programme has had to be reduced; but the level of capital expenditure available will still be comparable to that in Great Britain and will provide for expenditure of £21.8 million.

The last major area of expenditure to which I would refer is that contained in Class X of the main estimates, dealing with expenditure totalling some £417.5 million by the Department of Health and Social Services on social security benefits and allied payments. The cash value of these benefits is kept in parity with their counterparts in Great Britain. Indeed, the administration of social security in Northern Ireland and Great Britain is so co-ordinated as to provide in effect a common system throughout the United Kingdom.

I have necessarily referred in quite broad terms to the main features of the draft order, but I know that noble Lords will wish to raise other and more detailed matters as well. I am grateful to those who were good enough to give me advance notice, particularly when it was of some duration, of questions which concerned them. I shall, as usual, attempt to answer as many questions as possible at the end of the debate. Any points that I do not get round to answering will of course be dealt with in correspondence. My Lords, I commend the draft order to the House.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th June be approved.—(Lord Elton.)

7.32 p.m.

Lord Blease

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for his explanation of this order and for the explanatory notes. Along with other noble Lords, I consider this appropriation order of great importance to the economic and social well-being of the people of Northern Ireland. I note that this order was the subject of some six hours of debate in another place last Friday—17th July. With the greatest respect to the traditions, role and functions of this House, and with regard for those who cope with the business arrangements, I consider that the time allocated to this important Northern Ireland debate is completely unsatisfactory.

Having said that, I repeat what I have stated before in this House: I regret that this appropriation order is not being suitably considered and debated in Northern Ireland by elected representatives; for I believe that unless we have some suitable and direct involvement of the people in these vital decisions, we shall fail to obtain the necessary public sense of accountability and the positive response required. I do not level entire blame for this situation on the present Government. A large measure of the responsibility must be borne by the citizens of Northern Ireland and their elected representatives. Herein lies the real tragedy of the people of Northern Ireland. It is our failure, over these years, to relate the common social and economic needs of all sections of our people to each other; it is our failure to accept the essential qualities of interdependence.

It is for these social and economic reasons, which arise directly from this appropriation order, that I strongly urge support from all sections of the Northern Ireland community for the proposals put forward by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mr. Atkins, for the establishment of a Northern Ireland Advisory Council of elected representatives. While I still uphold the principle that the proposed council should be comprised solely of elected representatives, I feel that the consultations undertaken by the Secretary of State should not be confined only to the officials of the political parties but should include management, trade unions and others from the wide spectrum of community organisations.

I readily accept that the proposed council is not an answer to the Irish problems, but it is to be regretted that some Northern Ireland elected representatives have already attempted to damn the proposed council as "having no teeth". My Lords, it is not teeth, nor tusks, nor horns, that are required: it is the will to work together; it is the will to rise above narrow sectional interests, and to accept that there is a common good to be found.

Turning directly to this No. 2 draft appropriation order, I am inclined to ask the question posed by the right honourable Member Mr. Enoch Powell during the debate in another place. He asked: "Why are we here at all"? He then proceeded to answer the question by stating that the order is not tabled for debate "but for a purely technical reason". Mr. Powell is an experienced parliamentarian. Whatever may be the rights or wrongs of his opinion about the Government's procedure for dealing with these appropriation orders, it is not my intention to add gloss to a ritual, nor to participate in a mere rubber-stamp exercise.

I am aware that there were nine noble Lords who were anxious to take part in this debate. When it was heard that it had been reduced to something like an hour in a dinner break, some withdrew their names from what was assumed to be a list of persons to speak. I think this is a curtailment of discussion in a very sensitive area of the needs of Northern Ireland. I have here a file packed with matters raised during the past three months, and it is impossible for me in the circumstances to deal adequately in this debate with the plight of the Northern Ireland people.

Lord Elton

My Lords, would the noble Lord be kind enough to give way? There is no proposal to move the closure of this debate, even if the means of doing so existed. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his anxiety to move on as fast as he can for the benefit of the rest of the business of the day, but I would not wish him to feel that he was, as it were, in some sort of trap which prevented him from speaking as much as he wants to on relevant points.

Lord Blease

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for those remarks. What he has said helps me considerably at this Box, but I am aware that other noble Lords made arrangements to leave at a certain time when it was realised that it was in the dinner break, when there is normally an hour allocated to discussion. However, I am grateful to the noble Lord; it helps me, at least, in what I have to say.

Really, while I could go into considerable detail to show the serious situation in Northern Ireland at the present time, I think that all I had better refer to is the Government's own indices, which reveal the seriousness of the position. I have here listed 16, but I do not propose to read them out at this particular hour; but certainly I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that the situation today is worse than it was even in the hungry 'thirties. If I may add to this picture of sadness, this week it was reported that compared with three years ago there has been a more than 250 per cent. increase in bankruptcies, voluntary liquidations and closures of private and public companies in Northern Ireland.

I noted that in his remarks the noble Lord the Minister said that it is necessary to strengthen the economy. I think this House would totally agree with that, but certainly there are no signs that the Government measures are strengthening the economy, particularly in Northern Ireland. But let me move on—and I apologise if I do not argue my points in the way I should like to present them, but I want to deal with them crisply and, at the same time, as succinctly as possible. I refer to the Statement of Excesses which is Part I of the order. I realise that the Public Accounts Committee dealt with this. I should like to commend the decision to proceed with the drainage contract work when the weather was favourable. This is a flexible and a very useful approach. I hope that the decision, and the way it was operated, will be emulated by other departments in such circumstances. One point surprises me which the Minister may be able to explain: the emergency work listed on culverts in Belfast has to be borne by the Vote of the Department of Agriculture. I am concerned whether there is sufficient co-ordination of responsibility between the Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Environment if urgent work concerning flooding was required.

Regarding Class I, No. 1, may I ask the noble Lord what action has been taken by the department to progress proposals contained in the report published by Co-operation North? The general conclusions of the report are: Farmers throughout Ireland could reap considerable benefits from a uniform implementation of the EEC Common Agricultural Policy". and that the agricultural industry, in both parts of Ireland, could promote progressive developments by fostering long-term co-operation". Under the same heading and the same Vote, could the Minister indicate what progress has been made with the experimental project set up by the Northern Ireland Development Agency, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Commerce, to attract more business for the agriculture industry and for the development in the Province of opportunities for enterprising food manufacturers? May I also ask, under the same heading, whether the representatives of the Ulster Farmers' Union have been invited to participate in this experimental project?

Regarding Class I, Vote 3, Fishery Services, what action have the Government taken to implement the proposals of the Professor Collinson Black report on Northern Ireland Inland Fisheries? Among the recommendations of the report is the proposal to set up an Inland Fisheries Board charged with arrangements for conserving and protecting the management of this indigenous industry and the excellent leisure amenities and tourist attraction that it provides. Again, on the same Vote, what effort is being made by the department to prevent the serious pollution of rivers, lakes and waterways which is killing large stocks of fish?

Class II Vote 1: I wish to compliment the Government and especially the Minister responsible, Mr. Adam Butler, for his initiative in stimulating the interest of elected representatives of the 26 Northern Ireland District Councils to play a part in the industrial development of the Province. May I ask the noble Lord what arrangements have been made by the Department of Commerce to further promote and develop this initiative? What response has there been from the local councils? What body has been charged with the task of co-ordinating the inquiries and efforts of local councils?

Class II, Vote 3, the functioning of the labour market. I am sure noble Lords understand that employment prospects for school-leavers are soul-destroying. The noble Lord has already mentioned it. In a community riddled with record-breaking unemployment figures and with unprecedented redundancies and factory closures, how can we reasonably expect the morale of young people to be other than low, with a growing sense of rejection by organised society? I have had experience and know of the dedication of many persons from all walks of life who have been involved in some of these youth employment exercises, including civil servants. I have with me a list of matters that were raised and which indicate that there is evidence that there are some socially insensitive and inexperienced do-gooders and less scrupulous persons who are taking advantage of these unfortunate young boys and girls. I fully support the view that a wider and more careful monitoring of all statutory and grant-aided voluntary schemes is urgently required if the confidence of young people is to be promoted and if genuine help is to be assured. May I ask the Minister to indicate what administrative arrangements there are actively to review the objectives and the results of the various schemes? How are the youth employment schemes presently being supervised and monitored? Is there any suitable research being undertaken by the department into youth employment projects?

Regarding Class II, Vote 3, the Minister has already mentioned the scheme, Action for Community Employment. He will know that there is concern in Northern Ireland about the differences in the funding arrangements between the Northern Ireland scheme, Action for Community Employment and the scheme in Great Britain, Community Enterprise Programme. Both schemes are designed to promote worthwhile employment for the long-term unemployed. As I understand it, the Northern Ireland scheme is some £160-a-place short of the funding for a place in the scheme in Great Britain. That is £160-a-place less available in Northern Ireland for placing. If this is the position, there is every reason to accept the case put forward by community interests in Northern Ireland that they are at a significant disadvantage. This strengthens the views expressed that Northern Ireland's unemployed are second-class citizens and are discriminated against. Can the Minister explain the reasons for the difference in the funding arrangements?

Class III, Vote 1: the Department of Commerce is carrying out a very worth while and effective energy conservation policy and service. During the year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer launched a £50 million scheme to encourage the switching from oil to coal-fired boilers. The scheme is administered under Section 8 of the 1972 Industry Act and stipulates a minimum threshold of £25,000 for an application for a grant to meet the costs of conversion. I understand that the scheme, as announced, will run into some administrative difficulties in meeting the real needs of Northern Ireland because of the smaller types of boilers used. Would it not be sensible and practicable to allocate to Northern Ireland, through the Department of Commerce, a pro rata proportion of the £50 million (equivalent to about £1 million to Northern Ireland) given to the department to administer the scheme suited to the needs of the Province? Perhaps the Minister will use his good offices to have this matter investigated.

I should like to applaud the arrangements for electricity tariffs. I noticed that the Minister did not use the word "subsidy". In the order the word "subsidy" is used. It is in no way a subsidy to Northern Ireland people. The same arrangements are available throughout the whole of the United Kingdom for an equalisation of charges, and other areas of the United Kingdom are receiving the same type of arrangements. I am pleased that the Minister did not use the word "subsidy" when referring to this arrangement.

Class V, Vote 1, housing: there is a slight increase as compared with 1980–81. It is apparent that the mainspring of the Government's housing policy is to shift the responsibility from the public sector to the private sector. A major part of this policy is the 40 per cent. increase this year in housing executive rents and the sale of housing executive dwellings. Whatever this policy means, it certainly is not helping the acute housing situation aryl the homeless in Northern Ireland. The waiting list for housing accommodation in the Province is around 30,000. It has not diminished. It represents something around 90,000 people in a population of 1,500,000. There is a fall in the building by the housing executive to some 2,500 units of accommodation this year.

May I ask the Minister whether he could indicate whether the rents of housing executive tenants are likely to increase in 1982 by a further 40 per cent., as predicted by local authority housing experts? What is the actual number of dwellings the housing executive will construct by the end of 1982? When do the Government consider they will be able to reduce by half the present waiting list for housing accommodation? Should not the housing executive be able realistically to budget and contract on the basis of a five-year rolling programme for house building rather than by the present unsatisfactory, wasteful and inefficient annual budget provision arrangements? Perhaps the noble Lord would reply in due course. I realise it may not be possible for him to do so this evening.

Again, on Class V, Vote 1, what is the Government's policy for the private building of housing and what is the number of dwellings the private sector will complete by December 1981? On Class VIII, Vote 2, what action do the Government propose following the initiative taken by the Advisory Committee for Schools/Industry Liaison? The Minister will know the Committee report I am referring to; indeed, he was present at its launching. Do the Government propose to offer any support towards the extension of the schools industry liaison development to the rest of the problems outside Belfast, where it has only had its remit arrangements up-to-date?

Class VIII, Vote 2: last year the noble Lord, Lord Elton launched two important new bodies: the Northern Ireland Youth Forum and the Northern Ireland Council for Educational Development. Has the Minister invited either of those bodies to advise the Government about the problems of unemployed young people in Northern Ireland? Has he received from his staff reports from either of them and, if so, can he indicate the Government's response at this stage? Class VIII, Vote 3: from the Estimates for 1981–82 I note that the recurrent grant to the Sports Council for Northern Ireland is reduced by £57,000. Can the Minister explain why, among all the organisations receiving recurrent grants under these programmes 8.3 and 8.4, the Sports Council is singled out for a reduction? Some have increases up to 29 per cent. while the Sports Council is reduced by 4 per cent. Is this not going to strangle sports development in Northern Ireland—development which the Minister has praised and indeed encouraged? As sports councils for England, Wales and Scotland have been given increased funds to meet their growing demands, would not the Minister undertake to review this position?

Finally, on Class XI, Vote 1, I have the report of Mr. Simpson, the Examiner of Statutory Rules for Northern Ireland. The report covers the six months' period to April 1981 during which he received, examined and reported on 169 rules. Mr. Simpson in his report draws attention to unjustifiable delays in submitting for scrutiny and the implementation of the statutory rules procedures. I drew attention to this report not only to commend the effective work of Mr. Simpson but to show the amount of his workload. It appears to me that the report reveals some gaps in the need for staff training. It also confirms my earlier remarks about the importance of having some form of devolved administration to deal effectively with the day-to-day affairs of the Province. I think it is significant that each day of the week my compilation of 169 rules over six months that delegated legislation governing the lives of the people of Northern Ireland has been submitted to this particular procedure—legislation which I believe requires vigilance at all levels and by all sections of the community. Having made those remarks, I regret having taken up so much of your Lordships' time, and I support the draft order.

Lord Hampton

My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for his introduction of this order and also for the explanatory memorandum which he was kind enough to send me in advance. There are a small number of questions I should like to ask him, of which I have given notice. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Blease, before his considerable battery of questions, referred to the need for an advisory council, but I do not think this is the time to go into that matter in more detail so I shall not pursue it for the moment.

The first question I should like to ask the Minister is this: under Class II, Vote 2, I note that £46 million is to go to the Harland and Wolff shipbuilding industry. It is widely accepted that there is a major slump in the shipbuilding industry, and I suppose that is not surprising if we look back to the enormous artificial demand caused by the sinking of ships during the last war, which has since been fully satisfied.

There are three questions I would put to the Minister here. First, what is the £46 million meant to be used for? Secondly, is it true that the firm has already received £300 million in aid? Thirdly, in current world conditions is there any real hope that Harland and Wolff can become profit-making again in the near or more distant future? My next question concerns Class II, Vote 3, the functioning of the labour market (Department of Manpower Services). How does the relief payable under these sections compare with that available in the rest of the United Kingdom? If it differs, perhaps the noble Lord could say how and why when he comes to reply. I think the noble Lord, Lord Blease, made reference to this.

The third question I should like to ask refers to Class VI, Vote 2, the improvement of the environment. Is not a vote of £14,500,000 pathetically small when so much needs to be done? It is perhaps noteworthy that under Class VIII, Vote 1, the sum of £198 million is payable very largely on salaries alone. I think the noble Lord, Lord Elton, himself referred to that. I was taken to task in a previous debate by the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, for suggesting that an improvement in environment could help to ease the political frustration. It is certainly only one of many factors, but I stand by my view that it might well help quite a lot. It is the old problem where there is much work needing to be done, many people to hand who could do it but the positions somehow seem irreconcilable. I should appreciate it if the noble Lord, Lord Elton, would comment on this. Lastly, I should like to ask the noble Lord how much in the current 12 months Northern Ireland is costing the British taxpayer. I am not offering complaint or criticism here. I merely wish to establish a fact.

7.56 p.m.

Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge

My Lords, it is customary when dealing with the appropriations order, to select one or two of the things which are referred to and speak about them; and I propose to say a word or two, ask some questions and make some suggestions on Northern Ireland agriculture. First, however, I should like to support my old colleague, Lord Blease, in his objections to the way this has been rushed. I think we should have had five or six other speakers if this had been done properly, and it has made things even worse by telling us to be ready by a quarter to seven and to finish at eight o'clock, only to find that we started at twenty past seven and will be lucky if we finish by twenty past eight. I have already apologised to the noble Lord. I have a fierce engagement very shortly and when I have finished speaking I am going to down my papers and run. I think it is absolutely wrong to do that, but I have to. The fault is not mine; it is because of the arrangements that have been made.

By way of preliminary, I spoke in a Northern Ireland debate 10 days ago and made a statement that was not accurate. I said then that the Price sisters were involved in blowing up a bus with a lot of women and children in it. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, wrote to me and said that was not in fact what they did. I have to confess that at my age it is very unwise to rely on memory, and I did mis-remember. There was such a crime, but it was not committed by them. Theirs was quite different: that is, it was car bombs in Whitehall and near Scotland Yard. A lot of people were hurt, but it was a different thing, and I am sorry I made that statement.

Unemployment in Northern Ireland, as we all know, is something like double ours here. Agriculture provides about 13.5 per cent. of the existing jobs: 10 per cent. directly on farming and 3.5 per cent. indirectly. There is the greatest danger that in the intensive sector of pigs and poultry alone at present levels of profitability 5,000 jobs may be lost and are certainly at risk in the immediate future. It costs £4,000 to maintain an unemployed man and I want to suggest that it would cost much less than 5,000 times £4,000, which is £20 million to preserve existing jobs instead of letting them be quickly lost and then trying to create new ones.

In this context, the more erudite and intellectually curious among your Lordships will have read the recent book—a very stimulating one—by my right honourable friend Mrs. Shirley Williams, in which she has a most interesting chapter on a policy for full employment. She notes that, in many cases, capital can be substituted for labour, or labour for capital, without affecting overall costs of production. It all depends on the cost of the labour and the cost of the machinery, the capital investment, both of which have varied enormously over the past ages.

It is economic folly to introduce capital intensive changes in the face of armies of unemployed workers. By the same token, it can be economic folly to let labour-intensive industries decline and to substitute for them capital-intensive industries. Agriculture—though much less than it used to be—is a labour-intensive industry, and it is not at the moment in a state of economic decline through lack of demand. The jobs exist and would not cost very much to preserve. I am told that to create new jobs in new industries will cost as much as £15,000 per job. It must be better to spend what is necessary to preserve the jobs which already exist.

The net income of Northern Ireland farmers fell from £66 million in 1978, to £31 million in 1979 and to £9 million in 1980; bank borrowing increased by £38 million to £180 million and, in addition to all this, as people who live there know very well, family farmers are having to cut their spending and this does not show in the figures. Only 10 per cent. of Northern Ireland is suitable for growing cereals, which is the easiest and most profitable crop throughout the world. So that they are denied more than 10 per cent. of their output for cereal production, a lot of it through weather and geography. It is, however, a marvellous place for growing grass, which means milk and beef; and anything added to that, such as intensive production of pigs or poultry, depends on 80 per cent. imported grain with heavy transport costs. The facts, I think, are not in dispute, so I shall not elaborate them. I shall just look very quickly at each of the major commodities.

First, there is milk. In Great Britain over 50 per cent. of milk production is sold for liquid consumption at 20p above manufacturing price. In Northern Ireland the figure is only 20 per cent. and the return is 6p a gallon less there than in Great Britain. As regards beef, in 1980 the sale of 340,000 lean cattle from Northern Ireland fetched £11 million less than if they had been sold from Great Britain. The herd has fallen by 114,000 beasts since 1975. As regards pigs and poultry, as I have said, 80 per cent. of grain has to be imported, so that Northern Ireland food costs the farmer £12 to £15 a tonne more than his British opposite number.

The Government have now announced how the balance of the £10 million special aid—which, of course, we welcome very much as a contribution—is to be allocated and it will help very much. There is £3.7 million for milk, which is about 25 per cent. of what is required, and £2 million for intensive pigs and poultry, which falls well short of needs, and both are for one year only. The farmers feel that the best remedy for beef, which accounts for two-fifths of Northern Ireland's agricultural output, would be to extend the less favourable areas, which a Government survey shows to be possible, and which I remember from my time there we were pressing for even then, but nothing has been done so far.

Northern Ireland farmers are worse off even after the special aid subsidy than their opposite numbers over here, by such a considerable margin that many will be forced to cut labour and some will be forced out of business. It must be cheaper, and it is certainly more humane, to step up assistance to them, rather than let jobs be lost and then spend great sums on trying to re-create them. Northern Ireland farmers are an industrious, energetic and admirable body of men. I say that, in spite of the fact that I think I am the only Minister in either Government who was actually burned in effigy on the steps of Stormont by indignant hill farmers, because I would not give them as much as they asked for.

But I shall say no more. I think my point is obvious. Quite apart from the special dangers of hundreds of young men with nothing to do, it will cost Great Britain much more to put things right later, when good producers have been forced out of business, than to act now to preserve the jobs which are at risk. A start has been made with the £10 million special subsidy. It is not enough and I hope the Government will not rest on that, having said which I hope that my bad manners in leaving your Lordships now will be forgiven.

8.5 p.m.

Viscount Brookeborough

My Lords, I should like to start by thanking my noble friend Lord Elton for his explanation of this order. I should also like to say how much I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, in his plea on behalf of agriculture. He and I had a word some time ago and we agreed that agriculture was something which needed special emphasis within this House. So the noble Lord has really gutted my speech for me, and I should just like to support what he said about the need and, maybe, to emphasise one or two points.

In case it has not been emphasised enough, the economy of Northern Ireland has been absolutely gutted. The great danger is that the industrial base, which was so very carefully built up over many years, has been so destroyed that when recovery eventually comes there will be nothing to recover. Textiles was one of our main industries. It is efficient and was doing extremely well. But merely because of world currency fluctuations, world pricing of oil and unfair pricing, it has been gutted.

I shall be as brief as I can. I should like to feel that in the autumn we could have a proper debate on the economy of Northern Ireland. For instance, I should like to test the Government a little more on what I believe to be the fallacy that Northern Ireland is costing more per head of the population than other parts of the United Kingdom. I am quite satisfied that, wherever it does cost more, it is due to United Kingdom policy on certain lines; for example, family allowances. Because we have a great proportion of large Roman Catholic families, the outgoings on social services are greater than those in equivalent areas. Where this is a result of United Kingdom policy, it should not be thought that we are some kind of vacuum cleaner sucking in taxpayers' money from the rest of the United Kingdom.

I should like to ask the Minister, under Class I, whether the Government have yet started a complete review of the effects of the entry of the United Kingdom into the EEC on agriculture in Northern Ireland. I cannot believe that when we were going into the EEC people anticipated the dire effect that it would have on our greatest industry. Therefore, the review that must be made should be comprehensive, because up till now we have always been tinkering with a problem and hoping that we will solve it by putting in a few millions here and a few millions there. It is a fundamental fact that our agriculture has received extremely harsh treatment, as a result of our entry into the Common Market, in a way which people did not anticipate. The effect of currency differences between ourselves and the south of Ireland, the smuggling and other factors have had a material effect on our greatest industry.

The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, referred to milk. Northern Ireland produces 6 per cent. of the total agricultural production of the United Kingdom, but the net profit this year was 1 per cent., which illustrates the plight of our industry. On milk, the price received in Northern Ireland is 6p a gallon less than it is in Great Britain. It is widely accepted in this country that 6p is a total profit, so our milk industry is running in a no-profit situation.

I understand that the EEC have made available a considerable quantity of milk for schools, provided that the United Kingdom Government will put in 25 per cent. with the EEC putting in 75 per cent. May I ask the Minister whether the Government have made up their mind about what to do over this money which is lying in the EEC waiting to be grasped? This is a cheap way for Westminster to support our very hardworking dairy farmers. The Government may not wish school milk to be provided in Great Britain, but I believe that this would be a cheap way of helping the Northern Ireland milk industry.

The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, outlined the problem facing the pig industry. I would repeat that without direct aid for the cost of feeding stuff we are in grave danger of ending up with a domestic industry. Our great, intensive pig industry which has exported so much of its produce will be destroyed, leading to 4,000 to 5,000 unemployed at a cost of £20 million. A small amount of money directed towards feeding stuff would change the situation. It is only a palliative to aid the distributive, manufacturing and processing industry. It takes too long to go through, and in this very competitive age the benefit will go to the consumer. The price fighting is so great that this is the way it will go. The benefit will not go to the producer.

May I ask the Minister whether he is aware that a report is to be published by Sub-committee D on the cost of EEC handling of grain? It will state clearly that it costs £39 per tonne to dispose of every tonne of EEC surplus grain to Poland, or wherever it may be. It would be much cheaper if some of that grain could be transported and put into intervention stores in Belfast and sold from there to our pig and poultry industry.

Turning to Class II which deals with commerce, may I pay a compliment to the Minister's honourable friend, Adam Butler, for the tremendous energy he has put into the quest for new jobs. He has been an inspiration and I should like to congratulate him. It seems to me that it is time there was a clear review of our long-term and medium-term objectives for dealing with our economy. I should like to feel that we had got our priorities right.

May I ask the Minister whether we are spending enough on housing? The noble Lord is right to emphasise the amount of money that is being spent on housing, but the fact is that at that rate the housing position is deteriorating. We are not gaining. It is all right for people to stand up in Parliament, or anywhere else, and say, "But your are spending more on housing in Northern Ireland than you are in the rest of the United Kingdom". The base is quite different. It is no use talking about comparative operations. We have got to have a plan that, at the end of five years, will at least maintain the position. Certainly it should have improved the position.

In our job promotion operations we have the Ministry of Commerce, NIDA and LEDU. A report was produced by the Economic Council for the concentration of these three into one. It was turned down by the Government. May I ask the Government to have another look at it to see whether or not it would be better for the three to be merged into one body.

I was a junior Minister in the Ministry of Commerce. I heard then, and I still hear, that the Government are much more prepared to be generous to foreign investment coming in than they are to their own indigenous investment. I know that this is a longstanding grievance, or illusion of being a grievance. In today's frightful economic terms I believe that the Government should make a massive effort to convince the indigenous industry of Northern Ireland that it is being as well treated as foreign investment, and that they should do their best to invest more money in Northern Ireland. The psychology of indigenous industry also applies to that extraordinary Act which they have in Dublin, which allows a tax-free holiday. This has been examined and re-examined. I believe it is psychological. The feeling that your profits are tax-free has a much greater effect than quite a lot of grant aid. I do not understand why this should be so, but I believe it to be true.

On Class II, to deal with YOPs (perhaps I should include Class VIII, the Minister's own area), may I mention that I have some YOPs. I find that it is heartrending at the end of six months to have to say, "Goodbye. I am terribly sorry, but I have no future to offer you". I am happy to say that this week I have put on to the permanent staff somebody who was a YOP. To that extent it has its point. The reason I include the noble Lord's Ministry is that in Northern Ireland we have found that people come to us and say, "It is too far to travel". You ask, "Where do you live?" The answer comes back, "One and a half miles away". You say, "Can't you ride a bicycle?" Back comes the answer, "No". That is why I say that it may be the Minister's area. It should be put into schools curricula that children should learn how to ride a bicycle. As energy becomes more and more expensive, people should ride bicycles. I see that a number of noble Lords come to this House on bicycles.

I am still not quite clear on Class III, the subsidy for electricity, what proportion of the money which was given for the tariff reduction by the Prime Minister is coming out of the Northern Ireland budget and what proportion is new money which is being injected into Northern Ireland. I should be grateful if the Minister could clear up that point.

Under Class VIII, the Sports Council, my noble friend Lord Blease raised the question of the reduction in the Sports Council's grant. The point is whether voluntary sports are being fairly treated compared with the rest of the United Kingdom. I submit that we ought to use sport as an offensive weapon for community living. If the Minister could give any justification for expanding rather than contracting, I feel that would be to the good.

Under Class XI, the question of the Assembly, the noble Lord, Lord Blease, spoke encouragingly about the new council. I speak with a certain feeling of foreboding because I served in a council which had no accountability whatsoever. In this appalling economic situation I am not in the least encouraged by the idea of proposals without accountability. Therefore, I implore the Government to give accountability to that council. May I suggest that the Minister should ask his right honourable friend the Secretary of State to take the chair at that council, otherwise I am not so hopeful as is the noble Lord, Lord Blease.

Lastly, under Class XI.7—information—about a week or a fortnight ago I suggested that we should have a director of information. I wonder whether the Minister has drawn the attention of the Secretary of State to that suggestion. We are certainly paying for that failure to think ahead and to make the most of whatever truth is available to us. I hope that this hunger strike will end. Before it does end, let us make sure that everything is prepared to win the battle of truth. It is not a question of propaganda. It is a question of the use of truth. I welcome this order.

8.20 p.m.

Baroness Ewart-Biggs

My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord, Lord Elton, very much for the presentation of this draft order, I should also like to support what my noble friend Lord Blease has said about the timing of this debate. We are discussing the economics of a very sensitive area and I think a full debate would have been helpful in informing the people of Northern Ireland, who must find it very uncomplimentary to see it put into the dinner hour to be dealt with as briefly as possible. Having said that, I will hurry on to make the two or three points. First, as other noble Lords have said, when discussing the economy of Northern Ireland at this present moment the dominant factor that must be considered is how the employment prospects will be affected by the economic arrangements made. At present there can be no doubt that the statistics tell a terrible story. It is almost impossible to believe that there are now 23 per cent.—almost one in four—of the working population in Northern Ireland on the dole and that in the manufacturing industry in Northern Ireland there are currently more people without jobs than at work. Therefore, with the crying need of job creation before us, I should like to bring forward one specific example where the distribution of resources as set out in this appropriation order appears to be wrong and ill-considered.

In 1973 Enterprise Ulster was formed to provide an important bridge between unemployment and employment in traditional jobs. At the end of its first year in operation the organisation was employing over 1,000 workers, all drawn from the unemployed registers. By 1979 that figure had gone up to double that amount and today, despite the crying need for such an organisation and due to the financial stringencies imposed on it by the current Government, the labour figure is right down to 1,300. This organisation has offered job security and has acted as a genuine bridge between unemployment and regular employ- ment. It has given employment to school-leavers in its recreational and community projects. It is an organisation with Northern Irish participation and trade union backing; participation such as is constantly, and rightly, sought by the Government. Thus, when looking at figures for the employment services, first we wonder why the services as a whole have suffered a cut of 34 per cent. or £9.5 million and we wonder even more why, out of this Enterprise Ulster, a cut has been made of 28 per cent. or £3.7 million. Perhaps the noble Lord could explain that particular point.

The events of recent weeks must have brought home to the Government—and to Northern Ireland Ministers in particular—that dissatisfied youth with no stake in society have nothing to lose in street rioting and criminal activities. In Northern Ireland the scale of unemployment will only play into the hands of terrorist organisations and thereby exacerbate social upheaval and misery. It has previously been impossible to find a solution to the problems of Northern Ireland so we should think how much harder finding a solution will become with the young of both communities leaving school with nothing to do but pour on the streets, providing material for every ill-conceived cause. Surely every effort should be made to channel their energies into something positive.

My second point is one which is not often made in Northern Ireland, and that is the status of the woman. So often we concentrate on the violence and the economy, but I think the place of the woman is of very great importance. From my experience and my friendship with certain women in Northern Ireland I realise that they hold a very important place in the community. They have a very strong influence on the family and the community. Yet arising out of the very ingredients of the present state in Northern Ireland the tensions and anxieties in their lives are much greater than those suffered by wives and mothers in the rest of the United Kingdom. So one would like to see whether there was anything in this order for them; but I fear that their lives are very much constrained as a result of the lack of pre-school provision.

There is very little provision for nursery schools, very few home helps and one would like to hope that there would be more part-time employment, as they would be the only types of job that these women could take. But, again, I think there is very little hope and one set of figures that I saw was that 1,000 women had lost part-time work with schools as a result of the cut in school meals. So the hope that possibly the women of Northern Ireland might get something out of this order I fear has been disappointed.

The last point that I wish to make concerns the economy generally, but not this order in particular. It is a point I have already made in a previous debate and one which I may well bring up again in future debates concerning Northern Ireland. This point concerns the benefits that Northern Ireland derives from our membership of the European Economic Community. I have previously spoken of the importance of the EEC as a framework in which the leaders of Northern Ireland political parties can find agreement. Today I read in the Guardian of another instance of the positive side of the European dimension. I read of the EEC plan for young school-leavers, which is a five-year economic programme published yesterday in Brussels, in which the Commission will be pressing member states to set a target for guaranteeing jobs, further education or the mixture of employment and re-training already operating in West Germany. Germany being the country which at present holds out the most ambitious schemes for the young unemployed—a great deal more ambitious than our own Youth Opportunity Programmes.

So, my Lords, on the assumption that the Community really has something tangible to offer Northern Ireland, why does the Government not react more positively to the pilot scheme which the Commission has proposed for Belfast? As I understand it, this is an integrated programme involving the use of several Community funds to cover a wider range of projects than those usually covered by the European Regional and Social Funds. This programme, however, being conditional on the Government giving their commitment to putting forward matching plans and funds. I know that the Government are unwilling to create a precedent for Northern Ireland by accepting that here is a special case. But with nearly one in four of the Northern Ireland labour force out of work and the security position highly inflammable, surely the rest of the United Kingdom would accept—as does the EEC—that the Province does represent a special case. Furthermore, it must be recognised that if the Government continue to refuse to give a commitment to put up matching funds then this European offer may well be put in jeopardy.

When observers in the outside world consider the present economic state of Northern Ireland, one wonders whether they might begin to suspect that present Government policy, far from discriminating in favour of Northern Ireland, is in fact discriminating against Northern Ireland. Tragically, as a result of severe distortion of the facts concerning the situation in the Maze prison, Britain, through no possible fault of her own, is suffering unjustifiable criticism of her prison policy. It would indeed be sad if the British Government should now start to attract justifiable condemnation of being culpably at fault in the economic and social policies she is at present operating in Northern Ireland.

8.29 p.m.

Lord Elton

My Lords, may I start by referring to the discontent which noble Lords have voiced from various quarters on the timing of this debate. I hope my intervention during the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Blease, made it clear that it is not the intention of the Government to gag the Northern Ireland voice in this House. I would point out that quite recently we had a lengthy debate on Northern Ireland, some of which touched on the areas we are now considering. I would also point out that whereas the House of Commons, who dealt with this at great length, has the power to control the purse, this House does not. This is an occasion for comment rather than legislation. As there is no list of speakers it is not possible for me to comment on the number of people who might have spoken had the timing been otherwise. However, I take the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge—a point made quite forcefully and now emphasised by his absence. There is no intention to slight the importance of what we are now discussing, nor to hurry it and your Lordships will have seen that I have not yet been harassed by my noble friends in the Whips Office, though if I go on too long doubtless I shall be—so I shall now turn as briefly as I can to the points that have been raised.

I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Blease, welcomed in such forthright terms the initiative of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the principle of an all elected body for the affairs of Northern Ireland. I take the point that he makes, and think I had anticipated the wrong point; I thought he was going to say there should be non-elected people on the council. What he is saying is that people who are not themselves elected should be consulted in weighing up the pros and cons of how it is to be set up. I will gladly draw that to the attention of my right honourable friend.

The noble Lord then touched on the wide sphere of the Government's national economic policy. While not replying to that in detail—your Lordships would not expect it—I would emphasise that it would be folly to abandon a policy at this stage when so much of the pain has been borne before the fruit is ripe for the picking.

The noble Lord then turned to specific items such as the co-operation in the drainage field. The Department of Agriculture is responsible for main drainage in Belfast, and there are other areas in which it is needful to co-operate with the Department of the Environment. I can assure him that this is always good, and in cases of emergency flood situations the staff of both departments see that it is better than good.

The noble Lord referred to the booklet by Co-operation North, particularly its agricultural aspects. I would only say at this stage—I have read the document—that my general reaction is that, while the aspiration is something which I warmly endorse, because of the differential between the pound and the punt, and the fact that it may not always be in the interest of this country to have a similar green pound policy to that of the Republic, having regard to the economic policies of the two countries it is not possible to contemplate at present identical implementation of the CAP on both sides of the border. My goodness! it would make my life easier if it was.

On the question of the food processing industry, the Department of Commerce has provided, and is continuing to provide, financial assistance under the industrial development legislation to a wide variety of concerns engaged in the processing of agricultural products in order to create, expand or sustain productive capacity in the companies concerned. In addition, the Northern Ireland Development Agency with the Departments of Commerce and Agriculture announced on 8th July a campaign to encourage joint ventures between Northern Ireland food manufacturers and food companies in Europe. The aim is to exploit new markets to widen and add value to this product range and then strengthen their competitive position. The noble Lord asked me what response we have had. It is now the 23rd and publication was on the 8th, so it is too early to assess what the response will be.

The Department of Commerce also offers a wide range of trade support services to assist in the marketing of Northern Ireland food products. These services cover both the Great Britain and overseas markets. They include participation in trade fairs, official trade promotions, grants for market research and other arrangements for the development of commercial contacts. These services are complemented by those of the British Overseas Trade Board and the Northern Ireland Development Agency. I can assure the noble Lord that we are aware of the importance of not only producing our food but also processing it and selling it efficiently abroad.

I was glad the noble Lord, Lord Blease, welcomed the initiative of the Department of Commerce—and this was echoed by the noble Viscount, Lord Brooke-borough, in some respects—in their approach to the district councils. A paper has recently been sent to the elected leaders of each district council in Northern Ireland encouraging councils to use their local knowledge and background in a way which complements the work of the industrial development bodies and the Northern Ireland Development Agency, LEDU and the Department of Commerce.

One or two noble Lords asked for a comparison between the programmes for minimisation of unemployment in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland. I should say that under the action for community employment scheme in Northern Ireland the Department of Manpower Services contributes 90 per cent. of the gross wage costs including employers' national insurance contributions up to a maximum grant of £83 per week for each employee, plus a fixed allowance of £240 a year for each employee as a contribution towards the cost of materials and administration.

On the other hand, in Great Britain the Manpower Services Commission provides 100 per cent. funding of wages under the community enterprise programme up to the same maximum grant of £83 per week, plus an annual grant of up to a maximum of £400 per employee. The difference between the schemes are the result of deliberate decisions taken in Northern Ireland which allow the advantages of ensuring a genuine commitment by sponsors, maintaining administrative simplicity and providing as many jobs as possible within the resources available.

Since the scheme was introduced on 1st April 1981 the Department of Manpower Services has approved 377 places and is currently considering a further 128 places. In addition, 24 potential sponsors have indicated their intention to submit applications covering a further 130 places. This response clearly demonstrates the attraction and value of the scheme in its present form, indicating that the target of 500 places in the current year should be achieved.

The noble Lord was anxious about abuses of the youth employment programme. I can assure him that there are safeguards against abuse of the Northern Ireland work experience scheme. These are twofold. Before any work experience place is created the sponsoring employer is required to submit for scrutiny by officials a structured programme which demonstrates clearly that the young person will be given a broad experience and knowledge of an industry and will not be trained or used in a specific occupation. The second safeguard is a programme of monitoring by departmental officials during the period of work experience to ensure that the structured programme is being followed. In fact Lord Blease's worries largely account for the worries of my noble friend Lord Brookeborough.

The noble Lord asked me to look into the oil-coal conversion programme on the basis that the £25,000 threshold for conversion from oil to coal in Northern Ireland was too high. I will do this and I will write to him.

On school-industry links—something in which I am closely involved—we have taken quite a number of steps in this direction. My department has approved additional teaching posts in post-primary schools to strengthen the provision of careers education. In-service courses for careers teachers have been organised. Each of the five education and library boards has appointed a careers adviser. As part of a careers education programme and in co-operation with local employers—and that is the important point—most schools organise visits by pupils to places of employment and pupils from over half the schools in the Province are now participating in work experience schemes. In addition, some teachers from all board areas have benefited from a short period of secondment to industry.

I have asked the recently formed Northern Ireland Council for Educational Development to consider what can be done to ensure that the curriculum in our schools is as far as possible relevant to the world of work, and they have set up a sub-committee for that specific task and I await their proposals with interest. In June the new Northern Ireland science and technology regional organisation was established in the Nothern Ireland Polytechnic, and this will provide a further vehicle for active co-operation between schools and industry, especially in the fields of science and engineering. Another development which I warmly welcomed was that of the main business organisations in setting up an education co-ordinating group for industry and commerce. As a gesture of Government support for this, and their support for a close rapport between commerce and education, my honourable friend Mr. Butler, as the Minister for Commerce, and I myself as the Minister for Education, were together on the platform and both spoke at the inaugural meeting. I could say more about the way this is carried through into higher education, but I think I will satisfy your Lordships with that.

I welcomed the general reception of this order by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. I am not sure that I got the point on his comparison between Class 6 Vote 2 and Class 8 Vote 1 because there is no discernible direct link that I can see. The fact that he perceives a balance between the two—

Lord Hampton

My Lords, I can see that they are not directly related. I was saying that so much is spent on salaries and so little on the environment, as a contrast. Does the noble Lord take my point? I have been to Northern Ireland a number of times, and I have seen that the environment could be improved in so many ways. So much is paid on salaries and so little on the environment.

Lord Elton

My Lords, improvements are done by people and people cost money. I shall look at what the noble Lord has said in the light of what he has just added and perhaps write to him. A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, are interested in the level of subvention to Northern Ireland from Great Britain resources—that is to say, money which is generated on this side of St. George's Channel and spent on the other. The total subvention in 1979–80—the latest year for which exact figures are available, I believe—was £944 million. In 1980–81 the estimate is £1,091 million. That represents about 37 per cent. of the total of public expenditure in Northern Ireland during that year and it is a figure to remember. Noble Lords will, I hope, acknowledge that that level of subvention is evidence of successive United Kingdom Governments' commitments to deal with Northern Ireland problems. Other relatively depressed regions in the United Kingdom also, of course, benefit from revenue generated in the more prosperous areas. It is the existence of separate Northern Ireland funds which makes it possible to measure the transfers, but in this case I cannot make the comparison because situations differ.

The noble Lord, Lord Blease, correctly observed that Her Majesty's Government are looking to the private sector to help Northern Ireland's housing problems. In fact, a number of steps have been taken to this end. An urgent review of planning policy and land allocation for housing is being undertaken. Self-build is being encouraged right across Northern Ireland, although there are areas where suitable sites have still to be identified. In addition, publicly-owned land is being leased back to private builders. Shared ownership is being encouraged and improvement grants to the private sector have been increased in an effort to arrest the deterioration of the housing stocks. The noble Lord will also be aware that a homesteading scheme has been introduced and that the Housing Executive is pursuing a vigorous policy of house sales.

I should like to revert to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, who raised the question of Harland and Wolff. The assistance recently announced of £46 million for Harland and Wolff is intended to provide sufficient money for working capital and to cover losses in 1981–82. The company is in full public ownership and provides employment for over 7,000 people. The Government have now received the company's corporate plan for the next four years. That is being scrutinised and the Government will announce their decisions upon it in the next few months. The Government have provided Harland and Wolff with special financial assistance totalling some £170 million since 1966. Indeed, that relates to the other question which the noble Lord asked me.

The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, endorsed the importance of agriculture to the community of Northern Ireland and to the economy of Northern Ireland. I can do nothing but agree with him that it is, of course, extremely important to both. That is why we have announced a review of agricultural policy in the context of the United Kingdom agricultural policy and also in the context of the social and economic conditions in Northern Ireland. I would ask your Lordships to reflect on the social implications of various schemes which are advanced for the modernisation of agriculture and which would have perhaps unhappy effects on employment levels. My noble friend Lord Brookeborough referred to the penalty on milk production in Northern Ireland vis-á-vis that in Great Britain. We are well aware of that, and that, of course, is why the special aid has just been arranged on the terms with which the noble Viscount will be familiar. We are near to a resolution of the school milk problem. It is mostly an administrative problem now.

I propose to say a little more. Indeed, I have to declare a difference of interest with other noble Lords. I am speaking for the interests of Northern Ireland and I am determined that this debate shall not be curtailed. However, I think that the House would find it tedious if I were to launch now into the very compelling defence of our general industrial policy which I am tempted to do by the remarks of my noble friend Lord Brookeborough. However, as they came from behind me rather than before me I feel that I am a little safer if I leave the matter to be resolved on paper. However, the one question which my noble friend did ask me was: of the total support given to electricity generation in the Province how much was domestic? Of the total support of £88.4 million in 1981–82, £44.9 million will be met from the contingency reserve. Of the remainder, £32.5 million had been ear-marked in the Northern Ireland programme for electricity and £11 million was made available from the existing Northern Ireland programme without reducing the level of the other services.

I should like to dwell longer on your Lordships' contributions, but the fact of the matter is, not that the hounds are snapping at our heels—although noble Lords will hesitate, after they hear the noises from behind me—but that I have dealt explicitly, I think, with every one of the points of which I was given notice, and, as I always say on these occasions, I will write to your Lordships on the others. If I have left any glaring gaps it is not because there is not an answer but because I think it essential to give your Lordships the right answer. Your Lordships will, I hope, now feel able to give your agreement to this order.

On Question, Motion agreed to.