Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1983

HL Deb 14 July 1983 vol 443 cc913-46

4.32 p.m.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (The Earl of Mansfield) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd June be approved.

The noble Earl said: I beg to move that the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 23rd 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 £1,483 million out of the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland and to appropriate this sum for the purposes shown in the schedule. Noble Lords will recall that sums on account amounting to £1,139 million have already been appropriated for 1983–84 by virtue of the Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1983, which was approved by your Lordships' House on 14th March. The House is now being asked to approve this further sum of £1,483 million, which represents the balance of the 1983–84 Main Estimates for Northern Ireland departments and brings the total Main Estimates provision for the year, therefore, to £2,622 million.

The Main Estimates represent the detailed spending plans of Northern Ireland departments for this financial year. These plans were set out in broad outline in the Northern Ireland section of the Government's Public Expenditure White Paper which was published in February and in the statements of 14th December 1982 and 1st February this year by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Detailed information can be found in the Estimates volumes themselves, copies of which have been placed in the Printed Paper Office. Noble Lords will note that the information contained in this year's Main Estimates has been expanded in order to give more informative details of the services being provided.

Noble Lords have indicated in the past that these debates could and should give an opportunity to take a broad view of Northern Ireland's expenditure plans and some of the policies underlying the plans. First, on the broader front, I am sure that your Lordships are well aware that the Government's overall priority in Northern Ireland has been, and remains, the maintenance of law and order. However, it is expenditure on economic, social and environmental programmes in Northern Ireland with which we are concerned in the draft order before us. In national terms, policies are designed to provide a sound basis on which to generate economic improvement and sustained growth, and Northern Ireland must operate within this national strategy. Within Northern Ireland we are continuing to give priority within these programmes to measures designed to promote viable long-term new jobs and to maintain existing ones. In the social and environmental fields we have selected housing as the third area of priority in Northern Ireland services. I will, of course, say more about our efforts in these areas.

First, let me turn to agriculture, which is the largest single industry in Northern Ireland. Expenditure on fisheries and forestry is covered in Class I of the Northern Ireland Estimates, and total provision for this year amounts to some £63 million, covering a whole range of agricultural services—education, research and development, drainage, fisheries, forestry and support to the agricultural industry.

I should make it clear to your Lordships' House that the necessary provision for the special measures amounting to £12 million of aid to the industry announced by my honourable friend the Minister of State in January last is not contained in the Estimates now before us but will be taken in Supplementary Estimates. Pending approval of Supplementary Estimates, expenditure on these measures will be met by advances from the Northern Ireland Civil Contingencies Fund.

Trade, industry and employment services are covered by Class II of the Estimates, which, of course, brings us to the related problem of unemployment, which we must face and which will undoubtedly be discussed here this afternoon. It is right that we should do so. After law and order, unemployment is the major problem of our time, and has particularly been so in Northern Ireland.

In our efforts to encourage investment in the Province, we have established levels of incentives and support for industry which are unrivalled in the rest of the United Kingdom. Details of the various incentives available and the amounts provided for each are to be found under Votes 1, 2 and 3 of Class II in the Estimates.

In March of this year the Government introduced a series of new measures which strengthened the package of incentives even further. We introduced a tax incentive; we abolished the rates on industrial property; and we introduced new schemes to encourage improved efficiency in local industry. This constitutes a carefully balanced package which we believe represents an excellent basis for encouraging future investment.

Inevitably it will take some time before these new measures begin to bear fruit in the form of new investment and new jobs. In the meantime, the Industrial Development Board will continue its efforts to promote new jobs in the Province. Noble Lords will be aware of the IDB's strategy document, which was published earlier in the year and which sets out its short-term objectives and targets. The board is energetically pursuing those objectives and building up its contacts with industry at home and abroad. Special emphasis is being given to encouraging local companies to improve the design and marketing of their products: in this context, the IDB has mounted a series of seminars designed to bring together local companies and potential buyers.

On the small firms front I would mention the work of the Local Enterprise Development Unit. Since its formation in 1971. LEDU has, against a difficult economic and political climate, promoted over 15,500 jobs in the Province. I have already visited the unit and met its senior executives. I may say that I found their commitment and efficiency most impressive. The unit last year formulated a strategy for the next three years which, through the introduction of innovative incentives and more aggressive marketing, aims to increase its job promotion potential. Indeed, the implementation of this strategy has already seen, in the last financial year, the promotion of some 2,550 jobs. This represents the highest number of job promotions achieved in any year since the unit came into existence, and it is from this platform that I hope to see LEDU achieve even more commendable figures in the current and subsequent years.

Noble Lords should be aware that these Estimates contain only a token provision for support to Harland and Wolff. Because of very difficult market conditions and uncertainty over future orders, Ministers have not yet taken decisions on Harland and Wolff's funding requirement for the full year. In the meantime the company is being funded on an interim basis. We hope to decide within the next few weeks on total funding for the year, and the House will be advised of the outcome as soon as possible. A Supplementary Estimate will follow in due course.

While we must continue to give priority to the development of permanent viable jobs in the private enterprise sector, the Government recognise the need for shorter-term measures to help counter unemployment. In Class II Vote 5—functioning of the labour market—some £100 million is sought to cover the whole range of employment and training services provided. Within this range of services which exist with this objective, I should like to refer particularly to the Action for Community Employment Scheme, or ACE as it is more commonly known. This offers substantial financial aid to sponsors who undertake either a full-time or part-time basis—people who have been unemployed for a year or more. The help offered is a 90 per cent. subsidy on wages and an overheads allowance. In order to protect jobs the projects must be additional activities which would not be done within a reaonsable period in the absence of the scheme.

Hence the community benefits in two ways: by the opportunity for longer-term unemployed to return to useful work and by the tangible benefits and amenities created under the guidance and through the involvement of local people. The response of the community to this scheme has been very encouraging. Currently over 1,000 projects have been approved, which account for over 2,500 people already in employment, and a further 900-plus jobs are on the way; and we are well on the way to meeting the scheme's target of 4,000 jobs by next year. The cost of this scheme in 1983–84 is estimated to be £10.4 million.

I should now like to turn, to what I have already referred to as the third priority area in Northern Ireland—housing—which is covered in Class V in the Estimates. As I have stated earlier, and as noble Lords will already be aware, the Government have afforded top priority among their social and environmental programmes to tackling the serious housing conditions in Northern Ireland which have been well catalogued and described over the years. Noble Lords will also recall that, reflecting this priority and the strategy for reducing unfitness and for shortening the urgent waiting lists which have evolved from it, expenditure on housing has increased substantially in recent years. The provision now sought for housing underlines the Government's continuing commitment to the Province's housing needs and the programmes necessary to implement the agreed strategy. This present provision of over £180 million provides real evidence of the Government's determination to help the Housing Executive make inroads into the Province's housing problems through a twin attack on unfitness and the urgent element of the waiting list. The high levels of expenditure on housing are also of major significance in sustaining employment in the Province's construction industry.

In the current year the Housing Executive hopes to achieve its target of letting contracts for 4,500 new public sector dwellings. Thus, expenditure on new building should rise from the 1982–83 outturn of approximately £93 million to something over £100 million. The drive to improve the Housing Executive's own stock will also continue, but expenditure is expected to settle back somewhat from the peak of£69 million achieved in 1982–83 to about £58 million as part of the process of achieving stable programmes. Expenditure on house renovation grants will increase from £34 million in 1982–83 to about £40 million in 1983–84, but, in spite of this, demand for grants is now outstripping the available resources. As a result the Housing Executive has had recently to introduce a priority scheme of granting approvals.

The allocation to the voluntary housing movement reaffirms the Government's commitment to that sector and recognises the important contribution that housing associations are making to the housing effort. The provision (that is to say, £38.2 million) will enable expenditure on schemes for inner-city rehabilitation and provision for special needs, such as for the elderly and handicapped, to be increased from £21 million in 1982–83 to £25.2 million in the current year. In addition the allocation will, together with anticipated receipts from sales of equity, enable expenditure by the Northern Ireland Co-ownership Housing Association on its equity-sharing scheme to rise from £8½ million in 1982–83 to £15 million in 1983–84.

The Government are confident that the impact of the housing strategy, including the very considerable effort now being made by the private sector, will result in substantial improvements to Northern Ireland's housing conditions. As noble Lords will be aware, the Estimates also provide substantial sums for the other social and environmental programmes. For example, over £550 million is required for education, libraries and arts services, while just under £580 million is sought for health and personal social services.

I should like to conclude these opening remarks by saying something about the work of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Assembly was elected last October and is carrying out its consultative and deliberative functions effectively and conscientiously. The work that it has completed is impressive and includes considering and reporting on draft Orders in Council, statutory rules and Government discussion papers. When reports have been approved by the Assembly, they have been laid before Parliament.

My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has twice addressed plenary sessions of the Assembly and other Ministers have spoken on seven occasions. The six departmental committees of the Assembly have met the Ministers responsible for their respective departments on a total of 14 occasions as part of the process of establishing a frank and constructive dialogue between the Government and elected representatives. The committees have, in addition, received written and oral evidence from a wide range of interested groups and have made fact-finding visits to several locations within Northern Ireland and on one occasion to Great Britain. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has met the Security and Home Affairs Committee of the Assembly once, although security responsibilities are not among those currently available for devolution. All this work is valuable, and the Government hope that in time the elected representatives of all the constitutional parties will come together to seek agreement on devolution in the Assembly.

As your Lordships know, this is the first occasion on which I have had the opportunity to open one of these appropriation debates. In these remarks I have tried to outline reasonably briefly the main features of the draft order before us and to expand upon some of the main policy issues underlying the provision sought.

I believe that on these occasions it is normal for noble Lords to express their views on a great many matters affecting Northern Ireland, and at the end of the debate I shall try to reply to as many as possible of the points which are raised. I shall, I know, be greatly assisted by those noble Lords who have kindly taken the trouble to let me have in advance an indication of the topics, or at least some of them, that they will be raising this afternoon, and I am very grateful to them. Any points which are raised but with which I do not manage to deal this afternoon will be the subject of correspondence in due course. It is in that spirit, so to speak, that I commend the draft order to your Lordships.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd June be approved.—(The Earl of Mansfield.)

4.50 p.m.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl for the information that he has given regarding this draft order. I should certainly like to welcome the noble Earl in his new capacity. As Minister of State he has responsibilities in connection with all the Northern Ireland problems, and I am certain that the House will echo what he has said about the importance of agriculture to Northern Ireland. I gather that he is dealing in particular with Northern Ireland agricultural matters.

As the noble Earl has said, the booklet of estimates is a mine of information. In fact, one could speak for a very long time on practically all the items listed in the booklet. It shows the massive financial assistance that is given to Northern Ireland—over £2½ billion in the estimates as a whole. This reflects considerable public spending involving interventionist policies, grants policies and subsidies policies. I am not at all querying these, except to say that Treasury figures show that, for 1981–82, identifiable public expenditure, per head, was 47 per cent. higher in Northern Ireland than in the United Kingdom as a whole. As I say, I am not complaining about this. I should only like to see that policy transferred to the United Kingdom as a whole, though we realise that there are special problems in Northern Ireland.

Undoubtedly, all the development that can take place is welcome. That is why we gave support to the interim proposals brought forward in March. I believe that everyone will recognise that the problems of Northern Ireland are linked to the general economic problems of the United Kingdom as a whole. In particular, there is the problem of making Northern Ireland attractive to industrialists who may wish to set up business there, and that aspect is linked to matters with which we cannot deal this afternoon.

One point on which I have asked whether the Minister can give me some information relates to the heading Class I in the order and to agricultural support. I note under Vote 2, relating to animal health, Item A5, that last year expenditure arising from brucellosis was £1.2 million and from tuberculosis £0.6 million, whereas in the estimates for the forthcoming year those figures are more or less reversed. Obviously, those who are framing the estimates have to work on information given and plan in advance; and so I would ask the Minister whether the switch round, with more support to deal with tuberculosis and less support to deal with brucellosis, indicates something significant of which we should be made aware.

I want to raise another query regarding Class I, and I am sorry that, so far as I am concerned, this particular point has come up only within the past 48 hours and therefore I have not been able to give the noble Earl any advance notice of it. I gather that the food processing industries in Northern Ireland have been growing—and that will be generally welcome—but that they face the problem, which most food processing plants face, of seasonal supplies. There is the problem of how to maintain a steady flow of supplies, or alternatively how to cope with the problem of storage facilities, whether it involves vegetables or fruit—and in Northern Ireland the problem particularly concerns fish.

While I feel sure that there is a general welcome for the EEC grants to fishermen to assist them in their catches, which are a great help to the smaller Northern Ireland fishing ports, in many cases the processing plants are unable to store for some periods each year. This means laying off personnel, and often the cost of that is more in terms of unemployment benefit than would be the case if some financial assistance were given. I would ask whether the Government will look at the possibility of giving some assistance to the processing plants to help them over this problem—either aid to meet cash flow difficulties or help with the necessary storage facilities.

In Class II (trade, industry and employment) the total estimates provide for an overall decrease of £77 million. There may well be a simple explanation for this, but Vote 2—that is, general support for industry—is down 26 per cent. on the previous year. There is a decrease in loans to industry shown under Item A2 of £12 million. There is also a drop of a further £12 million in industrial development grants shown under Item A3. In view of the need for maximum industrial development in Northern Ireland. I would ask whether these decreases have any significance, bearing in mind the general problem of the economic situation of Northern Ireland and the appalling figures of unemployment.

I note from the Economic Assessment No. 37of the Northern Ireland Economic Council, issued in April—which, incidentally, I felt contained a mass of very useful information—an unemployment figure of 115,000, or 21 per cent. If my memory serves me correctly, that is 9 per cent. more than the unemployment rate in the rest of the United Kingdom. The report to which I refer makes it absolutely clear that this figure takes in only claimants for benefit. It leaves out those who, for various reasons, do not claim, and those who are on special training and employment schemes.

In some areas of Northern Ireland the unemployment rate is over 30 per cent. In Strabane there is nearly 50 per cent. male unemployment, and one must recognise the conditions that must exist in an area with such an unemployment rate. The report shows that in September 1982 there were only 452,000 people in employment. 11,000 fewer than in December 1981. As I think I stressed during a previous Appropriation Order debate, there has been a great drop in the number of people employed in manufacturing industry in Northern Ireland. There are only 96,000 employed in manufacturing industry. That figure is less than the total number of people out of work. Between 1980 and 1982 manufacturing production fell by one-fifth. With these terrible figures—I shall not go through different areas—idle hands, together with all the other problems that exist in Northern Ireland, are obviously contributing to some of the difficulties that we have to face in other directions.

I note the conclusion of the report of the Economic Council that it is likely to be 1984, and possibly 1985, before there is any marked decline in unemployment. The report states: It will take several years to reverse the sharp decline which has taken place over the past few years". It also states: Some radical and substantial economic measures will be required if the Northern Ireland economy is to move to a more normal situation over the next few years". I note also, in the No. 1 issue of the IDB Northern Ireland News—that is, the Industrial Development Board for Northern Ireland—that attention is drawn to the staggering fact which I have already mentioned; namely, that in 1970 there was a total of 177,000 people employed in manufacturing jobs in Northern Ireland but by 1982 the figure had fallen to 95,000. I should like to quote from the No. 1 issue of the IDB Northern Ireland News: The staggering figure of 60,000 new job creations over the next five years would barely alleviate the situation". It is for that reason that we have given support to the various measures which have been proposed by the Government to assist industrial development in different ways.

When we last debated the Appropriation Order in March, the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, said that he would peruse the document to which I referred, which had been issued by the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trades Unions. I should like to know whether the noble Earl has been able himself to peruse the document and whether the Government have seen in that document some measures that could be adopted to assist Northern Ireland.

The noble Earl referred to the position of Harland and Wolff. I am not certain whether his comments were optimistic or pessimistic. He said that the Government would be looking at the situation and would report to Parliament. Does this mean that there is the possibility of orders for Harland and Wolff? Or is there grave doubt about the possibility of orders? I should like the noble Earl, if he can, to state exactly what is the situation.

We also raised in the last Appropriation debate the position of the Learfan company. Can the Minister report any progress? Has the certification of airworthiness yet been given by the United States Administration? I note also provision in the estimates of £7.3 million for Shorts. Can the noble Earl say whether the hiccup which I gather arose when United States representatives recently visited Shorts has been cleared?

I should like to mention a few matters relating to mineral exploration and energy. Under Vote 3, there appears the Item C4 on mineral exploration. The Timesof 4th July carried a report that a Sheffield-based firm, Burnett and Hallamshire Holdings, has submitted a proposal for open-cast mining near Lough Neagh. It says that 300 million tonnes of coal are available. The cost of the work is stated to be £50 million and the company is said to be hoping to win approval for a pilot scheme within "the next few weeks". Is there any possibility of this? What is the actual position?

It would seem that the report refers to the lignite deposits, mentioned by myself and other noble Lords in our last Appropriation debate. On that occasion, the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, said that there were recoverable reserves of 100 million tonnes of lignite. We notice that the Sheffield-based company refers to 300 million tonnes. The noble Earl also said that the Government were currently looking into the possible use of these resources, particularly in view of the high cost of electricity generation in the Province. Any developments along these lines would be welcome. It is undoubtedly important that any coal or other deposits found in Northern Ireland should be developed.

I note in the Estimates that the high cost of electricity generation requires the provision of no less than £62.5 million subsidy to keep the charges to the level of the highest comparable charges in England and Wales. This links with Vote 1 of Class III, relating to the possible introduction of supplies of natural gas. This was debated on the last Appropriation Order. On that occasion the noble Earl. Lord Gowrie, said that, although broad understanding had been reached with the Government of the Republic in May last year, important issues remained to be resolved. I note that in a Commons Written Answer of 5th July this year, Mr. Adam Butler. Minister of State, said that discussions had not yet reached agreement. He emphasised that an early decision was required one way or the other because of the particular importance to the gas industry. With that, all noble Lords will, I think, agree. The Minister also said that arrangements were in hand for a meeting of Ministers of the North and South to deal with the matter. Can the noble Earl say whether actual plans have been made for this meeting, if it has not yet taken place, and what are the prospects?

This leads to the other energy problem. We understand that a report has been submitted by the National Coal Board on possible coal gasification. It is suggested that this production of town gas would be far cheaper than using natural gas. The snag, we understand, is that this could only be dealt with in Belfast.

There are three energy issues, lignite deposits, natural gas and coal gasification. I understand that an energy report was to be issued today by Northern Ireland Ministers. Naturally, I have not seen it. I hope that it will deal with these three problems. We have to ask whether there is a sound energy programme for Northern Ireland. There are three potentials to which I have referred. I should like to know whether there is a definite programme.

To revert to Class II, Vote 4 deals with tourism. All noble Lords will agree that tourism is important to Northern Ireland. Is there any particular reason for a decrease of two-thirds in the grants to catering compared with last year?

The noble Earl has referred to the provision of nearly £100 million for many schemes of training and temporary employment. I must emphasise that training is never wasted. It has great value when recovery comes. However, by itself, it does not provide any employment. Only measures for new employment can provide jobs for people undergoing training.

There is another matter in Vote 5 to which I should like to refer. In relation to the Fair Employment Agency, covered under D2, I note that the Irish Timescarried a report which, it was claimed, was based on an article in The Listener,which I did not see, stating that, with one exception, every senior editorial post in television and radio in Northern Ireland was filled by Ulster Protestants. If this information is inaccurate, a reply by the Minister would be welcome. If it is correct, I must ask what action is being taken. Has the Fair Employment Agency been asked to look into the matter?

During the debate on the economy and industrial affairs on the Queen's Speech, the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, dealt with a number of points that had been raised about genuine and fake jobs. He referred to infrastructure projects in Northern Ireland. I should like to quote from columns 352 and 353 on 29th June, when the noble Earl said that the Prime Minister's point about sustainable employment, could not he better illustrated than by experience in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is a place where relatively small market towns arc linked by major motorways, admirably produced and enjoyable to drive along, but not capable of sustaining jobs once the infrastructure has been improved in that way. It is not S0 much a distinction between real and fake jobs, as that all jobs must be sustained by the wealth generated to create them". [Official Report,29/6/83; col. 352.] Certainly, in the light of what the Minister has said this afternoon, he does not accept that as being justification for not moving on developing infrastructure in Northern Ireland. Expenditure of£99 million on roads, lighting and other services for the infrastructure has our full support. We hope that the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, was not suggesting that these were matters that should not be supported.

There are only a few points remaining that I wish to make. Class VI relates to water and sewerage. I regret that I have not been able to raise the matter in advance with the Minister. Northern Ireland has always made the most of its large supplies of water for industry, food processing, fishing and tourism. I am informed, however, that over recent months, there have been a growing number of complaints of water supplies affected by agricultural seepage from manure, cleaning of silos and so on. If this information is correct—the reports that I have been given suggest that it is correct—there would be great damage to a natural asset. There is need for action. I should like to know whether the Government have any proposals, if they accept that the complaints are justified.

I accept, on behalf of these Benches, everything that the noble Earl says about the value of the work of the Assembly and echo his hope that all parties will eventually co-operate. I agree that visits by Ministers and the reports that have been issued have been valuable. But, in view of some of the very substantial figures given in the Estimates—for example, roads and transport, £125 million; education, £557 million; water and sewerage, £78 million: and health and personal social services, £579 million—to what extent are the points contained in these Estimates matters on which the Assembly should give its views, and to what extent are some of the relevant points dealt with in consultation with district councils?

I come to my last point. I understand that there is a £60 million EEC package for new projects in Belfast. I also understand that £20 million will be spent in the current year and the balance of £40 million by 1985. My simple question is this: although these grants for new projects are to be welcomed, with whom will they be discussed? Will it be with the Assembly, with the Belfast Council or with whom? Naturally we welcome the order and I am certain that the Minister will do his best to answer the many points that I have raised.

5.11 p.m.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, I, too, should like to start by congratulating the Minister on his new job and on the way in which he has obviously worked hard to familiarise himself with the problems. I should also like to thank him and his department for the great trouble they took to assist and the hospitality they showed to, a visiting sub-committee of the EEC Scrutiny Committee, of which I am a member. We went to look at the special problems of Northern Ireland with regard to agriculture. It is that about which I should like to speak. I shall not follow the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in his extensive and very valuable review of the whole field.

However, I, too, regard the 40 per cent. extra money spent per head in Northern Ireland as very worthwhile in view of the extra problems which they experience in every field. These problems also apply to agriculture. The noble Viscount. Lord Brookeborough—a member of our sub-committee—persuaded the department to take us on a very thorough tour to show us these special problems which affect agriculture in Northern Ireland. As a result of my own experience I knew something about them before we went, and particularly that Northern Ireland was extremely hard hit when we went into the EEC and has not really been compensated for the damage done to its intensive pig, poultry and, indeed. dairy industries.

After the war Northern Ireland led the way in using its natural assets which for agriculture included a very good port at Belfast and its nearness to the United States and Canada, which were a source of cheap grain. It built up a considerable competent and efficient industry for the intensive production of livestock which, of course, was exported to this country. But when we entered the EEC all that changed and instead of being the nearest country to a source of reasonably cheap grain, it found itself the most distant country from the source of grain in Europe and, for example. in East Anglia. Since then it has operated at a distinct disadvantage compared to the rest of agriculture in the United Kingdom. I think that with great profit and assistance to the appalling problem of unemployment, the Government might assist rather more than they are doing in that area.

We went to see the poultry and pig production, and were very impressed by the competence of the family farms that we visited and, indeed, by the competence of the co-operative bodies which were doing the marketing and in some cases the financing. All of that is good. but it is extraordinarily difficult to overcome the extra cost of basic foods, which is due mainly to transport. I know that, for example, the Government assist with a subsidy on the transport of eggs to this country. but that is not the main cost of the transport—an egg is easy to transport. The main cost arises over the transport of food into Ireland. I also know that the Government have assisted with the cost of the transport of EEC wheat into Ireland. But I should like the Minister to give his views on whether it would not he fair for these competent and intensive farmers to receive a subsidy on transport. which at least would put them on level terms with the same producers in the rest of the United Kingdom.

The problem of unemployment will be exacerbated as more and more of these people and the processors go out of business. I am sure that that would not be profitable and, as the noble Lord. Lord Underhill. said. it would cost a lot less to keep them in business than the cost of unemployment benefit for the employees and farmers themselves.

The other factor which impressed us greatly was the competence of both the department and the small family farms of Northern Ireland. We were taken to see several of these farms and the people and the farms were very impressive. They were all small farms. A big farm in Northern Ireland comprises 100 acres, but very few people are employed. They are mainly family farms, and certainly the farms we saw are examples of the countryside and social set-up which many people would greatly envy. The small farms that we saw with these exceptional people—and they are an example which could he followed—were taking full advantage of the less favoured area grants to improve their farms. We saw some very well-equipped dairy farms. Most of the work was done by the farmers themselves, with the result that re-equipment did not cost them very much after grant. All that was involved was a great deal of hard work, which is a tremendous virtue. The set-up was good. The advice offered by the advisory services was obviously good. The dairy and pig production looked as though it would produce good food at a reasonable price and would maintain the structure in the countryside, which is necessary if the whole set-up is to continue.

I trust that the Government are helping the Northern Ireland department to extend the less favoured areas. We saw farms which were being turned over to the production of beef, again with the aid of the subsidy, part of which our Government pay and part of which the EEC pays. These farms were being turned into very competent units of agriculture and very desirable family units in the countryside. In other words, we saw a tremendous amount of good work going on, and I trust and hope that the Government will back the department in its efforts to extend the less favoured areas.

Drainage is probably the main problem. This is country with a very stiff and impervious subsoil which needs to be drained. But the farmers there recognise this and are willing to play their part in work and in money to get the land into a productive state. I think that it is enormously useful. I think that this is certainly far better than more people becoming unemployed, with the already appallingly high rate of unemployment in Northern Ireland. I congratulate the Minister on the competence of his department, and I trust he will ensure that his colleagues in the Government will give full backing to the excellent work that they are doing in that Province.

5.20 p.m.

Baroness Elliot of Harwood

My Lords, it is with great pleasure that I take part in this debate, being one of the Members of Sub-Committee D who visited Northern Ireland last week. One of the responsibilities which that Committee has taken—and I think others have too—is to visit the areas where we want to find out more about how things are going, and also to discuss with the people on the spot how the work of the EEC grants and EEC activities affect the area in which they are living and working.

Last year I was one of the small delegation which went to the South of Italy and an area in Provence in France which are also less favoured areas. It gives one an opportunity of studying closely what is being done through the CAP in many parts of the European Community, and I am sure it is a valuable experience. I should like to support all that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, has said as to the interest which we had in what we saw in Northern Ireland. My impression was the same as his, that here was a small country struggling hard under difficult conditions, apart from the political conditions about which we all know all too well. It has also difficult conditions in the soil and its type of farming, and in my opinion they work extremely competently.

We saw there what family farms really mean. Just as in parts of Scotland, particularly the Highlands and the crofting areas, we all know about family farms, so in Northern Ireland I was tremendously impressed by the way in which these families are tackling their farms and working closely together with their neighbours and, above all, with the Department of Agriculture. I was impressed by the close liaison between the farming community and the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture. In talking, as we all did, to the officials as well as to the farmers I felt strongly that here was really good co-operation, a really good combination, and that it was working extremely well.

We have discussed in your Lordships' House many times the different aspects of EEC agricultural policy, and also the policy connected with social developments in different parts of Europe. I felt strongly that in Northern Ireland, while I absolutely agree that everything that can be done to help from the common agricultural policy is well worth doing, certain aspects of agriculture and farming could be classified to some extent as also worth supporting from the social point of view.

It is clear that if the family farms in Northern Ireland were to founder in any way, or not to be able to carry the expenses and the work of the families, then it would be a disaster if those people had to give up. I presume they would simply have to go into the towns, Belfast or elsewhere, where there is already high unemployment, and the value of what had been done on the land would be lost. Not only that, but from a social point of view it would be a disaster.

One can look upon the assistance being given to the farmers in Northern Ireland not only from the point of view of what they produce, which is valuable and good. but also because it means that these people can live a happy and delightful life on those farms provided that they get some help for the cultivation, some help for the improvement, of both the housing and the land. I was impressed by the housing in these areas. I inquired how it was that the houses seemed to be so extremely good—and they were excellent—and I was told that this was one of the things which the Government in Northern Ireland in the past had been extremely keen to do.

In fact, someone told me that when the first Lord Brookeborough was Prime Minister in Northern Ireland he was offered help either for railways or roads. He discarded the idea of railways. He encouraged the development of roads and, above all, encouraged the grant aid to people to improve their houses. The result is that the housing we saw—we went to about 5 or 6 farms—was extremely good. The people living in these houses were obviously keeping them in excellent condition. It was a happy and satisfactory result of this policy which has been carried on there for a long time.

We were in the County of Fermanagh which, as your Lordships know, borders on Southern Ireland. I was impressed by the fact that I do not think I heard anybody talking politically to us about anything to do with agriculture, or making any sort of complaint about problems which obviously must arise there since we were on the border. They just live a perfectly normal life competently and efficiently, and in close co-operation with each other and with the agricultural organisation of the whole of Northern Ireland. I was tremendously impressed by this, and I thought that the help which they get through the various ways in which the EEC operates is very well worth while. I do not think that I have ever seen any assistance better used than what we saw in the short two days that we spent there.

The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, has mentioned the other places we went to. We saw, of course, the egg packing station, the piggeries, and so on, which are very well done too. We went to no less than two agricultural colleges, where again I had the impression that these were highly practical. The young people there were there because they were themselves engaged, or would be engaged, in their family farms. They were working closely together with the people running the colleges as well as with their own families and the work which they were doing on the land.

This development in Northern Ireland may cost a certain amount of money. We have heard from the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, that a lot of money is involved in this, but it is well worthwhile. If all the money used in Government departments and elsewhere were as well spent as it is in Ulster I think that we should be very happy indeed. My impression was that here was a competent, well organised community happily working together. I hope that we shall continue to help Northern Ireland in every way we can, because I am sure it is a good investment, it is well worthwhile, and highly satisfactory from every point of view.

5.29 p.m.

Lord Dunleath

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl once again for having followed the precedent of the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, in writing to us in advance seeking our views as to points we might raise during this debate. I should also like to take the opportunity to welcome him to his new post in the Northern Ireland Office. I do not think that I have met him since we overlapped at the same house at school when he was in the library as the Viscount Stormont and I was a lower boy. I cannot recall whether I actually fagged for him, but if I did he cannot have been a hard taskmaster otherwise undoubtedly the experience would have marked itself indelibly on my mind. It was a great pleasure, therefore, to see him again when he came to address the agriculture committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly, appropriately enough at Stormont, a couple of weeks ago.

On the subject of agriculture, Class I, in Vote 2, reference is made to marketing and I should be interested to know if Her Majesty's Government have any new ideas in mind for the development and improvement of marketing in agriculture.

Turning now to the subject of less-favoured areas, which has already been mentioned, I took the liberty of raising this matter on the Appropriation Order on 14th March and the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, said that inevitably all boundaries carry the likelihood of dispute. Indeed, we have often referred to it as the "line of discontent". But I am wondering if the best course of action might not be to appoint an independent appeals body which would adjudicate on whether the areas classified as "less favourable" were fair and just.

Our dispute with Her Majesty's Government is that they appear to be delaying confirmation of their willingness to make their contribution to the cost of increasing the less-favoured areas. This was the impression we received from Mr. Dalsager when he addressed the agriculture committee a few weeks ago. I strongly stress that than early decision on this is necessary, because many farmers are losing money every month because—though they qualify to be included in the new less-favoured areas—the failure of Her Majesty's Government to persevere and pursue this matter to its conclusion means that they are still having to pay, for instance, co-responsibility levy which otherwise they would not have to do. I hope that the noble Earl will act as a new broom. As he will be aware, the total number of less-favoured areas in Scotland is 92 per cent. It may have been due to his influence that such a high percentage was realised in Scotland. If that is so. I hope he will employ the same magical touch now that he is responsible for Northern Ireland.

Under Class I. the only other point I make is that there may be an argument for setting up a contingency fund so that quick aid could be given to various farming enterprises when, season by season, they look like running into difficulties. I am thinking of last year about the potato growers. Soon after the Assembly started to meet, we were urging the setting up of a stock feed scheme for potatoes, to take surplus potatoes off the market. In the event that was introduced, but I respectfully suggest that it was far too late in the season. Had it been introduced early in the year, when it was apparent that there would be a surplus of potatoes, it would have made all the difference.

Under Class II, I welcome the assistance that has been given to industry as is reported in the Industrial Development Board's news: the corporation tax relief of up to 18 per cent. for new approved projects, 100 per cent. de-rating of industrial premises and so on. I also welcome the setting up of the IDB. It would not he fair of me at this early stage to ask the noble Lord what he thought the prospects for success of the IDB were, but I hope that the next time we have an appropriation order debate he may be able to give us some idea of his projected feelings about it.

One other thing under Class II that I would mention is that it might he desirable to carry over any under-spend from year to year, not only to recover the money that has not been spent but to encourage providence on the part of the departments, to remove the incentive to spend lavishly during the latter part of the year in order to spend the whole budget so that the allocation next year will not be reduced.

Under Class III the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, mentioned natural gas or coal gas. The Coal Board maintains that coal-generated gas is cheaper than natural gas from Kinsale. I am in no position to adjudicate on that. I merely say that an early decision is most urgent, because the gas industry is declining at an alarming rate.

I diverge here for a moment, having been bold enough to mention the noble Lord. Lord Underhill. If I heard him right—I may not have because I was writing a note at the time he was speaking—I believe he said that there was an article in The Listener,which he had not seen and I have not seen either, claiming that in the entire broadcasting staff in Northern Ireland there was only one Roman Catholic. That is a most scurrilous allegation. if it was made. It does not take any great gift as a detective to realise that the head of religious broadcasting in BBC Northern Ireland is a Roman Catholic because he is a priest called Father Skelly. One of the chief news presenters for BBC Northern Ireland is a Roman Catholic. He is a personal friend, and there are many more who I know are Roman Catholics—but I have never been so impertinent as to ask because I consider that to inquire into people's religion is reverse discrimination.

To make an allegation of that sort is absolutely appalling, and if I were still a governor of the BBC—I have not been for over 10 years—I would urge a rigorous internal examination with the editor of The Listenerto give evidence. As it is I shall make a point of obtaining a copy of that issue of The Listenerand I shall make a strong complaint, perhaps even to the Press Council, because it has no right whatever to propagate totally erroneous and damaging information of that sort. I resent it extremely strongly.

Returning to the subject of the debate, under Class IV, I should be interested to know whether the road fund tax is able fully to fund road works in the Province. In other words, do road works have to be subsidised from other sources or is there a surplus from the road fund tax? Furthermore. I should be interested to know whether the new Foyle Bridge at Londonderry, over which there has been some controversy. is being funded from the road fund tax. If so, is the cost of it detracting from other normal road works?

Another point in this connection is that if there is to he no toll on the new Foyle Bridge, which is costing many millions of pounds. why then should there be a charge for using the water ferry to Strangford? Both, surely, are extensions of the road system. Why should an expensive bridge be free of charge when a comparatively inexpensive boat should bear a fee, which was recently approved to be increased by up to threefold over the next five years? Under the same class I should like to know (if it is possible for me to be told) when the new Belfast City rail link will be completed because this will greatly enhance the value of the Belfast to Larne railway line and will help to maximise the success of Northern Ireland railways, which had a surprisingly good year last year, showing a very respectable profit.

Under Class VI, I quite agree that river pollution must be tackled in a most rigorous manner. Farmers are blamed for the emission of slurry and silage effluent, but I should like to say—and I know this for a fact—that the complainants about polluted water courses are, in the majority, farmers and they complain to a certain extent because there are maverick farmers who are careless and who allow their silage effluent to escape into water courses. But there are other farmers who were ill-advised, perhaps unintentionally, when they originally constructed their slurry tanks or retention tanks or their farmyard drainage systems; because I think that neither they nor the Ministry of Agriculture (as it was then) advisory officers realised just how penetrating silage effluent can be. It is corrosive, it can find any hair-crack and it can cause far more damage than almost any other form of polluting effluent. It takes only a small quantity of silage effluent to make a river completely dead.

Therefore, I suggest that, whereas persuasion has been the main policy of the authorities up to now, persuasion should be continued but the farmers should be advised as to how they can prevent pollution. If they had been wrongly advised in the first instance on the lay-out of their farmyards and slurry and effluent disposal systems and were granted-aided for the same, they should once more be grant-aided to make modifications to prevent that problem from occurring in the future. If they fail to be amenable to that advice, they should be prosecuted without any hesitation whatsoever.

Under Class VIII I should just like to make brief reference to Lagan College. I am not asking any question about this subject because I realise that there may perhaps be negotiations in progress at the moment over its being awarded state-aided status, and I would not like to rock the boat. I would merely say that I hope that the department will take a favourable view of this. I would say to the noble Earl on the Front Bench that a very warm invitation would be extended to him or to any of his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office if they would like to come and visit the college. We have had a number of visitors there, all of whom have been most impressed. I myself am most impressed—not least because the young pupils there are actually polite, which is something that one does not always find in schools nowadays, unfortunately.

In Class XI, the Northern Ireland Assembly has received reference in the debate this afternoon. I would endorse the opinion stated that it is doing a good job in its scrutineering role. There is still not complete accord as to how progress towards devolution should be achieved; but there is one thing that all parties in the Assembly have in common and that is their concern over security. Many of us ask why it is that recently an extradition treaty should have been agreed between the Republic of Ireland and the USA while we have so far failed to get the Republic's Government to agree an extradition treaty between themselves and the United Kingdom.

I have been told that the backing of warrants is in fact a closer way of dealing with extra-territorial terrorist situations, but I can only say that over the last years it has not proved to be effective. This is a matter where I think that all of us in the Assembly would like to see Her Majesty's Government putting on more pressure with regard to the Government of the Republic of Ireland so as to try to make sure that terrorists, from wherever they come, are brought to justice. Finally, I should like to thank the noble Earl and his colleagues for their attention to the affairs of Northern Ireland. Even if they are sometimes barracked when they come to address the Assembly, their presence there is in fact greatly appreciated.

5.46 p.m.

Baroness Ewart-Biggs

My Lords, I, too, should like to start by congratulating the noble Earl on his new appointment. It is very nice to welcome him to what can be rather a small group of noble Lords involved in Northern Irish affairs. Nevertheless, though quite small it is also select. So it is very nice to welcome him. I am certainly not going to make a long speech. I was not even going to comment on any of the details contained in the Appropriation Order; my noble friend Lord Underhill has done that very extensively. But I would like to take this opportunity to remark on one particular issue which very much influences Northern Ireland's economic state, and that is the Community funds which go to Northern Ireland. In so doing, I should also like to comment on that vexed question of additionality and to ask the Minister a particular question on it.

Additionality has long been a point of very great contention between the Commission and the national Governments, and it would certainly take a very much braver person than I to go into it in very great depth. But, as it relates to Northern Ireland, we are confronted with a very simple question; namely, whether European Community membership has meant that Community funds coming from the Community's social and regional development funds have afforded extra help for the development of the Northern Ireland economy over and above what might otherwise have come from the Exchequer or, on the other hand, whether it has not meant that.

The answer, in one instance, at any rate, is that it has meant that; and I think that it is a matter of great relief that the initiative which was launched in (I think) 1979 by the Northern Irish Members of the European Parliament to channel Community funds towards Belfast housing has come to fruition. The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot. waxed very lyrical about farmhousing in the countryside. But I fear that the same cannot be said for housing in Belfast. It is a very great relief to hear that £60 million from the European Community has been made available, that it has had the blessing of our European partners and that, although it is technically aimed at urban renewal, these funds will be used for improving Belfast's deplorable housing. Furthermore, it is perfectly clear that the Government have undertaken to ensure its additionality.

Having conceded that in this particular case European funds have indeed been treated as additional, we should perhaps now look at the whole principle of additionality with regard to Northern Ireland. But first it is important to point out that the problem really lies simply in the fact that the principle is regarded in a very different light as seen from Brussels, Whitehall and Northern Ireland. This, in my view, is what constitutes the misunderstandings and the mistrust which are so detrimental to a good relationship in this triangular partnership.

Thus, seen from Brussels, money in considerable amounts is committed to projects and schemes in the Province, which is recognised by the Commission as a hard hit area. These funds are therefore seen as a form of positive assistance, agreed by the European institution and based on an assessment of the region's true needs. It is most certainly meant as additional to whatever is provided by the national Government. But, as seen from London, these funds are regarded as a way to relieve the problems of the Chancellor of the Exchequer by giving him revenue with which to finance his spending.

In this context, in respect of Northern Ireland it has to be understood that there is a forward programme of Government spending which is quite separate from the other United Kingdom domestic Exchequer items. This spending programme does not necessarily increase as a result of any increase in European transfers into the Exchequer, based on Northern Irish applications. Thus, from London, this money—earmarked to make a contribution to the national Budget and thus only indirectly to regional policies—merely helps to sustain national aid to regions like Northern Ireland.

What it really boils down to is that, whereas on the one hand Northern Ireland is treated separately within the United Kingdom's domestic financial arrangements when dealing with Europe, on the other hand Northern Ireland is in fact but a small part of the United Kingdom/Europe package. The relevance of additionality therefore applies to the United Kingdom overall rather than to Northern Ireland, and while this may satisfy the Treasury it does not satisfy either the Northern Irish, who feel cheated of the funds they know were destined for them, or the Community, who feel that regions such as Northern Ireland should experience the direct benefit of these additional resources.

Therefore, arising out of this imperfect situation this is the suggestion I should like to put to the Minister. Does he not think that in order for funds to flow additionally to Northern Ireland from Europe changes could he made to permit the relevant departments of Government in Northern Ireland to provide the matching amounts necessary to attract European support in the first place from within the Northern Ireland grant in aid? That, of course, would constitute, from the Treasury's point of view, a difference in presentation as well as in principle; but it would not necessarily cost them any more. Also in European Community terms it could mean a significant step towards clarity and satisfying the mechanisms for the use of European Community moneys. Finally, from the Northern Irish point of view, it would make them feel as though they were being treated on their own needs, and they would thereby recognise the benefits of Community membership in a greater way.

This in turn—and I have said this before in your Lordships' House—would add to the trust and reliance that the Northern Irish people have in the European framework. They will find it perhaps a means of finding agreement on not only economic issues but eventually also more far-reaching matters and political issues, because one does not have to think very hard to realise that the Anglo-Irish framework has not provided a recipe which is entirely the right one.

Finally, my last point concerns the initiative suggested by the European Parliament last March to make an inquiry into the economic and social situation in Northern Ireland including the internal political crisis. Your Lordships will know, in spite of the rather unexpectedly harsh reaction of the British Government against this proposal, that Mr. Niels Haagerup, the very much respected Dane in whose hands the inquiry will lie, nevertheless intends to start his work in September. For my part, I certainly do not see this initiative as an interference. I cannot see anything in the least bit threatening about it. After all, as I have just been outlining, we are delighted to accept economic intervention—in the case I was mentioning, in the shape of £60 million to give the people of Belfast better homes—and we certainly do not look upon that as unwelcome interference. So I really do not think that the Government are in a very strong position in objecting to an EEC initiative which is designed to examine how their own money is being applied.

In addition, it must be true to say that the report will also serve to inform our European partners a little as to our problems in the Province. We often do not attract as much sympathy and understanding in this regard from our European partners as we should like, and such a survey can but promote an awareness which would help us. So I hope that the noble Earl the Minister can give us an assurance that the Government will see that Mr. Haagerup and his delegation will he accorded all the help and support that this important mission deserves.

5.56 p.m.

Lord Mottistone

My Lords, I am addressing your Lordships as another member of the EEC Sub-Committee D who had the privilege of making this recent trip to Northern Ireland. I was the food processor on the sub-committee and I rather suspect I was brought along by the farmers to teach me a little bit about farming; but, however that may be. I am sure that my arguments with them will continue. I, too, would like very much to congratulate my noble friend on his new appointment and to thank him and his department for their welcome. I should also like to thank my noble friend Lord Brookeborough, who set up the whole arrangement in the first place.

I have a few points to make; I shall not go over other ground. It is quite clear that the British Government are well aware of the problems of Northern Ireland and are doing the best they can to alleviate those problems in agriculture as well as in other areas: the sorts of figures that my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, produced show that to be the case. But the point of Sub-Committee D going there was, of course, to try to get the message through to Europe.

I hope very much that we shall find some way of having the results of our experience fitted into a report because, as your Lordships know, the reports of all our sub-committees are very well read throughout the Commission and indeed in the European Parliament. They are said to be among the most unbiased and well-informed reports that come from any of the Parliaments anywhere within the Community. So they have acquired a great standing and I would hope very much that we shall find a way to include our experience in a report. My own feeling is that it would be inappropriate to make a special report on Northern Ireland, but if we could find some reports referring to similar or related problems within the Community it may be that we could make a composite report on those parts of the Community where there are agricultural difficulties owing to their special position and their special location.

My noble colleague Lord Mackie pointed out the sea transport difficulties and suggested that a subsidy might he made. I found myself very much recognising that difficulty when I got to Northern Ireland—though it was not my first visit by any means—by seeing it set against the farming problem, because it is exactly the same problem as we have in the Isle of Wight. It is now a very much greater problem than it was 30 years ago because of the almost staggering increase in the numbers of big lorries and roll-on roll-off ferries.

In earlier days the relative transport costs for different parts of the United Kingdom were not so marked because many of the ports around the coast found that the cheapest way of getting goods transported from one place to another was in small freighters. That meant they were in exactly the same position as the major areas such as Northern Ireland, which was cut off from the mainland, the smaller islands like the Isle of Wight, or indeed, as my noble friend will recognise, the smaller islands of Scotland for which he has recently had responsibility. The important point is that there is a much greater difference between transport costs for these more remote areas than there was 30 years ago and earlier. So it requires to be dealt with.

The Isle of Wight has exactly this problem, but on a much smaller scale. We were told about the cost of raw materials going into Northern Ireland, particularly when they have to import EEC grain instead of getting it across from North America at much reduced prices, and we, too, have that problem of getting raw materials in and then getting the finished products out. Again, we also have a higher unemployment problem, though happily it is not so marked. So it is a real problem and it particularly applies to Northern Ireland, because it is also at the periphery of the European Community in relation to what one might call the centre of gravity of the Community in the heartland of mainland Europe.

It was most useful to me as a food processor—albeit as a countryman, having been brought up in the country—to see farming close to. I learned a great deal, not only from the Northern Ireland farmers but also from my noble colleagues who farm too. I saw them poking things and digging in the ground, and the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, was not content to dig down into the clay, but dug even further to see how far it went. At one stage, I though that he would fall into a large hole. As an outsider, I was also extremely impressed. as was the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, by the competence of these farmers and by the way in which they coped with their difficulties, many of which are forced upon them by the disciplines of the common agricultural policy. The cheerfulness with which they viewed the issue was most heartening. They obviously had their difficulties, but there was a cheerful atmosphere which I personally much appreciated.

Nearer to my own speciality, if I may put it in that way, I was most impressed by the work at the Loughry College of Agriculture and Food Technology in County Tyrone, where the food technologists are positively seeking to develop new processed foods. Because of the costs of getting fresh eggs, for example, from Northern Ireland to the European Market, they are saying to themselves, "If we cannot economically get our fresh eggs out, let us find ways and means of processing them in a new way that nobody else has thought about, so that we can then sell the processed articles." They are encouraging entrepreneurs to set up and to develop the results of their scientific studies.

For example, they have packaged scrambled eggs. I do not think that all my noble colleagues much liked the scrambled eggs which we tasted, but it was a move in the right direction and a little more work could bring it on a little bit more. They are also doing things with the parts of a meat carcase which will not sell very easily, or which are not very pleasant in their original form. So they are doing a great deal of good in that respect.

The important point is that the researchers are taking the initiative. They are seeing a problem, they are taking the initiative and, having got the scientific work done, are then going out and finding a Northern Ireland entrepreneur. They made the point that they were not thinking of selling their patent to Japan or anything like that. They wanted these methods of processing foods to be developed within Northern Ireland, so as to bring more employment and more income from overseas into that country. I agree with my noble friend Lady Elliot that the total impression of this visit was of money well spent by the Government in encouraging people to take the sort of attitudes that I have been describing. She was absolutely right on that.

Finally, I was as impressed as I was earlier, when I last had a connection with the Northern Ireland Government nearly 15 years ago, in connection with another job that I was then doing. At that time, I was particularly impressed by the way that the structure of government in Northern Ireland seemed to be in the right balance with the rest of the United Kingdom. It was neither too big nor too small, and it was powerful enough to do a good job, but far enough away from Whitehall not to have to refer to it all the time. Altogether it was a much happier, more hardworking and more efficient group of people than any major local authority in the rest of the United Kingdom.

It is a great credit to the successive Governments since we have had direct rule that they have preserved that cadre of excellent people in the Northern Ireland civil service, and have enabled them to go on roughly as they were doing before when they were governed locally from Stormont. The overall impression of efficiency, of good humour and of getting on with the job was really magnificent to see, and I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on taking over this team and on already having impressed them as being somebody with whom they want to work.

6.6 p.m.

Lord Mais

My Lords, may I add my congratulations to the noble Earl on his recent appointment. May I also apologise for putting my name down so very late in the batting order; but I particularly want to take this opportunity to draw attention to some of the problems which affect the new university at Coleraine. I do so because they have a very large number of young people there, and they are the type of young people who will be needed in Ulster in the years to come. As I understand it, the present position is that it has been decreed that they will be amalgamated with the Belfast Technical College. This does not meet with much favour from either the university or the technical college, but the fact remains that it has been decreed that the amalgamation shall take place. I recently heard that there has been some disagreement over this, and exactly what will happen now I do not know. But what I do know is that it is rumoured that the University Grants Committee are likely to cut off their grant to Coleraine unless they comply with the Government's wishes.

I have had a good deal to do with that university, and what impressed me more than anything else about the establishment were the characteristics of all the students there; the fact that they were all very well turned-out and very articulate, as you would probably expect from that part of the country. They were a very well disciplined body, and the relationship between the staff and the students was very good indeed. It would be a tragedy, particularly at this stage, if that university were either closed or restricted in its present activities. It would cause a great deal of distress. Students would leave or would be got rid of—whichever way you look at it—before they obtained their degrees, and at this particular moment we do not want more unemployment in that troubled land than there is already.

Discipline is better there than I have seen in any other university—and I am pro-chancellor of one. I only wish that we had the same type of student and the same attitude to life as those students at Coleraine have. If the university is closed or restricted in its activities, that will undoubtedly result in a very large number of splendid young people being unable to complete their degrees and being thrown on to the labour market. That is a market where there are practically no jobs going, whether or not you have a degree, but you have a slightly better chance of getting a job if you have a degree.

It is, I know, a difficult problem. The University Grants Committee have been told that they must make cuts. The university with which I am connected has suffered in the same way as other universities. The suffering will be felt largely by the students. The students at Coleraine are just the sort of people Northern Ireland wants at the moment, and will want in the future. If the university is closed, those students will become disillusioned and ready listeners to the particular kind of propaganda talk to which they will obviously be subjected.

I would earnestly ask her Majesty's Government to consider, whatever the University Grants Committee may think and whatever allowance or allowances are available to the University Grants Committee, whether support for the new university at Coleraine for an interim period, anyway, should be part of the defence or stabilisation of Ireland, particularly Ulster. It would be far better than paying unemployment benefit. Far from the students becoming good citizens with the right outlook on life and prepared to work hard, they will become fertile ground which undoubtedly will be worked by those who bring disruption and murder to that very unhappy land.

As I have said, I put down my name late to speak in this debate, but I felt that this was an opportunity to draw the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the fact that there is more to keeping Coleraine University intact than just the question of money. Money is short. I know, and all the universities are trying to get what they can. However, I would earnestly request that so far as the new University of Coleraine is concerned it should he treated as a special case.

6.12 p.m.

Lord Moyola

My Lords, I should like to begin by offering my congratulations to the noble Earl on his appointment to the Northern Ireland Office. I hope that he will have a very interesting and rewarding time. Even more strongly, I hope that we in Northern Ireland will benefit from his wise advice and ministrations. I owe the noble Earl, I am afraid, a number of apologies. First, time has marched on. I shall probably have to leave before the noble Earl replies to the debate, as I have to catch an aeroplane fairly soon. I hope the noble Earl will also forgive me for not having given him notice of what I intend to say.

Until I arrived at the House last night I had not intended to take part in our debate this afternoon. I then heard the news about the appalling murders which took place yesterday in Northern Ireland—the murders of the Ulster Defence Regiment men and two other people at Crossmaglen. I mention this, first, to express sympathy to the families of the victims. I mention it also for two other reasons. The first and most important reason is that I want to say once again how grateful all right-thinking people in Northern Ireland are to the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the army for what they have done over the years. I wish that I had known about these appalling incidents before I left home, for I should have brought with me some facts and figures to highlight how extremely successful the RUC and the army have been over the years. I am afraid that their praises are sung not nearly loudly enough or often enough. Unhappily, their praises are very seldom sung by Northern Ireland politicians. Therefore, I feel that those of us who come from Northern Ireland should take the opportunity to put our appreciation on record.

The other reason why I raise this matter is that I am on record on several occasions in your Lordships' House as saying that I am opposed to political initiatives or so-called solutions. They always seem to generate a period of violence and sometimes death. Certainly they generate destruction and difficulties. It is an open question whether yesterday's debate on hanging in another place would have been regarded by the terrorists as requiring some form of initiative. It certainly seems to have stirred the terrorists to this dastardly act of defiance. I am not suggesting that the debate should not have taken place. That would be nonsense. However, it is an example of the unforeseen dangers which can overtake any initiative, however far away, which in any way concerns Northern Ireland. I must add that I am more than thankful for yesterday's vote against hanging. I should like to express my appreciation of the very forthright stand taken by the Secretary of State, which I am certain was absolutely right.

I should like to touch very briefly on agriculture. Northern Ireland has had very generous and kind support for its agriculture from this side of the water. I was particularly pleased to hear the remarks made about the need for aid to the pig and poultry industries—the need for cheaper cereal imports for Northern Ireland. The pig and poultry industries are both fading away: they have declined steadily over the last 10 years. Unless we can get grain for these industries at the same price as people pay in this country, those industries will continue to decline. That would mean more unemployment. As has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, they are small farmers. Small farmers exist only by means of intensive farming, which leads them very quickly into pigs and poultry.

I should also like to mention the less favoured areas. I raised this matter in your Lordships' House about 15 months ago, but no decision has yet been taken. This is a vitally important matter for farmers in Northern Ireland because of their distance from the markets. All I can say at this stage is that I hope that the new Minister will be able to get some action taken on this vitally important matter. I wish him well in his new appointment.

6.19 p.m.

Viscount Brookeborough

My Lords, I must apologise to the Minister for the fact that my name does not appear on the list of speakers. I thought I gave my name to the Whips Office last week when I told them that the Minister had kindly agreed to our subcommittee having a debate on Northern Ireland agriculture. I apologise to the House and to the Minister.

Before I join in the debate on the Appropriation (No.2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1983, I should like very solidly to support what has been said by my noble friend Lord Moyola. All the people in my area were absolutely horrified by the foul murder yesterday of the four UDR men. It was in our area that the murders were committed. Our deepest sympathy goes out to their relatives and also to the relatives of the other two men who were foully murdered in County Armagh. I cannot convey to this House the effect on the community, even after all these years of horrors, of destruction of this sort. It is also impossible to convey to this House our admiration for and the esteem in which we hold the Royal Ulster Constabulary and its Reserves, the Army and the UDR. We really do admire them for all they do throughout the whole year.

I should like to start by welcoming my noble friend Lord Mansfield on his appointment, and to thank him very much for everything he did for us in entertaining us at Stormont House, and in introducing my fellow Members to the heads of his department and also to the elected heads of all the organisations of farming in Northern Ireland.

The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, raised the question of Northern Ireland costing 47.5 per cent. more than the average—and this is the important point—for the rest of the United Kingdom. This is undoubtedly true and even I cannot contradict it—but it should not be thought that Northern Ireland costs 47.5 per cent. more than any part of the rest of the United Kingdom. There are plenty of other parts of the United Kingdom with shipbuilding, steelmaking or coal mines, and with unemployment near the rate of Northern Ireland's, which are costing more than Northern Ireland as a whole.

The figure of 47.5 per cent. for the whole of the United Kingdom is taken as an average and does not—I repeat, does not—include in any way grants to steel, to coal, or to other nationalised industries. While it is quite correct to say that Northern Ireland costs 47.5 per cent. more than the whole of the United Kingdom, it is quite unfair to suggest that Northern Ireland is the most expensive, and an unbelievably expensive, part of the United Kingdom. Such a claim does a great disservice to the unity of the United Kingdom as such, and I believe that the Government should do something separately to cost other parts of the United Kingdom.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, if the noble Viscount will kindly give way, my intention was not to criticise the extra cost but to point out the benefits of public spending, which I should like to see in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Viscount Brookeborough

I am sorry, my Lords, but the noble Lord has taken me wrong. I am grateful to him for raising the subject because it is one I have meant to raise many times. I am also very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for raising the absolute fib and distortion of facts concerning the BBC and television, and should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, in his protest in that respect.

Noble Lords before me, in my sub-committee, have fought the case for Northern Ireland agriculture with tremendous vigour—much more vigour than I myself could tight with, or it might be thought that I was being partial or was an interested party. At this stage, I must say that I am an interested party, because I am both an Ulsterman and have something to do with agriculture. I should like to thank the Government for giving this House an opportunity to debate the problems of Northern Ireland at this time. Above all, I should like to thank the Select Committee for allowing Sub-Committee D to examine the question and problems of Northern Ireland.

The duty of Sub-Committee D of the EC Select Committee is to examine the problems of agriculture over the whole of the EEC. In Northern Ireland, our agricultural problems encapsulate some of the contradictions which exist and have been built up by the operation of the CAP over time. The first concerns our intensive industry of pigs and poultry. Our pig and poultry industry is built up in an area which is in opposition to the general intention of the CAP—which is that agriculture shall be pursued in such a way that the climate best suits a particular crop. As your Lordships have heard, with pigs and poultry the raw material is a very long way from its manufacturing source in Northern Ireland. In spite of very generous aid by the Government, there is still a grave danger to the jobs of the 10,000 people who are still employed in the pig and poultry industry in Northern Ireland.

The issue here is very simple; it is financial and social. Will we pay more to have people on the dole or pay less to have people still in employment? That is what will be the end result. I recognise that the aid has been extremely generous, but I reckon it is still necessary for it to continue in some way on a permanent basis, to give confidence that the Northern Ireland farmer will be put at the same level as somebody in, say, Liverpool or Glasgow.

The next industry which further emphasises the problems or contradictions is the grass-based industry, because, here, we are totally in keeping with the general policy of the CAP. There is no crop that grows better than grass in Northern Ireland; indeed, there is no other crop to grow. We are faced, in the case of milk and beef—with milk, in a massive way—with a colossal surplus. I want to know what we are to do in those areas where there is no alternative to the surplus of milk and beef which is being created at a time when the whole of the future of the common agricultural policy—and indeed of the EEC itself—is being threatened by the cost of massive surpluses and when our sub-committee is trying to deal with the problems of the surpluses in the dairy industry.

Finally, I wish to deal with the question of an extension of the less favoured areas, which other noble friends have mentioned. With increasing unemployment in the EEC, the emphasis of the CAP has changed in favour of attempting to maintain the social structure of the Community. The extension of the LFAs is one of the weapons that can be used to maintain that social structure in these rather remote areas. Despite Northern Ireland's case for the extension of these areas, and despite the fact that it was made more than two years before the United Kingdom's case was presented, we have still not had a resolution. The United Kingdom's case was stated and presented in December1982, but at no time have Her Majesty's Government made the commitment of saying that they will fund the national part of the aid, which is necessary before EEC aid is made available. I would press my noble friend the Minister equally to press his colleagues to get that commitment from the Government. Without it, the EEC itself will not be very quick in making its commitment.

I should like to thank noble Lords who have taken part in this debate of the sub-committee on which I have the honour to serve. They have done us proud in Northern Ireland. I do not believe that any of us—and I listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Mais—have any apology to make for taking quite a long time to deal with the Appropriation Order for Northern Ireland, and I have great pleasure in commending it to your Lordships.

6.29 p.m.

The Earl of Mansfield

My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking noble Lords for their welcome to these Estimates, and also for the very valuable contributions which every one has made to this debate. Speaking personally, perhaps I might also thank those noble Lords who have welcomed me to my new position in the Government. In many ways, it seems a home from home because I am dealing particularly with farmers and their problems in Northern Ireland. Before, part of my remit was to help deal with the problems of farmers in Scotland. The danger, of course, in comparing the apparently similar difficulties is to say that the same geographical isolation, the same comparatively harsh climate, and in many cases the same lack of alternative enterprises for farmers, require similar solutions. That I shall resist.

The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, reminded me, if not the House, that he and I were in the same house at Eton and he said he did not know whether he was my fag. It seems, therefore. that I must have been a benign fagmaster. Well, I cannot remember either, and therefore he at least must have been less repulsive than some small boys. At any rate, through both of our characters, it would seem that Henry Mulholland's school days were rather nicer than Tom Brown's.

Coming to this debate, I am very grateful to the Members of Sub-Committee D who have spoken, and I say that for two reasons. First of all it is very heartening for the officials in my department to have the advantage of the advice and the encouragement of a group of your Lordships who have the expertise and the experience which the Members of Sub-Committee D have. I have no doubt that their visit will stimulate considerable thought and discussion for the future. But I should also like to thank the noble Lords for the kind words they have said about the officials and the way in which they go about their duties. Again speaking personally, it is always to be welcomed if the way in which one carries out one's duties commends itself to people who come completely from the outside and bring to bear a fresh mind.

Noble Lords have raised a formidable number of points, which I will not be able to deal with all that extensively tonight without wearying the House. What I think I had better do is to deal with as many of them as I can, until I become hoarse and perceive that the House is looking bored, and I will then stop and continue by correspondence. I think that is probably the kindest and most effective way of going about my task of summing up the debate.

Matters were started, if that is the word, by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in a good agricultural manner when he asked about expenditure on brucellosis and tuberculosis. He is quite right that expenditure on brucellosis eradication in 1983–84 is expected to be less than in 1982–83 because the incidence of infection has been reduced to a low level. Tuberculosis infection has, unfortunately, not fallen quite so fast, and in an attempt to speed up eradication the frequency of testing has been stepped up. That will result in some initial increase in expenditure with regard to the detection of reactor animals.

The noble Lord went on to ask about storage of fresh food, and he raised the question of assistance for the storage of fresh food destined for processing. The Department of Economic Development's standard capital grants scheme, which is the equivalent of the regional development grant scheme in Great Britain, enables grants to be made towards capital expenditure incurred in carrying out what is called a "qualifying industrial process". The storage or preservation of fresh food would meet the criteria for assistance when it is directly linked to a qualifying process; in other words, storage accommodation used for fresh foods awaiting canning.

The selective grant assistance schemes administered by IDB are in principle more flexible, but grant-aid towards the cost of food storage facilities is likely to be made available only where they enable significant export opportunities to be exploited or where again they form part of an integrated processing and manufacturing operation. Any such assistance would have to he individually negotiated and the level of assistance offered would be determined by the merits of the project, and in particular by the number of jobs it was expected to generate in the Province.

Then the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, went on to Class II and particularly the decrease of £77 million. That, as I tried to explain earlier, is mainly due to Harland and Wolff. Only a token provision has been made pending a decision on the level of funding in 1983–84. Loans to industrial undertakings in 1982–83 included a single large loan to Learfan, and provisions for 1981–83 and 1983–84 are of the same magnitude.

The noble Lord went on to ask about the Kinsale natural gas project. The up-to-date position is that my honourable friend will be meeting Mr. Bruton, who is the Minister for Industry and Energy in the Republic of Ireland, very shortly to conclude one way or the other negotiations for gas at Kinsale. I appreciate that the Northern Ireland gas industry cannot bear further delay and negotiations must be brought to a conclusion in the near future. It has not, up till now at any rate, been possible to secure from the Republic of Ireland a price for gas which would be a basis for development of a viable gas industry in Northern Ireland. Unless—and this is really what it comes to—the Republic can make improvements in the price offered there may he no realistic alternative but to reactivate the plans for the closure of the industry in Northern Ireland.

The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and several other of your Lordships made reference to employment in Ulster Television and, I think, a commercial radio station. I do not have the facts at my disposal. It would be unwise of me to make any comment. What I shall do is to study the remarks that have been made and then cause inquiries to be set in hand.

The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked about lignite. The Government consider that 100 million tons of the Crumlin lignite deposit is proven; anything else involves speculation, and that of course involves any additional deposits which might lie beneath the bed of Lough Neagh. The Government have not yet received applications from the mining company for planning permission and mining licence. I believe that applications will come in the near future. I understand that the applications are likely to be in respect of a pilot pit.

The noble Lord asked about Harland and Wolff and the level of funding so far as 1983–84 is concerned. The noble Lord will appreciate that these are sensitive to the prospects of new orders. The total provision for 1983–84 cannot be finalised until certain of these are clarified. What the Government have agreed to do in the meantime is to provide interim funding to meet the company's requirements. A statement will be made as soon as a decision on the 1983–84 funding is possible The yard is continuing to search for new orders. Market conditions for bulk carriers and tankers are extremely depressed, as your Lordships will realise, and are likely to remain so. There is intense competition from the Far East for any type of ship order. What I am saying underlines the necessity for the yard to make itself more competitive.

The noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Dunleath, referred—and I am flitting like a butterfly from subject to subject as, indeed, did they as they went from Vote to Vote—to agriculture and to silage effluent in particular. I must confess that I was surprised at the apparent amount of silage effluent which pollutes fresh water in Northern Ireland as compared with Scotland. But I must contain my surprise. The policy is to seek to educate farmers on the highly polluting potential of agricultural waste. The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, was absolutely right in describing the highly corrosive and damaging quality of silage effluent. Those farmers who know, or ought to know, and who are persistent offenders, can be prosecuted, particularly if they are clearly negligent in fulfilling their responsibilities. Prevention of pollution is seen as the most appropriate means of meeting what is obviously a most unsatisfactory situation for agriculture. I think it is right to say in defence of the industry that the weather conditions this year, in particular, have been extremely adverse. I see the noble Lord is nodding, and I am comforted by that. I do not think one should altogether blame the farmers this year.

The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked about tourism and what is apparently a large decline in the provision of grants to the catering industry. The reduced provision for accommodation grant in 1983–84 reflects the action taken in January 1981, following a review of policies and priorities in tourism, to suspend consideration of further applications for assistance under this scheme, which at that time operated on a non-selective basis. This has resulted in a progressive rundown in the amount of grant paid out under the scheme over the past 12 to 18 months. The scheme was re-introduced, but on a selective basis, in January of this year, and to date more than 300 proposals have been submitted to the Department of Economic Development, which is now considering them. The impact of these projects which are approved for grant will, in the main, not be felt in the current financial year.

Finally the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked about Shorts and about Learfan. As regards Shorts, the noble Lord will know that the market for civil aircraft of all types remains quiet because of the economic recession. I suppose that any upturn will be dependent on an upturn in the world economy; in particular, the economy of the United States. Nevertheless, the market for commuter aircraft, which is the type produced by Shorts, is predicted to grow for the rest of the decade. The performance of Shorts to date has been encouraging. At the end of May, 11 SD360s had been delivered and the company had won a total of 46 orders and options from 40 operators for this aircraft.

As regards Learfan, development of that project continues satisfactorily despite some minor setbacks and some slippage in the scheduled dates. Type certification by the American Federal Aviation Administration is now expected by early 1984, with full airworthiness certification following within a further few months.

The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, courteously said that he would have to leave towards the end of the debate. Since there are so many members of Sub-Committee D who have taken part in the debate, and in view of their interest, I will endeavour to answer some of the points which the noble Lord raised, particularly as some of them have been touched on by other noble Lords. First, there was the matter of the extension of the less-favoured areas. It is very much to be hoped that the proposals which are presently being considered by the commission will shortly be put to the Council of Ministers. But, obviously, until that happens I cannot give any guarantee on when the Council of Ministers will come to a firm decision.

The next matter concerns additional aid from public funds according to whatever it is that the Council of Ministers agrees. I remind noble Lords that the Government have made no commitment to provide additional aid from public funds for the extended areas. The areas which originally benefited from the United Kingdom schemes for disadvantaged hill areas continue to benefit under the European directive on less favoured areas, and that, of course, goes for the co-responsibility levy for milk producers.

I come now to what I call the intensive industries in agriculture, particularly the pig and poultry industries. Noble Lords will be aware that there was a successful negotiation of the transfer of 50,000 tonnes of wheat from intervention to Northern Ireland. The first tranche (perhaps "cargo" would be a better word) has arrived, I believe on 6th July, and 6,000 tonnes have been sold. Therefore, the Government are helping with the special disadvantages which are relevant particularly to the west of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and which affect feed costs. However, it would be unrealistic if I did not say that it is for the whole of the industry and the United Kingdom to come to terms with marketing problems, and to deal with them, and also to bring the supply and demand into some sort of balance. Unless I said that there would be a danger that this debate would not be balanced, either.

The point was made, I think by the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, that there is bound to be considerable dissatisfaction about the drawing of the boundary line when and (I suppose I must say) if the new less favoured areas are agreed. What in fact he was asking for was some form of independent panel to consider appeals. It would be premature to make any announcement about representations on less favoured areas until the United Kingdom case has been finally decided in Brussels. I am bound to say now, with some experience in two parts of the United Kingdom. that this kind of trouble—and it is very troublesome for the individual farmer—is better dealt with on an ad hocbasis than by means of a highly formalised appeal structure. But I have no doubt that that is something which will be considered and which we shall have to go into in the future.

The noble Lord also asked about marketing. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy, when, in his previous existence, he was Minister of Agriculture, provided the encouragement and the funds for the formulation of the Food from Britain campaign. That organisation has got off to an extremely good start. It is presently determining its strategy for the use of these funds. I know that it is going to pay particular attention to the special problems of Northern Ireland in marketing food and food products, and I look forward to renewing those contacts with the organisation which I had in my own previous existence.

The noble Lord asked about the increase in the proportion of agricultural land when the extension comes about. My information is that 487,000 hectares in Northern Ireland are presently included in the less favoured areas. The extension would add a further 335,000 hectares, so that then approximately 75 per cent: of the agricultural land area would be covered. I resist the tempation to debate with the noble Lord the proportion of Northern Ireland as opposed to Scotland. It is my experience that different parts of the United Kingdom apparently steal a march on each other when it comes to helping their farmers. But it is inadvisable to discuss one particular type of apparent advantage.

The noble Lord asked whether it would be possible to set up a contingency fund for commodities which might run into crisis. There are so many rules which prevent that. To illustrate that, our normal accounting rules would forbid it: the European Community constraints on state aids would also forbid it, as, I think, would public expenditure priorities. Support for potatoes, for instance, is not a matter in which the European Community engages except in the lightest of regimes. It is in any event a matter for the Ministry of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food and is not carried on the Northern Ireland Vote.

The noble Lord also asked about road fund tax and roads. Vehicle excise duty was £42 million in 1982–83 and it is expected that in 1983–84 £47 million will be received. If a comparison were made (and I think it is mildly dangerous to do so) the amount estimated to be spent on road maintenance in 1983–84 is £41 million. But there is no direct relationship between these figures, and nor is there any connection with the cost of building the Foyle Bridge. It is the task of the Secretary of State to draw up spending programmes and their priorities when he knows the total allocation for Northern Ireland. That total allocation is set during, and as part of, the examination of United Kingdom spending programmes as a whole.

The noble Lord also referred to the suggestion that gas from coal would be a cheaper alternative to natural gas from Kinsale. A paper recently circulated by the National Coal Board claimed that a coal gasification plant to provide a supply of gas for Belfast only would be viable. My honourable friend is having that claim urgently assessed by independent experts. Of course until he receives a report from his experts. neither he nor, certainly, I is in a position to comment on whether the National Coal Board's proposals do in fact represent a properly worked out and realistic basis for a viable gas industry for the Belfast area.

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, asked about extradition between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. There is a facility for having arrest warrants backed by courts in the Republic, but a number of suspected offenders wanted by the Royal Ulster Constabulary have not been extradited under this procedure on the grounds that their offences were politically motivated. I think that we must hope that the recent decision by the Irish Supreme Court to extradite Dominic McGlinchy will mean that there will he fewer refusals in future.

The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, asked—

Lord Dunleath

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Earl for his very full reply, but can he just say whether Her Majesty's Government will give an assurance that they will confirm their contribution towards the cost of the less favoured areas so that the European Agricultural Commissioner, as he said, will be able to continue and confirm the extension of the less favoured areas?

The Earl of Mansfield

My Lords, I have already told the House of the attitude of the Government to the extension of the less favoured areas and any possible funding. There is no connection between the two so far as the Commission is concerned. It is the Commission's duty to produce the proposals and it is the duty of the Council of Ministers to pronounce upon those proposals. Further than that I cannot and will not go.

The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, asked about additionality. In the final analysis, Northern Ireland benefits from all receipts. There are two categories of receipt: those which are passed on as cash additions to Northern Ireland recipients and those which are retained by the Government and shown in annual Supply Estimates as appropriations in aid. The former category represents a substantial amount and provides very real and direct benefit to recipients, while receipts in the latter category permit a higher level of public expenditure than would otherwise be feasible. But in general the treatment in Northern Ireland of receipts from the European Community is the same as it is in the rest of the United Kingdom. The anticipated level of receipts is taken into account when decisions on public expenditure allocations have been taken: and therefore those receipts enable the level of public expenditure in Northern Ireland to be higher than would otherwise have been possible.

I was very interested in what my noble friend Lord Mottistone had to say about sea transport. That is a difficulty to anybody in business. It affects those in Northern Ireland and of course in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. I can say to my noble friend at this juncture that the Commission is shortly to review all the measures in the Community which assist or improve agricultural structures. I have no doubt that both at official level and when the matter is being discussed in the Council of Ministers we shall ensure, as has been ensured in the past, that the problems of agriculture in Northern Ireland are fully understood by our Community partners.

The noble Lord, Lord Mais, asked me about the university. I bear in mind that he has an honorary doctorate of science at the New University of Ulster, so it behoves me to be careful in what I say, I fancy. The detailed reasons, as he will know very well, for the merger were spelt out in the Government's document, Higher Education in Northern Ireland: Future Structure.In essence, the Chilver Report, to which the Government's paper was a response, identified major problems of financial and academic inability being faced by the university, and indicated that these problems would become more serious with the advent of the downturn in numbers of 18 year-olds in the late 1980s and early 1990s and the likelihood of a continuation of reduced levels of funding for higher education. The Government's view, which is shared by the University Grants Committee, was that there was no other feasible course of action which would guarantee a future for university level education on the Coleraine campus. The new institution will, by virtue of its size and the detailed planning of its provision, be able to meet any foreseeable downturn in demand or finance and to meet the changing needs of students in the next two decades. I have noted the noble Lord's other comments.

I think that I have dealt with most, if not all, of the points which have been raised. My noble friend Lord Brookeborough asked why special expenditure support cannot be permanent and thereby give more certainty to the industry. The clue lies in the use of the word "special". The needs of the industry change from year to year. One cannot speculate as to the future. Support arrangements provided by the Ministry of Agriculture, and indeed the Community, are subject to change. Each year we have to work within the overall Government expenditure policies and our assessment of the relative priorities within Northern Ireland.

Judging from the various speeches which have been made, I believe that all noble Lords realise the amount of money which, very properly, is being devoted to Northern Ireland and its problems to try to carry out the various priorities which the Government have established and to which I referred at the beginning of my opening remarks. I very much hope that this debate will reassure the House that those priorities continue, and that the Government are determined to carry them out. For myself, I regard the debate as being extremely valuable. I shall look with close attention at the Official Reportand I know that thereafter my education will have been most considerably advanced.

On Question, Motion agreed to.