Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1988

HL Deb 16 March 1988 vol 494 cc1207-45

7.54 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th February be approved.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order is being made under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974. It has two purposes. The first is to authorise the expenditure of some £76 million included in the 1987–88 Spring Supplementary Estimates. If noble Lords care to look at the major booklet they will find the sum of £76 million referred to on page 4. This amount, when added to the £3,447 million previously approved by the House, brings the total estimates provision for Northern Ireland departments to some £3,523 million for this financial year The second purpose of the order is to authorise vote-on-account expenditure of some £1,598 million for 1988–89. This amount is necessary to enable services to continue until the 1988–89 main Estimates are, as we hope, approved later this year. Full details of all the expenditure sought in the order are set out in the Northern Ireland Spring Supplementary Estimates 1987–88, the booklet to which I referred, and in the 1988–89 Statement of Sums Required on Account paper, copies of which have been placed in the Printed Paper Office and are available for your Lordships' scrutiny.

Perhaps I may take this opportunity to draw your Lordships' attention to the recently published Commentary on Northern Ireland Public Expenditure Plans 1988–89 to 1990–91. This publication provides detailed information about the Government's spending plans for the coming three financial years. I trust that noble Lords interested in Northern Ireland affairs will find the commentary a useful additional source of information. Copies are, of course, available from the Printed Paper Office.

The draft order covers the entire range of services provided by Northern Ireland departments. I shall say a few words about certain key features of the Northern Ireland economy which inevitably influence the pattern of public expenditure provision. I am glad to say that unemployment in Northern Ireland continues to show a downward trend. The seasonally adjusted total for February 1988 was the ninth consecutive monthly fall. This is a positive and encouraging sign and reflects the trend at national level.

In the broader context the economy of the United Kingdom is now in its seventh successive year of steady growth and the Northern Ireland economy can be expected to benefit from growth at national level in the years ahead. This expectation is confirmed by recent independent surveys, for example by the CBI, which suggest that the economic outlook for the Province is fairly encouraging, with an increase in investment intentions and business confidence in the manufacturing sector last year. This is despite some instability in the financial markets. Meanwhile the rising incomes of those in employment can be expected to provide a further stimulus to businesses in the service sector in general and to the commercial revival of the Province's urban centres in particular.

In Belfast the second in a series of planned developments, the Victoria Centre, will be completed by September this year and the most ambitious project, Castlecourt, is due for completion in 1990. These developments will provide new retailing, office and car-parking space and will make a major contribution to revitalisation and to the growth of employment and prosperity in the inner city. Outside Belfast, many urban centres are experiencing a similar revival, as exemplified by Marks and Spencer's decision to build a major shopping complex at Sprucefield near Lisburn.

I should draw your Lordships' attention to a general point affecting three Votes of these supplementaries. This relates to the funds being provided by the International Fund for Ireland to finance programmes which are being administered on behalf of the fund by the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Economic Development and the Department of the Environment. I shall take one example. The international fund is providing £225,000 to the Department of Economic Development for the provision of tourist amenities in the Province. Reference to that item can be found on page 17 of the booklet under subhead A8.

In order to allow for the transmission of cash for the three programmes, what we call "net subheads" have been introduced into the appropriate three Votes. The treatment of Estimates in this particular form is appropriate because the expenditure on these programmes by the respective departments is being fully funded by receipts from the International Fund for Ireland.

I turn to the Estimates before us. I shall take your Lordships through one or two points on each particular Vote which I think merit the attention of the House. Page 6 of the Estimates volume concerns my own department, the Department of Agriculture's Vote 1. It provides for Northern Ireland expenditure on United Kingdom-wide support schemes. We find here that an additional net provision of £4.5 million is required. This is mainly to meet outstanding commitments on two capital grant schemes; namely, the Agricultural and Horticultural Development and the Agricultural and Horticultural Grants Schemes, both of which have now been discontinued.

The Vote also provides for an expenditure of up to £7.7 million under the national element of the Agricultural Improvement Scheme. Reference to that is to be found under subhead B6 on page 6. The scheme is primarily for the provision of effluent storage and disposal facilities, which is not a particularly pleasant thought for this time of night. However, as noble Lords will know, because of the climate and layout in the Province, as regards agriculture, this is an especially necessary item.

I move further on to the Department of Agriculture's Vote 2 at page 9. That requires an additional £4.7 million, the major components of which are expenditure on the Grassland Scheme and residual commitments under the original Northern Ireland agricultural development programme, which ceased taking new investment in 1986.

General support to industry is covered by the Department of Economic Development's Vote 2 on page 12. An extra £7 million under subhead A3 is required to meet the current level of expenditure on industrial development grants under selective financial assistance agreements. This reflects continuing success by the Industrial Development Board in its main task of promoting and safeguarding employment. When the pluses and minuses are taken into account, the net additional provision for this Vote is some £4.8 million. Votes 3 and 5 are what we call "token" supplementary estimates, each for £1,000. Their purpose is to draw attention to various increases in expenditure which are being offset by savings elsewhere.

The final economic development Vote requiring an increase is Vote 6 relating to administration and miscellaneous services on page 23. The additional £1.5 million sought is required for increased staff costs arising from the implementation of further employment measures, including the expansion of the Restart programme. In addition, the department's computer facilities will be upgraded to cope with increased workload. This, together with other efficiency measures, will improve management information and consequently the service provided to the public.

Next we come to the Department of the Environment Vote 1, which covers roads, transport and ports. Some £3 million, in subhead A4 on page 27, has been channelled into an extended programme of structural maintenance works on roads. This includes the repair works made necessary by the severe flooding of last October, for which additional resources were made available to Northern Ireland from the contingency reserve. Much of this has been financed by additional receipts and savings, leaving a net supplementary estimate of £580,000. That is to be found at the top of page 26.

Moving to the Department of Environment's Vote 4, additional provision is being sought to meet increased expenditure on environmental and miscellaneous services detailed on pages 42 to 47. This includes £4 million for the Belfast programme, £1.5 million for land acquired for the Ballymacoss development scheme and some £600,000 for the general grant to district councils. However the additional expenditure has been partly offset by savings and additional receipts within the Vote, leaving a net requirement of a little over £4 million.

Moving on to the Department of Education, Vote 2 is classified as higher and further education on page 56, for which an extra £3.2 million is sought. This is largely required to cover grants to the two Northern Ireland universities, reflecting mainly the recommendations of the University Grants Committee and to cover the additional costs of the pay award for further education lectures agreed earlier this year.

An additional £476,000, detailed on pages 59 and 60 of the Estimates volume, is sought under Vote 3 for Department of Education miscellaneous services and administration. I would particularly draw your Lordships' attention to the £200,000, at the foot of page 59, under subhead El. This is required for our new community relations initiative to promote cross-community contact between schools as well as among the young people of Northern Ireland. Also to be noted is the £85,000 in subhead F12 on page 60, required to fund the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools whose main objective will be to promote high standards of education in these schools. Other additions include extra resources for the Belfast urban programme, provision for the Northern Ireland contribution to the National Council for Vocational Qualifications, payments to the Northern Ireland Training Authority in respect of the Open Learning Centre, and increased expenditure on departmental administration, mainly on consultants' fees and equipment.

In Vote 4, on page 62, which covers grants to education and library boards, an additional £11.4 million is sought. Some £8.4 million is for recurrent grants to boards including increased expenditure of £3.5 million on rates, £2.2 million on salary costs and £2.1 million for mandatory awards and special schools. The increases sought will also enable education and library boards to carry out certain essential maintenance work on school buildings. In particular there will be extra money to cover the costs of repairs to schools in the Western board area following the storms last autumn. The additional provision in capital grants to education and library boards is £4.5 million. This is partly offset by increased receipts from the sale of land and buildings of some £1.5 million.

Turning to the Department of Health and Social Services, which is an important department, gross spending on health and personal social services this year will increase by some £28.6 million. Details of those increases can be found on pages 69 to 72 of the Estimates. Some £2.1 million of this provision is the Northern Ireland share of the £100 million additional resources made available from the reserve in 1987–88 for the health services throughout the United Kingdom, as announced by the Government on 16th December 1987. Of the total increase, some £16.7 million (subhead A 1) will go to health and social services boards. This will help them meet the cost of higher than anticipated pay settlements in 1987.

The £28.6 million increase in spending will therefore contribute towards maintaining the high standard of health and personal social services which we have in Northern Ireland, and also assist in the process of transition from institutional to community care for those in long stay accommodation. This reflects one of the main themes of the regional strategy for health and personal social services—the development of community care as a real alternative to care in institutions The increase in the capital programme of just over £1 million will be applied principally to minor works and the essential replacement of medical equipment. Section D on page 71 shows that £9 million is required for family practitioner services to meet increased demand and higher costs, particularly in the pharmaceutical services.

In the social security programme, which is covered by DHSS Votes 3 and 4—that is moving from page 77 to page 80—an additional provision of £15.4 million is sought. Of this £6.34 million is for DHSS Vote 3. We call that administration and miscellaneous services, of which £3.4 million is needed to ensure the successful completion of the reforms in the administration of social security benefits and to maintain momentum in the computerisation programme. A balance of £2.9 million is required to meet a shortfall of receipts from the National Insurance Fund.

Finally, in Vote 4 (social security) an additional £9.1 million is required to meet an increase in supplement to the National Insurance Fund, increased expenditure on supplementary pensions, attendance allowance, payments into the social fund, maternity grants, and the special payments to beneficiaries resulting from the error in the retail prices index. That concludes my opening remarks. I have taken your Lordships on a brief tour of the main expenditure provisions of the draft order. I shall listen with great interest to the points that your Lordships make. I undertake to answer them all. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th February be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)

8.10 p.m.

Lord Prys-Davies

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his tour through the main expenditure adjustments covered by the order and for underlining its salient features, which we support. I welcome his reference to the contribution from the International Fund of Ireland and for the additional support to meet the costs of repairing the flood damage caused last October.

I am also glad that the Minister has drawn attention to the helpful commentary on government expenditure in Northern Ireland which has recently been published. That is the first time such a commentary in respect of government expenditure in Northern Ireland has been published. Nevertheless, it is still difficult for a layman, or at least this layman, to form a coherent view of the totality of expenditure in Northern Ireland and the extent to which it achieves the Government's main policy objectives. I shall give an example of what I have in mind. The Department of Economic Development attaches great importance to its pathfinder initiative. The people of Northern Ireland were bidden by that initiative to tackle the six roots of their economic problems which it had identified.

Your Lordships will know that one of those problems was said to be the high dependency of its industry on public funds. We are told that the scale of government subsidy to the manufacturing section in 1986–87 was equivalent to £39 per week per manufacturing employee. It would therefore appear that one aim of the policy is to reduce the scale of that dependency. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell the House to what extent that aim has been achieved in the year 1987–88 and what is forecast for that dependency in the year 1988–89. From studying the appropriation order I have been unable to form a view of whether that dependency has been lessened.

When he replies the Minister will perhaps tell us whether the policy of reduced dependency is linked to a broader, and possibly more sinister, policy of reduction on planned spending on investment on economic affairs in Northern Ireland.

I wish to deal at some length with the health Vote and the important Health Department because the state of the NHS in Northern Ireland is the subject of serious concern, as it is on the mainland. It is a major worry. Growth revenue spending by the health boards will increase by 5.2 per cent. during 1988–89, which is below the yearly increase of 6.3 per cent. that has been agreed for the rest of the United Kingdom. If one deducts, as one must, 4.5 per cent. for inflation, the yearly increase is a meagre 0.7 per cent. That is way below the 2 per cent. a year increase which is required to meet the pressures on the NHS, according to Ministers' evidence to the Social Services Committee of the other place.

The capital programme has been reduced, and the department has acknowledged that the number of capital schemes due to start in 1988–89 will have to be deferred because of that reduced capital allocation. I should be grateful if the Minister would give particulars of the capital schemes which will be deferred during 1988–89. I anticipate that he may remind the House that the percentage of GDP spent on the NHS in Northern Ireland is double that spent in the UK. That is correct, but Northern Ireland Ministers do not claim that NHS spending in Northern Ireland is extravagant; the public do not claim that it is extragavant. On the contrary, the Health Minister for Northern Ireland, Mr. Richard Needham, has rightly acknowledged that the present level of spending in Northern Ireland on health services is "necessary and important".

That is consistent with the requirement of the pressures to be found in the poorest regions in the United Kingdom. High unemployment levels of 21 per cent. or 22 per cent.—I gladly acknowledge that they have been coming down over the past nine months—the high dependency on social security, poor housing, let alone the tensions consequent upon terrorism for the past 20 years, together generate greater demands on the health service. They also make the discharge from hospital and the provision of care in the community that much less acceptable.

The concern which we on these Benches express will come as no surprise to the Health Ministers for Northern Ireland. Indeed, the chairmen of the four health boards made their concerns clear to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he met them a week ago today. Mr. Needham, the Minister, knows that he has a problem. To his credit, in his press statement of 22nd January he said: obviously we would like more money. I am fully aware that next year will be difficult for the Board. For my part I will do what I can to help Boards meet the pressures which inevitably arise in-year". As a matter of interest, in that connection it has not escaped our notice that the Health Department has made an additional £150,000 available to the well-known charity, the Northern Ireland Voluntary Trust. Significantly that has been earmarked to meet the cost of setting up a number of projects to help local communities support vulnerable people at home. One does not require a great deal of foresight to anticipate that the demands of the vulnerable people in the communities in Northern Ireland will grow. In a small way, the department is anticipating that demand by the additional allocation of £150,000 to the Northern Ireland Voluntary Trust. But that is a trifling sum compared with the £7 million which the NHS in Northern Ireland has lost because the yearly percentage increase has been held at 5.5 per cent. instead of 6.3 per cent.

The Minister mentioned the themes which the department is encouraging the boards to adopt. Can he tell the House whether the department proposes to give some guidance to the boards as to whether they should be affording protection to some of the services on the department's long list of priorities and targets, or are they to be left to get on with it as best they may?

I think we have to ask why the health service in Northern Ireland is being denied the full 6.3 per cent. yearly increase. This is a reasonable question which we from these Benches must ask. Again, Mr. Richard Needham has given us the Government's explanation. It is this: The health service in Northern Ireland has been denied the additional 1.1 per cent., because more money has to be spent on law and order in Northern Ireland and everybody in Northern Ireland has to accept some responsibility for that". Those were the Minister's words and this is the explanation which is on offer. It is in my submission a most peculiar justification and one which is simply not convincing.

To keep the yearly percentage increase on health expenditure at the lower level of 5.2 per cent. in order to spend millions more on law and order is not a convincing argument for adding to the disadvantage of the sick, or adding to the totality of the disadvantage, which is precisely what this does. Moreover, I think it questionable whether everybody is being asked to accept the same responsibility for the increased law and order bill. It seems to me that it is a burden which the sick in particular are being asked to shoulder, if there be anything to the Government's explanation. As I understand the appropriations order, the increase in all the other 21 Votes has not been held back 1.1 per cent. right across the board. I suggest that the people of Northern Ireland should not be fobbed off with a law and order explanation.

So what is the explanation? I have an uneasey feeling that the important health Vote—and the Minister acknowledged that it was an important Vote and an important department—has suffered this penalty because it is felt by the powers that be in the Treasury that the Province could do much more to help itself, as the Government are already spending 23 per cent. more per person on the health service in Northern Ireland than in England and Wales. I have a feeling that that is what the department has been told by the Treasury. Therefore, if that is right, the fault would appear to be that of the Treasury. If the fault be that of the Treasury, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether the Department of Health for Northern Ireland has commissioned a detailed study of morbidity in Northern Ireland and its relationship to resource allocation. If that has not been done, it ought to be done.

The NHS in Northern Ireland employs 63,000 staff. Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether it is being suggested that some of the staff are surplus to the real requirements of an efficient health service in the Province. I ask this question because it would appear to some people in high places that Northern Ireland should now be exporting abroad some of its skilled staff in the NHS. This is another remarkable development. The Department of Health, jointly with the Industrial Development Board, commissioned a company called United Medical Enterprises to consider whether areas of expertise within the health care sector could be marketed profitably outside Northern Ireland. The company confirmed that this was an area which could be developed or exploited. These glad tidings were brought to the people of Northern Ireland just before Christmas.

Moreover it was thought, and it was said in the press handout, that this opportunity of serving in foreign lands would provide the staff with the opportunity to broaden their horizons. It might be so interpreted by some people but it can also be seen as a piece of effrontery to the staff. Perhaps the Minister can tell the House when the Secretary of State hopes to come to a decision on the remarkable recommendations contained in this document. Can he also tell the House on whose initiative this remarkable study was commissioned?

We on these Benches do not want to see highly trained, highly skilled medical and nursing staff being encouraged to sell their services in the foreign market unless the department is fully satisfied that the standards of health in Northern Ireland are such that they will not suffer if it exports its skilled personnel. Otherwise, the decision would be foolish in the extreme and would add to the already wide range of deprivation and disadvantage which has been a burden of the Province for generations and continues to be a burden.

Before moving on to my next subject, and I shall be brief, I would add that I warmly welcome the publication last week of the long overdue proposal for a draft housing order to introduce homeless legislation into Northern Ireland. Before I sit down I want to ask a few questions about the University Education Board. I trust that there will be no point of great difference between us and the Government on this topic. I think it is opportune that I should be asking this question, because last week the main committee of the University Grants Committee was visiting Northern Ireland for the first time in 15 years.

Vote 2 of the Education Estimates provides an extra £3.2 million which will be used in part to support the two Northern Ireland universities in accordance with the recommendations of the UGC. It is this reference to the recommendations of the UGC which caught my eye. We are interested to learn more about the role of the UGC in Northern Ireland. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister when he comes to speak could explain to the House the relationship both in theory and in practice between the department and the UGC. Are the powers of the DES in relation to the UGC exercised in Northern Ireland by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on his own or jointly by the two Secretaries of State?

Is the level of Treasury funding for the Northern Ireland univeristies determined by the UGC? What role does the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland play in the allocation of Treasury funds to the Northern Ireland universities? I understand that a Northern Ireland sub-committee of the UGC has recently been established. Am I right that its members will be appointed by the UGC, and is the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland involved in making these appointments?

These questions are important. The role of the UGC is important because the universities in Northern Ireland, as indeed throughout the United Kingdom, are facing a crisis as a result of the Government's determination that they produce value for money. Therefore we want to know who at the end of the day is responsible for the allocations to universities in Northern Ireland. Is it the UGC or is it the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland?

I have taken far too much of your Lordships' time. I have concentrated on the one main Vote and by doing so I am sure that I have overlooked significant adjustments which are contained in the draft order. As only very few Members in another place who have the honour of representing Northern Ireland constituencies took part in the debate in another place on this important order—and whose contribution based on their detailed knowledge of constituency conditions and pressures would have been so valuable in illustrating the nature of the problems in Northern Ireland—there is a risk that one may have failed to spot a hidden problem. But fortunately I am to be followed by at least five other speakers who I am sure will do justice to the order.

8.31 p.m.

Lord Hylton

My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend and I are both grateful to the Minister for his care in explaining tonight's order. I shall start by glancing briefly backwards to the appropriation order debate which took place in your Lordships' House on 16th July 1987.

I have to thank the Secretary of State for so promptly organising a new community relations unit reporting directly to him. I also underline and repeat what I said at cols. 1223 to 1225 of the Official Report in July concerning the ACE scheme and the most effective and appropriate methods of funding voluntary bodies and community effort.

This is a matter which affects community relations and there is scope for improvement, among other reasons because many people suspect that the ACE scheme and some other forms of government aid are used as a means of social control. I hope that those suspicions are unfounded, but Her Majesty's Government could do more to show that this is the case.

British-Irish relations have been, I regret, in sad disarray since the New Year. In Northern Ireland, from where I returned last week, there was more than usual tension in the air. Dramatic political progress may therefore not be possible but I ask the Government please to keep on thinking about returning greater political responsibility to the people. Would they, for instance, work out the implications of having a proportion of elected members on the statutory boards—for example, the Housing Executive board, the education and library boards or the health and social service boards? Would not a mix of perhaps one third appointed, one third nominated by district councils and one third directly elected be an improvement on the present position? If these new elections coincided with European elections, general elections or local government elections this would avoid unnecessary proliferation of voting.

My next question concerns the Payments for Debt (Emergency Provisions) Act 1971. This is an old Stormont Act designed for the emergency situation arising from the rent and rates strike of 1971. The Minister will, I am sure, confirm that it was intended to be a temporary measure. The evidence for this is in the Title and also in Section 18, which enables the emergency period to be ended by Order in Council. There is no need therefore for legislation. I have to ask the Minister why, if the Act was intended to be temporary, it is still in force. Also why are the procedures for recovering debts due to statutory bodies totally different in Northern Ireland from those which apply in the rest of Great Britain?

I come now to housing. I should perhaps tell your Lordships that it was questions of housing aid and housing associations that took me to Northern Ireland as long ago as 1968 during the civil rights era. Since then survey after survey has shown that Northern Ireland has housing problems and arrears of work as bad and probably worse than those in the worst affected parts of Britain.

Visiting elected members and officials from the European Community agreed that Belfast and Naples should have equal priority for the regional and social funds. Much progress has been made since then. The Housing Executive and housing associations have done a very good job and no one would deny that. It is really encouraging to see rebuilt areas as diverse as the Markets or Sandy Row or to drive up the Crumlin, Antrim or Old Park Roads. Much however remains to be done. The doing of it is essential to public health, to employment and the local economy, to community relations and above all to public morale, especially in the most deprived urban and rural areas. Those are the hardline areas where traditional sectarian passions are strongest and where the fewest leading politicians, civil servants and professional people actually live. Housing has a contribution to make to peace.

It was therefore with the deepest disappointment that I learnt of a cut of £19 million in this year's capital provision for housing. This was followed by a further cut of £5 million only last week, apparently to bolster up the beleaguered health service.

I beseech the Minister to realise that these are false economies particularly in view of yesterday's Budget Statement about which I say no more. Will the Minister urge his right honourable and honourable friends to make compensating increases in the provisions for 1988 to 1989?

Belfast has earned some entries in the Guinness Book of Records. It has, for example, the largest girls' comprehensive school in Western Europe and perhaps anywhere. It also has one of the largest system-built groups of dwellings in the Divis flats. This can only be called a housing and health disaster area. Whatever could go wrong has gone wrong. The roofs, the walls, the windows, the ventilation, the lifts, the rubbish chutes, the access decks and the sewers have all gone wrong. There is penetrating damp, condensation and periodic flooding. The stairways remind me of a cross between the Middle East and Dante's Inferno. I have not so far risked the lifts.

In 1987 the University of Ulster studied Divis and Twinbrook, which are two areas of Belfast comparable for poverty and unemployment. The study however showed adult mental health to be four times worse in Divis, while long-term child illness was 10 times worse.

I visited the blocks that still stand both by day and by night. I hope that the Minister who is responsible for housing will do the same and take the chairman of the Housing Executive with him. They have only to ring the chairman of the residents' association and I am sure they will be most hospitably welcomed.

They will find that the inhabitants of Divis are normal human beings who endure bad conditions with cheerfulness, patience and resourcefulness. Their pre-school play project won a recent Ewart-Biggs award. They put on nativity and Easter plays. Their drop-in teenage centre fields football sides in local youth leagues. The residents' ACE scheme employs 70 people in a situation of about 85 per cent. unemployment.

In efforts to cope with such problems as a probable 50 per cent. glue-sniffing rate among some young people there is a welfare advice centre, country outings and a variety of training workshops. Young residents have graduated in word processing, hairdressing, driving and other marketable skills. Adult education takes place on site and some people cross the road to the Conway Mill education centre, which was highly commended by inspectors of the Department of Education in Northern Ireland.

These are all signs of a local community wanting to give hope, purpose and meaning to peoples' lives and seeking to prevent despair, alienation and vandalism in near impossible circumstances. Experience shows that vandalism almost disappears when people move into new houses with their own private space; for example, in the area immediately adjoining Divis in and around Albert Street.

After long campaigns and with the help of the Town and Country Planning Association in London, and since the demolition of five blocks in the original complex, the decision has been taken to demolish all the flats and maisonettes. That is an excellent decision. However, the Housing Executive believes that rehousing and demolition will take seven to 10 years. That is too long. I ask the Government whether they will provide the resources for a more rapid programme. A shorter programme would save significant health and welfare costs and avoid additional expensive repairs. I do not expect a full answer tonight. The question is far too big for an off-the-cuff response.

Finally, I ask the Government to discuss with the Housing Executive the use of every available and potential housing site in the Lower Falls area. I have noted vacant areas both withnn the Divis complex and in Grosvenor Road. I shall write to the chairman of the Housing Executive about them. I repeat that humane housing has a big contribution to make to that peace which we all so much desire.

8.40 p.m.

Lord Moyola

My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for his introductory remarks and his explanation of the appropriation order. I hope that it will not be taken as slightly frivolous, against the events in Northern Ireland, if I address my remarks this evening to the subject of salmon and salmon fishing. It is an important subject because it is an important element of the tourist trade and it has a spin-off importance in many other fields.

Before going further, I declare an interest, in that I own a small amount of fishing on what could be described as a modest fishing river. My noble friend will remember that in December he kindly came to my home, where we had a meeting with various fishery authorities to discuss the reasons for the acute shortage of salmon in Northern Ireland rivers throughout the 1987 season. The main subject of discussion at that meeting was offshore netting, which was held to be to blame for the bad season and was thought to be done on a massive scale mostly outside the 12-mile fishery limit. That limit is the area within which the United Kingdom, Ireland and other countries operate fishery protection.

As I understand it, based on the information given by experts, the problem is that fish coming from the north of Ireland approach down the west coast of Scotland. Because of the bulge created by the island of Islay, they are pushed far to the west and to the north-west coast of the Republic of Ireland and County Donegal, where they do an "S" bend, come east again and then enter the rivers of Northern Ireland. They are thus fair game for any form of legal or illegal fishing which may take place off the coast of the Republic of Ireland.

A bigger problem is that, while no one knows exactly what the fish do, they are thought to go into the area running roughly in a line between the southern tip of the Hebrides and Malin Head in the Republic of Ireland. That is a large sea area, all of it well outside the 12-mile limit and well out of sight of land. One hears terrible rumours—they may be nothing more than that—that last year there was 55 miles of continuous monofilament net stretching from the Bloody Foreland in County Donegal down to the north-west coast of the Isle of Man. I do not know whether that is true. However, there is usually some element of truth in such stories. If that is so, it is obviously a serious matter.

Added to such stories is the fact that such fish as we are catching are netmarked and that they are very small and would therefore have been the only fish able to get through the nets. Many of the fish which are caught offshore are never landed in Ireland at all. It is thought that they are sold to the trawlers of foreign powers outside the 12-mile limit. They are never landed in Ireland, the United Kingdom or the EC.

At our meeting my noble friend agreed that he would endeavour to set up a meeting of the Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in Edinburgh to see whether some plan of campaign could not be worked out. We are now into another fishing season and so far nothing has happened. I therefore ask whether he has been able to make any progress in that field and whether there is any prospect of co-operation between the services and the various fishing industries. I should also like to ask, if that is not the case, whether there is any hope that the EC will take a hand in the matter. As I understand it, jurisdiction is claimed within 200 miles of the coasts of EC countries.

I also ask my noble friend to take the matter up with the Government of the Republic of Ireland. That would seem to be an appropriate subject for discussion within the context of the Anglo-Irish Conference. I also ask whether he has read a publication from the Government of the Republic of Ireland entitled Framework for the Development of Ireland's Salmon. It is a document which makes very interesting reading. It indicates that the Republic of Ireland is keen to provide greater protection, to put quotas on the numbers of fish landed and to introduce tagging, among many other things. For the Republic, that would be enormously expensive and a mammoth task. I suspect that it would also not be very politically rewarding, because fishing is probably the main industry in many communities in the West of Ireland. I hope that my noble friend will encourage the Republic in every way possible to do something about the offshore netting problem.

The other major subject at our meeting was the question of farm slurry which is being let into the rivers and which damages fish. At various times there have been grants to farmers to build slurry tanks. I think that at the moment those are withdrawn. They have been on and off on at least two occasions in the last year. As I understand it, something on the order of £1 million was set aside for that particular grant and it was oversubscribed about 10 times. I ask my noble friend: will those grants be renewed and, if not, is there any chance that help could be obtained from the EC? The matter is worth pressing, since the fact that so many farmers applied for those grants means that they are now taking an interest and are willing to play a part. That should be encouraged in every way possible.

Poaching is a serious matter in Ireland. I shall not go into a lot of poaching stories. I have been making inquiries about the penalties, and I am told that by and large they are satisfactory. The problem is that they are not always enforced. While I do not wish to be rude in any way about the judiciary or to criticise it, perhaps it could be conveyed to its members that, when dealing with poaching offences, they are dealing with what is in fact a national asset. I hope that that will be in the forefront of their minds.

Could there not be a tagging system? This is no more than a system whereby a bona fide fisherman or anybody obtaining a fishing licence acquires with it a number of tags. The tags have to be put immediately into any fish caught. The system contributes to establishing the history of where fish came from. Any fish that is untagged may be assumed to be an illegally taken fish. Could there not also be a register in which fish merchants, hotels, restaurants—indeed, anybody who sells salmon in any form—must record where the fish came from? In this way they too could help to reduce the poaching incentives. Incidentally, both those measures are recommended in the Republic of Ireland document to which I have referred.

I turn now to the Fishery Conservation Board, which looks after a large part of the Northern Ireland fisheries and does a very good job. I hope that it will be reasonably well funded. It has only one fishery protection boat, and there is a rumour that this is about to be withdrawn because of shortage of funds. The board has been told that it must protect the offshore fishing by means of someone sitting on a sandhill with a pair of binoculars. However, that may be an exaggeration. I hope that the Minister can confirm that the boat will not be withdrawn.

Another point arises in regard to the Fishery Conservation Board. Unlike most fishing authorities, it does not have in its whole system—and it is the largest system in Northern Ireland—a single fish counter. If it is to monitor the progess of fish, whether in an upward direction or in decline, it is vital that it should have the means to monitor properly and so take the necessary action in time.

I have one final point on fishing. Can the Minister say what is being done about restocking the rivers? I know that an experimental programme is taking place. I know too that efforts are being made to identify the eggs in various rivers with a view of transferring for fertilisation the female eggs of fish that have been taken from other rivers. Can the Minister say how this is progressing? Is there any guarantee, bearing in mind that salmon are supposed always to return of the river of their birth, that fish produced in this way will return to the river of their birth?

I deal finally with the drainage of rivers. I have always been an advocate of this, particularly in regard to many of the small rivers—what in Northern Ireland are called minor watercourses. A great deal of very good work has been done and much farmland has been improved by this means. Many farmers, I am sure, would say that they are enormously grateful. However, the wheel seems to have turned almost full circle and a new problem has arisen. The rivers that have been drained now rise so rapidly and come down so fast that not only are they tearing away banks and trees and bringing down masses of silt and gravel, thus creating other obstructions, but in several cases they are flooding the lower waters. In some rivers the upper waters have been beautifully drained and the farmers are very happy, but the flood waters have been transferred to the lower waters. From my own experience, I can name the river from which I take my name, the Moyola, as one of them. I know that the same thing is happening in the Blackwater, and I hear quite a lot of grousing about some other rivers. I do not know whether there is an answer—I doubt it—but some consideration should be given to this in planning future drainage.

Years ago when drainage schemes were first started, and certainly throughout all my political life, when a waterway or minor watercourse was going to be drained the farmers who owned the banks and the land beside them were asked to sign a consent to allow the Ministry to take its machinery on to the land and to do whatever was necessary. In return for their signing the consent, it was agreed that henceforth, after the completion of the drainage, the Ministry would accept responsibility for the maintenance of the banks and for keeping the river clean. As I understand it, this undertaking has been withdrawn. Has this been done with the consent of the Minster or of the department? If so, I think that it is a reprehensible step; in effect, the department is breaking its undertaking.

That is probably enough on fish and drainage. These things all cost money, and I shall certainly support the order.

8.58 p.m.

Lord Blease

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in welcoming the order and in thanking the Minister for his explanatory statement.

I am acutely aware of the huge sums of financial expenditure to which the appropriation order directs attention. Indeed, I was quite bemused for a while as the Minister metaphorically tossed across the Floor of the House millions of pounds in expenditure terms. At the same time, one is compelled to acknowledge that the amount the Minister quoted—£1,674 million—is only part of the total amount required by Northern Ireland public expenditure plans for 1988–89, which is in the region of £4,910 million. The Government's public expenditure plans account for some 70 per cent. of the gross domestic product of Northern Ireland. That means that in relation to the public expenditure per head of population in the United Kingdom the Northern Ireland figure is some 40 per cent. Higher.

I am not nor have I ever been an apologist for the Conservative Government's economic policies. Indeed, as my noble friend on the Front Bench, Lord Prys-Davies, has to some degree claimed when dealing with the National Health Service, I would say that there are some reasons for that relatively high percentage of public expenditure which are to be explained as a direct result of the Government's economic policies that have compounded chronic unemployment and deprivation in the Province.

However, in making any critical analysis of the situation in Northern Ireland, to be honest with myself I am concerned at least in facing up to the practical realities of the position in the Province as it comes within the context of the United Kingdom. I realise that in Northern Ireland there are distinctive historical, social, political and economic problems. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, has already referred to the fact that explanations are being offered for the public expenditure particularly in connection with the health services, which has been explained away as reductions because of the larger amount of money being spent on efforts to maintain law and order in the Province.

For those who are involved, however marginally, in public life and the parliamentary processes, there is nothing to be gained by ignoring economic facts. A more positive approach than the sulky walk-out attitude adopted when these crucial financial programmes were being debated in another place is expected from representatives and those in positions of public responsibility. In these matters the Northern Ireland people are in need of and indeed deserve a better form of representation than mere negative protest. That does not mean that I approve of the present parliamentary processes for the consideration of such appropriation orders, which have vital financial implications and policies for the Northern Ireland people.

I repeat what I have said on previous occasions in debates in this House. Surely there must be more effective and better ways of embracing and encouraging general public interest and corporate accountability in Northern Ireland as regards the need for efficient and socially relevant policy decisions about public expenditure of this kind. The Northern Ireland people must have the opportunity for a direct and representative involvement and influence at all stages of these appropriation orders, which should not merely be rubber stamped.

Along with other noble Lords, I wish to compliment the Northern Ireland Department of Finance and Personnel on the publication of the first commentary on public expenditure plans for 1988–91. The publication has been well presented and is worthy of Province-wide study and debate, which I think could achieve the active and informed public association with and accountability for financial policy matters which I have already mentioned.

In that connection, I ask the Minister whether he will request the Secretary of State to consider suitable ways in which this publication could be discussed at various departmental levels and also by statutory bodies, local district councils and other industrial and community organisations within the Province. I believe that it would serve a very good purpose in conditioning the minds and attitudes of the citizens of Northern Ireland.

I should also like to ask the Minister to use his good offices to urge the Northern Ireland Economic Council to undertake an updating of its report on the financial system in Northern Ireland published in April 1982. I understand that that report was a most useful publication. It is now somewhat out of date and it is suggested that a new issue should be undertaken by professionally competent people who are directly acquainted with business and financial matters in Northern Ireland, rather than for a report to be commissioned that will be compiled by outside consultants.

I turn to matters in the order under a few headings. Because of the time factor I shall not argue the points at issue. I hope that the Minister will accept the questions raised as reasonable, and feel that they merit consideration and a reply. Under the heading of agriculture I should like him to consider the subject of research and development and the encouragement given by DANI to agricultural producers to undertake new viable enterprises. When is DANI likely to respond to the recent report of the Northern Ireland Economic Council on Horticulture in Northern Ireland, in which there are a number of excellent recommendations about the need for cooperation and development?

Secondly, will the Minister indicate the number of applications from Northern Ireland that have been submitted to the farm diversification scheme that is being instituted by the International Fund for Ireland, which the Minister himself has already mentioned? I understand that submissions and requests for financial aid for some help with farm diversification approaches were to be in by the end of February.

How best can DANI assist in the marketing and promotion of the slurry digester project for fertiliser and methane gas production? The project has been pioneered jointly by the University of Ulster and the Bethlehem Abbey in County Antrim. I understand that the project has excellent financial export prospects as well as tremendous benefits for pollution control.

As regards the Department of Economic Development, I know that a few days ago the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland announced the sale of the 200th factory by the Northern Ireland Industrial Development Board. This is indeed a welcome sign of confidence in industrial investment in Northern Ireland and an encouraging commitment to the economic growth of the Province.

While management and workers in Northern Ireland are confronted with similar technological changes and world-wide competition as in England, Scotland and Wales, they sadly have the additional burdens of coping with various forms of terrorism and the untoward problems it creates at home and overseas.

We have only to reflect on the sad and serious events reported today in Belfast to realise the immediacy of the critical situation that exists there. I pass over that because I do not believe that there should be instant comment in this House on such events as occurred today. I hope that the Minister can inform us whether an early Statement on the events will be made by the Government, because the longer these events exist in limbo the more they gather rumour and momentum beyond the bounds of reality.

I should also like to mention the acute political schisms that tend to divert corporate community efforts in support of the common objectives required for prosperity and economic wellbeing. However, I am glad to say that management and trade union relationships in Northern Ireland have largely succeeded in gallant and practical measures to rise above the intercommunal strife and to keep the wheels of industry turning in productive employment. Both sides of industry are an anchor of safe sanity in a troubled sea. At the same time it must be openly admitted that the future for industry and commerce, for earnings and for jobs, and for human happiness in the Province, largely depends on steady improvement and stability and on the upholding of the rules of law and order in the sadly divided society in Northern Ireland.

The Minister will be aware of the widespread public expressions of concern about the plight of the health and social services in Northern Ireland. My noble friend Lord Prys-Davies has dealt with this matter in much detail and has very forthrightly put forward points to the Minister. I do not intend to speak about the general position. I believe that this subject will be debated in this House soon.

I wish to ask the Minister to deal appropriately with two urgent issues about which I have received considerable representations from individuals and from organisations. The first issue concerns the Joss Cardwell Rehabilitation Unit in East Belfast. This is a purpose built and equipped centre which is unique in that it is the only regional community based rehabilitation centre in Northern Ireland. The Eastern Health and Social Services Board proposes to dispose of this centre and to transfer only part of the services provided to two nissen huts at Musgrave Park Hospital. The alleged cash saving is stated to be about £50,000 per year. The social cost and other factors suggest that to destroy the Joss Cardwell centre would be an ill-advised and costly step for the people of Northern Ireland.

The other matter of concern is the proposed closure of the Shaftesbury Square Hospital which provides in-patient and out-patient treatment for substance abuse—mainly for alcohol abuse. I understand from public remarks and representations that have been made to me that former patients and alcoholics who have been rehabilitated are, together with local government officials, councillors and clergy, utterly astounded by and opposed to this proposed closure. I hope that the Minister will raise the matter urgently with his ministerial colleagues with the intention of having an urgent review of these proposed closures.

Finally, on 23rd February I had a Written Answer from the Minister to my Written Question about the Government's decision to discontinue the publication of the Ulster Year Book. With others in Northern Ireland, I am unhappy about the Government's decision for a number of reasons, not least the lack of readily available, helpful and detailed information about Northern Ireland affairs. However, I have had a look in the Library at the publication Britain 1988—Official Handbook. This publication was prepared by the Central Office of Information on behalf of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. In this publication there are a number of useful references and some general information about Northern Ireland affairs. This publication, Britain 1988—Official Handbook, does not compensate for the loss of the detailed information contained in the Ulster Year Book.

Perhaps I may ask the Minister to request the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to make suitable representations to have the title of this official handbook changed to "United Kingdom" rather than "Britain", or to the "Official Handbook of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". I believe that at least that would indicate to the wider world that Northern Ireland is still on the map and is an integral part of the United Kingdom. I support the order.

9.15 p.m.

Viscount Brookeborough

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lyell for the attention that he has given to this order and for the way in which he dealt with it. I too must say how welcome is the commentary on public expenditure plans to those such as myself who find it difficult to understand such colossal figures. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, for the tremendous support that he has shown in his speech for the welfare of the people in the Province.

I begin by mentioning a few points relevant to the agricultural industry, because it is the largest single industry in Northern Ireland. Farmers will welcome the department's intention to accelerate payments on capital grant schemes which were completed some time ago. I hope that that will actually occur, as bank borrowings by farmers in the Province recently rose to a new record of £281 million. I realise that there is some fault on the part of farmers. Individual farmers may not have appreciated the long delays before payment. However, the build-up of interest on borrowed money seriously undermines the net value of this grant aid.

Sheep producers in the Province are genuinely concerned at what may be in store for them when the operation of sheepmeat stabilisers is being discussed in Europe. If the intention is to reduce the number of regions where separate calculations of annual ewe premium rates are permitted, there may be a very dramatic reduction of premium level in Northern Ireland. There are two sound reasons to justify special consideration for our farmers. The first is that, due to our geographical location, transport costs between the Province and outside markets are much higher than between other EC countries. Secondly, due to the topography and climate there are fewer alternative farming enterprises open to Northern Ireland farmers should the value of lamb production fall. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply as regards the number of applications submitted for assistance with alternative farm enterprises. I ask him to assure the House that due consideration will be given to that problem in the Province.

The beef industry in the EC has many problems. However, we in Northern Ireland have in addition one seemingly unnecessary difficulty. The lifestyle of many people living on the border with the Republic has always included petty smuggling; a few bottles of gin, a barrel of beer or even a pig run across the border. That has been normal life, although not necessarily for myself. However, in recent years it has become big business to smuggle cattle. The figures for a recent 12-month period show the extent of this. Sixteen per cent. of all beef cattle produced in Northern Ireland—that is 90,000 animals—were illegally transported into the Republic, this doing the EC out of £5.5 million, or £60 per animal, in MCA payments. That is a colossal amount of money and some action should be taken. It is also having a grave effect on employment in meat processing and related industries in the Province. I should like to ask the Minister what is being done about the situation. Is an increase in Customs and Excise staff envisaged?

In Great Britain there are several environmentally sensitive areas where farmers are participating voluntarily and where the assistance scheme is working well. In Northern Ireland one area is designated as such and that is in the region of the Mournes. It is my understanding that this scheme was to be open for applications in September of last year. I believe that that has not happened. I should like to know the cause of the delay and an accurate new starting date. It also appears that assistance in comparable areas in Great Britain may be as high as £100 or £120 per hectare. Yet the proposed rate in the Mournes is apparently to be only £30 per hectare. Those rates do not give a voluntary scheme such as this much chance of being taken up. If that is the case, perhaps the Minister will agree that they should be reviewed.

I should briefly like to bring up the subject of drainage. We have already heard several comments on it. I should like to mention a specific incident. I quote from the commentary issued by the Northern Ireland Office: Following the exceptional rainfall and flooding in October 1987 some increase in planned financial provision has been made, most of it to allow the bringing forward of the already planned improvement of the flood protection provisions on both sides of the River Mourne at Strabane". Will my noble friend please comment on the situation around Maguiresbridge, which was also flooded at other times in addition; for example, on 17th August? I believe at the time of the flooding he flew over it so he knows what we are talking about. What are his plans for doing anything about that?

I should like to draw attention to the recent debate in your Lordships' House on afforestation in Northern Ireland, initiated by my noble friend the Duke of Abercorn. In the debate I pointed out that in two years' time the Forest Service would not be able to maintain its objectives of new plantations due to a shortfall of £250,000. Noting that the total programme for public expenditure in Northern Ireland for 1990–1991 is £5,510 million, surely it is not too much to ask for that increase of £250,000 to ensure the future of the Forest Service. In addition to that, arising from the Budget yesterday, it may well be that there will be a vast reduction in investment in forestry which has been recently taking place due to the tax concessions, which have now been taken away. Therefore, it seems to me that it would be even more important to ensure that the Forest Service is kept up to its targets.

I welcome the special support given to industry in Northern Ireland. However, there is no database in the Province for industrialists to consult. In Great Britain, I understand that there are several and I suggest that they save a great deal of time and money. In the Province there is no quick way of assessing, among other things, market sizes or the source of materials. Also there are many new products appearing and no central register of them. Can the Government not initiate, fund or run such a database? It would seem to be very important when investing a lot of money in industry that it should not be wasted on unnecessary research, which could easily occur if there was such a base.

At present there is concern at the reduction in overtime for the RUC. I do not bring up this subject as a result of the events in Belfast today. The Chairman of the Police Federation recently said that he was worried about the 29 per cent. reduction in overtime in the force. I am not aware of all the details or what percentage that is of the total time; but like many people in the Province I am worried about the consequences of a reduction in normal policing—that is, policing other than policing in reaction to terrorist incidents.

The situation is very volatile at present and reaction to the many terrorist incidents, or for that matter the demonstrations resulting from the incidents, is very expensive. Can the Minister reassure the House that when there is an increase in anti-terrorist operations, it will not mean a switch of available finance away from normal police activities? The threat is such at present that routine budgeting may not be sufficient to cover normal policing in times of unpredictable high terrorist activity.

I welcome, and congratulate the Government on, their proposed police building programme and note the fourfold increase in new projects forecast for the next two years. That will result in an additional burden of extra security on the RUC. I hope that my noble friend can tell us that protection of sites, workmen and transport of building materials will not also result in a reduction in normal policing.

I should like briefly to mention public relations. I am not sure that it is really a subject for this debate. However, there are few opportunities in this House to raise such an issue. I believe that in all aspects of the day-to-day government of Northern Ireland good PR leaves a lot to be desired to say the least. The press is sometimes complimentary and often critical of the Government. The true facts about controversial issues, whether housing, the National Health Service or even terrorism and the fight against it, are often never fully known to the public. The misleading and incorrect facts are always available, especially in such publications as An Phoblat, a pro-terrorist Republican news sheet.

We are losing the PR war in Northern Ireland because the correct facts are not easily available to the public. I ask my noble friend to consider that it would be of immense value for the Government to produce a monthly bulletin of facts which could be widely distributed throughout Northern Ireland and perhaps also to people in the Republic. It would be inexpensive and of great value to all.

In conclusion, I support this order but hope that some of these points might be considered.

9.26 p.m.

Lord Dunleath

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Moyola, referred to farm effluent and its pollutant effect on water courses. The noble Lord, Lord Blease, referred to slurry digestion. It so happens that the last time we were discussing an appropriation order in your Lordships' House, I mentioned both those matters.

My mention of slurry digestion evoked voluminous correspondence. In response to the Minister's usual kind letter soliciting points that we might want to raise in the debate, I copied that voluminous correspondence to him. I hasten to assure the Minister that I did not do that with a view to discouraging him from writing to me again in a similar vein. However, he has the information now, so I shall not take up your Lordships' time by going over the appetising details contained therein other than to say that perhaps the last time we discussed the matter of slurry digestion we were not entirely fully informed. There is more information than that of which I have been aware.

It seems that Bethlehem Abbey at Portglenone—or Port Glen One as the Americans called it when they were here during the war—pioneered this system but, despite representations, received a grant equivalent to only 6 per cent. of the total amount of the project. However, others who have taken advantage of the example shown by Bethlehem Abbey, in the less favoured areas, qualify, I believe, for 60 per cent. grant while, in other areas, not less favoured, the grant is 30 per cent. On the face of it, that seems to be somewhat inequitable. Perhaps the noble Lord will be good enough to look into the position in the light of this new information.

Under the Department of Agriculture Vote 1, on the matter of forestry, I should be interested to know why, three years after I raised the matter in the Northern Ireland Assembly Agriculture Committee, the Department of Agriculture nurseries still do not have adequate supplies of broadleaved young plants for those land owners who wish to establish hardwood plantations which the department is rightly trying to encourage.

On Vote 3 of the Department of Economic Development, I should like briefly to say how strongly I support Mr. John Parker, the chief executive and chairman of Harland and Wolff, who deplores those who make apprehensive and warning statements about the long term future of the shipyard. It may be that the labour force will have to be streamlined further and that the shipyard will have to rationalise itself to a certain extent to meet current and future market conditions; but anyone who casts doubt on the future of Harland and Wolff is doing nothing but a disservice. I entirely support Mr. Parker in deploring that.

I am glad to say that since I last raised the matter under Department of Environment Vote 1, the Strangford Ferry has been more dependable in its record of service. I wonder if the time has not come when the noble Lord might consult with his people to see if plans should be laid for providing a new vessel in view of the age of the two now in service. It is very seldom that both are available for service simultaneously. If one breaks down, very often the other is not in a position to stand in for it. Also, the recently imposed fare increases have proved quite a heavy burden on those who need to use the ferry on a regular basis for business. It is also used every day by children going to school—again, quite a considerable financial strain.

I ask once again why it is that the new bridge over the Foyle at Londonderry—which entailed very much heavier capital expenditure than the ferry—is regarded as being an extension of the road service with no toll payable whereas there is a charge for crossing from Portaferry to Strangford on the boat. That charge is regularly increased.

Also under the heading of the Department of Environment Vote 1, I warmly welcome the commitment of Her Majesty's Government to construct a new bridge over the Lagan for both road and rail. I understand this will be in six years' time. Looking back at previous issues of the Official Report, I believe this to be the fourth time that I have mentioned it. I am very glad and grateful that at last we have this good news. In anticipation of that and the fact that it will help to integrate the rail network in Northern Ireland, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord whether he has given any consideration to reopening the old Belfast and County Down railway line between Belfast and Comber.

I can remember trying to reason with the grandfather of the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, in the late 1940s. I recall saying that even if the line to Newcastle or the extension to Ardglass is not economic, why not keep open the section to Comber to serve commuters as the population increases around the periphery of Belfast, and also in view of the increase in the number of private cars. The transport tribunal ruled that the line should be closed and that is the way it was. I honestly believe that the matter would justify a new look now.

That subject also touches on the general principle of trying to provide every incentive for people to use public transport in city centres as a whole and not only in Belfast. It is a tragedy when one sees a city centre being gutted for the sake of the motor car and becoming an extended car park. The centre of Liverpool has been sadly carved up in the interests of urban motorways.

Department of the Environment Vote 4 and the subject of the disposal of domestic waste is a matter that I have raised on a previous occasion. Since then further evidence has come to light of this problem. I believe I mentioned to the noble Lord the problem of Drumnakelly near Seaforde, County Down, which I believe is the subject of a public inquiry. The issue has aroused considerable controversy. As time goes on the problem of disposal is going to become greater and greater. I honestly believe that this is something which the department ought to address rather than leave it to individual councils to try to cope on an ad hoc basis. They lurch from one unsatisfactory expedient to another.

Turning to the Department of Education Vote 2, since Lagan College started seven years ago—and I must declare an interest because I was founding president of the college—there has been almost an explosion in the demand for integrated education in Northern Ireland. There are now seven schools either functioning or preparing to open. Such integrated schools save the Government money; they save money for the public purse because they meet their establishment costs from voluntary subscription.

Charitable foundations all over the world have been extremely generous, but one cannot expect them indefinitely to continue giving subventions for this purpose. Therefore I sincerely urge Her Majesty's Government to see whether they cannot act more expeditiously in granting maintained status to integrated schools. Of course they will have to ensure that each school will be a viable proposition before granting maintained status, but it is a very heavy burden for those schools to have to bear until such status is granted. Under the heading of the Department of Education I also wish to raise the question of the Linen Hall Library, which is under considerable financial pressure at the moment. In the year 1983–84 a grant of £54,000 was made from public funds, but this declined to £36,000 in the year 1986–87. Since then there has been an increase of £1,000 per annum, but that is not sufficient to keep pace with inflation. As I am sure the noble Lord is aware, the Linen Hall Library is an historic foundation which dates back to the 18th century and has a unique collection of books, documents and records. It provides facilities for research which are not available in the public libraries. Therefore I sincerely hope that the noble Lord may be able to use his good offices to bring about a more generous grant to the Linen Hall Library so as to ensure its future and if possible its development.

I turn now to the Department of Health and Social Security, Vote 1. Since I raised the topic of homoeopathy on April Fool's Day last year a professional survey of general practitioners for the Homoeopathic Society of Northern Ireland has been conducted. (I ought to say that only 28 per cent. responded, but that, apparently, is a normal response under the circumstances). Of those who responded, 50 per cent. said that they would refer patients to a homoeopathic clinic for treatment and diagnosis were there one available. The society has now opened a private clinic on one day per week and it is overwhelmed with customers. The clinic is to open on another half day a week because that is all that can be afforded, but it appears that it could open four or five days a week if money were available.

I know that an additional £5 million was recently granted to the health boards by the department. It would take only £10,000 of that £5 million to enable the homoeopathic clinic to run on a full-time basis. I know—though perhaps it is rather difficult to understand in view of yesterday's Budget—that the health service is stretched for money. Even so, if the noble Lord were able to assist in that way it would make a tremendous difference. I believe that it would also help to save money, because the drugs which are prescribed in conventional medicine are very expensive indeed.

Also some of the recent reports we have seen about the side effects of those drugs really do make frightening reading. I commend that point to the noble Lord most strongly.

Finally, reference is made in Vote 4 to the Department of Health and Social Security's miscalculation in the retail price index increases. I am told that throughout the United Kingdom that resulted in an underspend of £109 million. Looking at the United Kingdom overall, if £5.2 million of that figure could be devoted to the war widows' pensions and age allowance, that would enable them to benefit by another £2 a week. Futhermore, if an additional £2 million out of that underspend was similarly allocated, it would enable the minimum age to be reduced from 65 to 60.

I realise that this is a United Kingdom problem; but, nonetheless, there are war widows in Northern Ireland whose husbands were killed between 1939 and 1945 who do not receive the same benefits as the widows of servicemen who have been killed since that time. I warmly commend that suggestion to the noble Lord, because I think that it would be a most humane and appropriate way of using some of the money which was underspent as a result of that miscalculation.

I should like once again to thank the noble Lord for his presentation of the appropriation order. We appreciate the interest that he takes in Northern Ireland and I have often sympathised with him, saying to myself, "Thank heavens it is him, not me, who has to carry out this thankless task, with the constrictions that are laid upon him, in situations where he can't always do what he would wish". Nevertheless, we appreciate his efforts and the close interest he takes in our affairs.

9.42 p.m.

Lord Fitt

My Lords, in view of the awful events which took place in Belfast today in my former constituency, I decided not to take part in the debate. Although there are many facts of life that one could discuss within the context of this order, I am sure that there are not many people in Belfast tonight, certainly not in West Belfast, who are worrying about the discussions taking place in this House.

However, I rise for one or two minutes to reinforce what has been said by my noble friends Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Blease in relation to the health service in Northern Ireland. Throughout my lifetime Northern Ireland has always had a health service of which one could be justifiably proud. I have always believed that we had some of the best, if not, indeed, the best hospitals to be found anywhere in the world. We have always had dedicated staff who have served the community in Northern Ireland and given a service such as no one would have received in any other part of the United Kingdom.

Although I do not live in Northern Ireland I am nevertheless in daily communication with people there. I receive many letters. From the mail that I receive I could be persuaded that Northern Ireland's health service is in something of a crisis at present. I have had representations made to me from almost every major hospital in the Province: first, the Royal Victoria Hospital in relation to its ophthalmic unit, where there are to be severe cutbacks; secondly, the Mater Hospital, where again there are to be severe cutbacks in the staff and the nurses; thirdly, the Shaftesbury Hospital. Here I strongly support what has been said by my noble friend Lord Blease in relation to the proposed closure of that hospital. It would have an awful effect on many people if the alcoholic unit of the hospital is closed. It has been there for many years and I believe it has given sterling service to those who have been unfortunate enough to seek treatment there.

Finally, there is yet another hospital in North Belfast, the Throne Hospital, which is scheduled for closure. It has been there for over 100 years and has looked after many geriatrics, especially from the North and West Belfast area. If it is closed those who would otherwise have become patients within its walls will be transferred to Dundonald Hospital, which is at the other end of the city of Belfast.

As I said, there are problems in every major hospital in Northern Ireland. I have had representations from Downpatrick in County Down. People are worried about the extent to which the health service in Northern Ireland will be affected by what would appear to be government policy. Living here in London as I do I am only too well aware of the great crisis affecting hospitals in the United Kingdom, especially in London. I should have hoped that the same crisis would not affect hospitals in Northern Ireland. It is.

I rise this evening only fully to reinforce and support the pleas that have been made by my two noble friends and to ask the Minister to ensure that in any future appropriations priority is given to the Northern I eland health service to ensure that it can maintain the standards it has set over so many years.

9.45 p.m.

Lord Lyell

My Lords, as is traditional on occasions such as this, we have had a full and detailed debate on the complicated figures that I presented to the House. I compliment and am grateful to your Lordships for the patience with which you listened when I dealt with some of the salient points of the Estimates. Judging by the questions that I have been asked, your enthusiasm for figures never diminishes.

The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, had a number of queries. I shall attempt to answer most of them tonight. He will appreciate that I may want to examine one or two points more carefully. I shall write to him quickly and I hope fairly briefly. He asked about the amount of subsidy to the manufacturing sector in recent years. In 1987–88, the current financial year, the planned level of expenditure per employee in manufacturing industry was equivalent to about £1,640. At this stage, within three weeks of the end of the financial year, it seems likely that the actual figure will be about £1,840 per manufacturing employee. That is a rise of about 12.5 per cent. over what we planned. Assuming that the pattern of employment stays as at present, the planned level of expenditure on support for manufacturing for 1988–89 will be about £1,740 per employee. As your Lordships can see, that figure is likely to vary during the course of the year.

The noble Lord also mentioned the dependency of industry. I wish to reassure him about the Government's policy with regard to reducing industry's dependence on public funds. He asked whether it masks an intention to reduce public investment in economic programmes in Northern Ireland. I can tell him that in November last year my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in his public expenditure Statement made in another place, in which he gives details of expenditure in Northern Ireland, confirmed that the strengthening of the economy would remain a key priority within the overall public expenditure strategy for the Province. That is contained in the booklet at which we have been looking this evening.

The noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies, Lord Blease and Lord Fitt, in their short remarks, raised the question of expenditure in the health service. As regards that capital expenditure I would spell out straight away and honestly that there are other pressures on the health and social services budget as well as on the Northern Ireland block overall. We had intended to reduce capital spending on the health service by £5 million in the next financial year, 1988–89. However, we held detailed discussions with the various chairmen in the health and social services board and decided to restore the capital budget to its normal level of £29 million in the next financial year. My honourable friend the Minister who has responsibility for that aspect of life in Northern Ireland is consulting the hoard as to how the additional funds can best be supplied. I would not be able to comment this evening on the total programme.

The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, also asked about the report by the United Medical Enterprise. We are very grateful to him for drawing attention to the report commissioned earlier last year by the Industrial Development Board for Northern Ireland. The board and the DHSS issued the report jointly to a wide range of interested bodies for comment on 10th December last year. I am afraid it was rather inconvenient before the start of the Christmas holiday period, but in issuing the report to as wide a range as possible both the IDB and the DHSS welcomed the prospect identified by it for creating jobs and generating additional income by marketing the very interesting and sophisticated Northern Ireland health services, as well as their expertise, all over the world. The comments which we have received have indicated broad support for this concept.

Of course there has been some concern that the level and quality of services presently available to the population in Northern Ireland should not suffer as a result. Certainly I should want to assure the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Blease, about their concern that the valuable health services and resources might be diverted in this plan. That will be taken fully into account when we decide how we take forward the United Medical Enterprise report, as well as the current capital expenditure in the Province.

The noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Blease, and others will want to know about the large amount of expenditure on health and personal social services in Northern Ireland. Next year, 1988–89, it will amount to £850 million, an increase of nearly £40 million on spending in the current year. Per capita expenditure in Northern Ireland will continue to be over 20 per cent. higher than in England and Wales, as the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, will know. Pace Wales I am not able to give the precise details for England, and I think my figures say higher than England, so if I say England and Wales noble Lords will agree with me. There are certainly areas within this figure where the factors for morbidity and other problems are virtually the same as for Northern Ireland. But this gap in per capita expenditure in Northern Ireland over and above that of England and Wales reflects the response of the Government to the needs of the Province.

In a perfectly fair aside, the noble Lord also took the Government to task for the fact that the health programme has been very slightly constrained by the need to put additional resources into the law and order programme. The resources which we have to place in any particular aspect of life or particular department in Northern Ireland are finite. However, the needs of Northern Ireland in health and social services are recognised in the comparatively high levels of public expenditure which are enjoyed in the Province. The figure of 20 per cent. is one particular aspect of that.

The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, raised another query about education and the universities. The relationship between the University Grants Committee and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is somewhat unique as regards Northern Ireland. In line with my right honourable friend's overall responsibilities for the allocation of the Northern Ireland block, he takes decisions about the funding of higher education on the basis of advice he receives from the UGC. My right honourable friend takes the final decision. I wish to stress, however, that he takes the decisions with the full knowledge of what is required on the basis of very strong advice from the UGC.

Are the powers of the Department of Education and Science in relation to the UGC and its successor body exercised solely by Northern Ireland or jointly with Northern Ireland? Education in Northern Ireland is a transferred matter. As such it is the responsibility of the Department of Education in Northern Ireland; it certainly is nothing to do with the Department of Education and Science in London.

Treasury funding for the Northern Ireland block of higher education rests with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. Of course he acts again on the basis of advice that he receives from the UGC. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked about the reduction in the housing budget for next year, 1989. There was a reduction and I think my noble friend Lord Brookeborough had one particular query about it. Certainly, the Housing Executive was consulted before the housing budget was reduced.

I understand that the honourable Member for Wiltshire North, who is responsible for the health and environment departments did in fact consult and inform the chairman of the Housing Executive of the proposed transfer of resources before it was made public. However, I could not say how far or how deeply my honourable friend was able to take those consultations.

The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, raised a number of points. I was grateful for the clarity with which he set out his questions. As regards the election of members to statutory boards and the noble Lord's ideas on that aspect, I hope that he will accept that that is not something that I would like to answer tonight. I shall certainly bring his suggestions to the attention of my right honourable and honourable friends. If I can add anything to the remarks or enlighten him at all, I shall certainly do so but in writing, not tonight.

On the question raised about the payment of debts and the 1971 Act, your Lordships will be aware that in Northern Ireland there is a history of some quite longstanding debts, some of which have been incurred as a demonstration of political protest. That has happened in recent years as well as in 1971 and before. The continuing high levels of public debt in the Province coupled with the action taken by one or two members of the Loyalist community to withhold payments for such things as rent, rates and above all car tax as a political protest gives some illustration of the need to maintain an adequate debt recovery system.

But the need for the legislation concerned will continue to be reviewed at least annually by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. As far as I am aware from figures that I have seen, the overall public debt figure for Northern Ireland is being reduced. It has come down quite sharply since 1984 which was my first year serving in the Province.

Perhaps I may return to the matter of the allocation of the £5 million from the housing programme to the health programme. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, raised the matter of the importance of housing and how that is perceived in the Province. The decision taken recently to transfer £5 million from the 1988–89 housing programme to the health programme was taken after careful consideration. It was not taken lightly. The money to be transferred will be used for capital projects which will help the health and social services boards to rationalise some services in ways which will help to release resources for other purposes, thus facilitating the implementation of the regional strategy for health and personal social services.

The reduction in the housing programme is something which all of us regret. We wish to provide more resources and would do so if they were available. However, your Lordships will be aware that the Northern Ireland housing programme benefited from the high priority which has been accorded to it in recent years. My honourable and right honourable colleagues in another place will testify to my thoughts when we get together to discuss the Northern Ireland block grant. I believe that agriculture does not receive its fair share and that housing, health and social services must all be taken into account. However, I think all your Lordships will agree that housing has had a priority which it deserves.

Even after the transfer of £5 million for 1989, the gross programme will amount to £545 million. That is a transfer of under 1 per cent. The programme is at a level which is much higher per head of population than is the case elsewhere in the United Kingdom. It is true that the need is greater. However, per capita spending on housing, as well as on health and social services, is a great deal higher than that in England.

The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, raised the matter of the Divis flats. I am advised that five SECTRA blocks—perhaps the noble Lord will be familiar with that—are included in a total which is in the region of 295 units. I am not sure that that is correct. However, I believe that that indicates that there are 59 units per block. Five of those blocks have been demolished since 1984 and further block of 43 units is about to be demolished. The remaining six SECTRA blocks will be demolished over a period in line with the programme of the Housing Executive for phased development in that area. The whole process of demolition of the 12 blocks will take up to 10 years. Progress will be subject to a periodic review in the light of the circumstances and also in the light of availability of alternative accommodation. To date, the majority of tenants have been rehoused in the Lower Falls area. But in the later phases the important matter will be the willingness of some residents to accept rehousing outside that area.

The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, raised a query about land. There is little alternative land available in the immediate area around the Divis complex. The Housing Executive is investigating the availability of land in West Belfast generally to meet needs which are mainly short term. Longer-term housing needs in the Belfast area are addressed in the draft Belfast urban area plan that has been published for consultation. It will be the subject of a public inquiry later this year.

My noble friend Lord Moyola was kind enough to entertain me in his home, as he has suggested. Your Lordships will know that when a Minister pays a visit many other people also attend. I, my department and everybody who was involved are grateful to my noble friend, not least for what might be called the feeding of the five thousand. We also had a delicious lunch. That applied not only to me and my immediate entourage but to many people from my department. It was a major meeting, and we are grateful for all that he and his wife did for us.

My noble friend then raised—rightly so—several queries about salmon. As to the co-ordinated service programme of the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy, I have been unable as yet to obtain any answers to give encouragement to my noble friend. However, I assure him that I shall persist in my efforts to establish whether anything can be done, above all on a cost-effective basis. As he will know—indeed, he raised this in his remarks—there is the question of enforcement of fishing laws in the sea outside the 12-mile limit. This gives rise to some difficulty. Fishing for salmon outside the 12-mile limit is illegal in UK waters. Our fishery protection role ensures that it does not take place within our jurisdiction in respect of fisheries.

My noble friend raised the question of what takes place off the Donegal coast. The recent report by the salmon review group, which was set up by the Minister in the Republic of Ireland, acknowledged the existence of illegal drift net fishing. That will not be news to my noble friend. One of the major recommendations of the report was that there should be an attempt to curtail the activities of drift net fishing, which would include the introduction of a salmon tagging scheme with a quota of tags for every licence. I shall follow with great interest any developments to ascertain whether regulations along this line may be implemented. If so, and if they were successful, they might go some way to rehabilitate the salmon stocking levels in Northern Ireland rivers. However, I must sound one small warning. The tagging of salmon costs quite a lot of money. If more money is to be spent, it will require careful consideration by my department and by my colleagues. We shall bear that aspect in mind.

My noble friend referred to dealers and the trade in salmon. The dealer register system was provided for in the recent salmon legislation covering Great Britain. There has been a dealer register system in Northern Ireland since the passing of the Fisheries Act 1966. I cannot recall whether my noble friend occupied the office that I now occupy, but I am given to understand that the system has been operating since then. If I can obtain any further information, I shall write to him.

He asked next about the Fishery Conservancy Board and the possibility of a fish counter. A fish counter is a very useful component in an overall management programme for a salmon fishery. Fish counters are not only sophisticated; they are expensive. They must be carefully sited, installed and maintained. If there is a combination of all three, unreliable results may be obtained. In any large river system, one has to take various counts. There would therefore need to be a number of counters on the various tributaries. Before we embark on counters—and not only on the main river and its branches, but on all the tributaries—it may be necessary to consult the various owners of the fishery systems collectively to develop a management programme in order to include the provision of monitoring equipment and any initial restocking of the rivers

So far as concerns the fisheries protection vessel and the rumours that have come to the ears of my noble friend, I reiterate that one of the recommendations contained in the report of sundry members of my department who had a review team surveying the management of operations of the Fisheries Conservancy Board for Northern Ireland is that the Department of Agriculture and the board together should review the operations of sea patrols to protect salmon. We are still waiting to undertake full discussions with the Fisheries Conservancy Board.

No decision has yet been made as to what should be done about sea patrols. However, I am sure that my noble friend will accept that the board wants to and indeed must carry out its functions in a cost-effective manner. Given that, I hope that he will accept my assurance that I take very seriously the protection of salmon so far as possible by the method of sea patrols.

My noble friend also raised the question of the restocking of rivers. My department continually restocks its own waters and certainly the Movanagher Fish Farm is available to provide any stocks, above all of trout, for sale, which will be able to assist other owners. Certainly there is no more news on that tonight. I hope that that concludes the queries about fish raised by my noble friend. If there is anything else that I have missed I shall certainly write to him—certainly if it concerns salmon or trout.

My noble friend went into the more murky areas of what we might call slurry. In November 1987 additional funds were made available for grants for slurry tanks and the scheme was re-opened for payment of grants to farmers who had had their work completed and claims submitted by 29th February this year. I had to make the announcement of when the scheme was to be opened. I made it clear that it might be necessary to restrict the scheme to ensure that expenditure would not exceed available funds. I am sure that my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, will be aware that disposal of slurry and slurry pits are a particularly important aspect of farming in Northern Ireland.

After I announced the re-opening of this scheme the demand for grant was demonstrated by the very high level of prior notification forms received from farmers. It reached a point where it became necessary to announce the additional requirement that grants would be available only in cases where prior notifications had been acknowledged before 1st January 1988. I indicated that I would make a further announcement about the future of the schemes as soon as possible after 29th February this year. At present I am considering various options which might allow a reintroduction of the scheme, which will be tailored to available funds. I hope to make an announcement on that as soon as possible.

In conclusion, as regards the slurry tanks, I stress to my noble friend that grants for waste and effluent facilities remain available to farmers who are eligible for and undertake a farm improvement plan under the agricultural improvement regulations. The rates of grant are similar to those available under the national agricultural improvement scheme.

My noble friend also raised the question of drainage and above all the right of access. The position may have changed since he was responsible for agricultural matters as the Minister in Northern Ireland, but the department has a right of access to land for the purpose of carrying out drainage schemes, which are now enshrined in the legislation under Article 14 of the Drainage (Northern Ireland) Order 1973.

Before undertaking any works or entering land, the department discusses with individual landowners the work that it intends to carry out and following those discussions it confirms its proposals in writing to each individual who may be affected by the work. Following the introduction of this simplified system, the department no longer asks landowners to sign agreements permitting access across land to river banks. It is empowered to maintain the banks of designated water courses. But I am afraid that the department also has to be satisfied that such works are financially worthwhile.

My noble friend Lord Brookeborough also asked about the effect of drainage upstream. In all the drainage schemes which cover arterial drainage, the department aims to strike an acceptable balance between drainage and flood protection requirements as well as conservation and other interests. To this end detailed surveys and consultations are very closely undertaken before any scheme is finalised. Both my noble friends will appreciate that it is not possible to guarantee immunity from flooding in all circumstances. However, I wish to assure them that my department sets standards of flood protection appropriate to the purposes of its schemes. We take account of the need to accommodate any subsequent changes in what we call the pattern of water flow, but this is within the entire catchment area, as well as taking account of the statistical probability of high river levels which occur every so often and with interesting regularity in Northern Ireland.

The noble Lord, Lord Blease, asked about a Statement on what has happened tonight. I have to ask him to wait and see. He raised one point about the public expenditure commentary in Northern Ireland. We are very grateful for his welcome of the commentary as well as his suggestion that it should be the subject of wider discussion in the Province. I do not know whether this could be done effectively through a formal process, but I wish to assure him that the Government will certainly consider with very great interest any reservations or observations which we receive on the contents of that commentary.

On a point of detail, the noble Lord asked about the Joss Cardwell Centre, as well as the Shaftesbury Square alcoholic unit. The Eastern Health and Social Services Board recently published its range of options for a rationalisation of services in the next financial year, 1988–89, to achieve any valuable service development which would be in line with the strategy for the region and to help the boards to live within the resources available. Two of the options available relate to the closure of the Joss Cardwell Centre as well as the Shaftesbury Square Hospital, but in each case the proposal does not involve any reduction in service. I am afraid that it results in the relocation of current activity to other sites. This gives a concentration of service and a more cost-effective use of resources. I am afraid that that criterion is paramount in all my remarks as well as what we are discussing today. However, the proposals that I have mentioned are possible options at this stage and are subject to consultation with the eastern board.

The noble Lord, Lord Blease, raised three further queries. On the international fund, my department, the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland, administers the farm diversification scheme in Northern Ireland on behalf of the international fund for Ireland, but the board, as he will be aware, is independent of both Governments in the United Kingdom as well as in the Republic. He will find satisfaction on any questions in relation to the operation of the schemes under the auspices of the board if he gets in touch with its chairman. I have no doubt that the chairman will note what has been said tonight. If there is a particular query perhaps he might be able to contact the chairman.

The noble Lord raised the question of the Ulster Year Book. The decision to discontinue publication was taken because in terms of staff time its substantial cost could not be justified for a book of which only 500 copies were sold. I understand that there was a considerable number of other copies. However, they were not sold and no revenue was forthcoming to compensate for the heavy costs involved. In addition the statistical and descriptive information in the year book is available from other sources. I shall draw the attention of my right honourable friend to the remarks made about the title of the publication.

I have not seen a copy of the Northern Ireland Economic Council report on horticulture. I shall certainly study with great interest all the recommedations made in it. If the noble Lord wishes to contact me in the near future I may be able to reply. He may wish to do so here or in Belfast.

My noble friend Lord Brookeborough raised a number of points. The first point concerned the sheepmeat regime. I should like to assure him and every sheep farmer in Northern Ireland that in the discussions on that regime we shall put forward a strong case to ensure that no sheep farmers in Northern Ireland suffer disadvantage. His concerns will be taken into account and I assure my noble friends Lord Brookeborough and Lord Moyola that those concerns are being pushed most strongly with my colleagues representing us in Brussels.

I am delighted to know that my noble friend Lord Brookeborough is one of the few people on the border who does not admit to a few bovines moving hither and thither. It is nice to rejoice when there is one honest man; there must be quite a few sinners in his area. The incentive to smuggle cattle out of Northern Ireland and to evade the monetary compensatory levy has been much less during the last six months for various reasons. The recent strengthening of sterling will be of considerable assistance.

I am not able to confirm the estimate of the number of cattle that were smuggled, although perhaps my noble friend's figures may have a bearing on the truth. He and other noble Lords will know that it is difficult to obtain accurate figures as regards illicit cross-border trade.

My noble friend asked about environmentally sensitive areas. He will be glad to know that I hope to make an announcement fairly soon on the designation of the Mourne Mountains and Sleive Croob, Northern Ireland's first environmentally sensitive areas. He also queried the rate of annual payment, which I believe he thought would be in the region of £30 per hectare. The scheme is voluntary for the farmers who enter into it. They will be required to enter into a five-year management agreement. We wish to wait in order to observe the developments when the scheme is announced and opened.

My noble friend Lord Brookeborough also raised a query much nearer his home about Maguiresbridge. I arrived at Maguiresbridge on the morning after the major floods in October when I flew into the area and visited homes. I also visited Mr. Carey's shop, which had lost most of its stock. However, we managed to purchase sundry items of refreshment for our onward trip to Strabane and Omagh. The problems caused by the flooding in Maguiresbridge and elsewhere were of a different kind to those experienced in Strabane, where the flood wall collapsed and there was a serious risk of loss of life. However, we shall progress with the work in Strabane and take to heart any lessons learnt—and we have learnt quite a few—in all aspects not only in Strabane but also in the Colebrook area and Maguiresbridge, which is close to the heart of my noble friend.

My noble friend raised a particular query about forestry and the planting rate. It may well be a bit below our current target. That is caused by one major problem; namely, the difficulties of land acquisition. However, I hope that we can improve our performance in this area in future years. With regard to yesterday's Budget, as my noble friend will appreciate, it is rather early to give any indication of our own planting intentions, let along those of the private sector.

With regard to the database for industry in Northern Ireland, the IDB maintains a capability register which will provide information on 3,500 companies in manufacturing and tradeable services. That will go further and give details of 8,000 products and services available. That is no mere extension of the former trade directory. It incorporates the use of standard, industrial classification codes.

My noble friend asked lastly about the RUC overtime. The particular figure is not covered by the draft order before the House this evening but the budget for RUC expenditure for 1987–88—the current financial year—has been increased to £366 million. That will go up to £384 million next year. That is an increase of 20 per cent. over two years. The chief constable of the RUC allocates overtime on a divisional basis. A reserve is held centrally to enable the force to deal with unforseen events without undue disruption to normal divisional activity. We hope that overtime working will fall. It seems that it will fall by 5 per cent. below current levels as a result of improved efficiency and the expansion of 250 officers in the full time Reserve. However, we are sure that that will not have an impact an operational activity.

The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, was good enough to say some very kind words about me and I return them to him. His work both here and at Stormont when he was Deputy Speaker of the assembly is much appreciated. We believe that he is a foremost practitioner of the political art both in Northern Ireland and here.

The noble Lord raised a fascinating question of slurry and, I think he called it "the slurry digester", at what he called "Port Glen One" or Portglenone at the Abbey. I should like to make two points about that particular device. Grant aid was paid by the Department of Agriculture on elements of the installation which were eligible under the current agricultural and horticultural grant scheme, which, as I said at the outset of my remarks, is now discontinued. Grants could not be paid under this scheme for investments which attracted other government assistance and I understand that grants were paid to the installers of that particular system where grant aid was available from other sources.

The installation at the Abbey suits a particular set of circumstances which are evident there. I wonder whether the noble Lord knows that only about five out of the 18 installations in England are still operating—not entirely through maladministration or incompetence. These devices are most interesting and could be effective but they are not a panacea, not even for Northern Ireland.

The noble Lord took me to task mildly about planting and broadleaved trees. As I would stress to him, it is not the policy of the forest service to produce all the various species of conifers as well as broadleaved trees which may be required by farmers or, indeed, estate owners and other planters in Northern Ireland. However, we have a surplus of some species of trees and these are offered for sale to the public. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that the private nurseries in Northern Ireland can and do supply both conifers and broadleaved forest trees and are very willing to supply whatever is demanded. If the noble Lord has any difficulties and he needs some exotic species, he will perhaps let me know.

With regard to Harland and Wolff, we are fully aware that shipbuilding is a very expensive industry. It absorbs a high percentage of public funds. We keep those funds under review but we have made it perfectly clear—and I do so again this evening—that the future of this firm depends on the company's ability to secure new orders within some rather difficult constraints; namely EC No. 6 Directive on Shipbuilding which limits the government subsidy on merchant shipbuilding to 28 per cent.

The noble Lord asked about Portaferry. Of course, we accept that the Strangford ferry plays a particularly important role in the life of the Ards peninsula as well as the Lecale peninsula. We have had a survey by experienced marine consultants who are satisfied that the existing two vessels can give useful service for some time to come. This is, of course, subject to a carefully planned maintenance programme.

As regards fares, the noble Lord will be aware that the Government have to bear part of the cost of providing this service. I am afraid that reality must be faced. The annual cost of the provision of the service at its existing level, as well as what users would have to pay for the benefit they get from it, has to be taken into account when we look at what the service can achieve.

On the Comber railway, we are delighted that the noble Lord has taken to heart the possibility and the proposal for a cross-harbour railway link between the central station and York Road. As regards the Comber railway, the noble Lord will know that various parts of the track bed of the railway are going to be used as a road. I believe it would be difficult to restore it for rail transport with all the ballasting and track that would be required.

With regard to public transport and car parking in Belfast city centre, the Belfast urban area plan makes a number of proposals for improving and developing both bus and rail services. The Northern Ireland Department of the Environment is engaged in continuing discussion with the transport companies on how to improve the services but perhaps I should not repeat tonight the remarks of the noble Lord in the Northern Ireland Assembly when he became involved in car parks and other facilities—it concerned a lady friend of his. We leave that aspect for another night.

The noble Lord also asked about waste disposal sites and Drumnakelly. He will be aware that this site is the subject of an inquiry into an application by Down District Council for an order and there is nothing more I can say tonight.

As regards the Linen Hall Library, the noble Lord will know that in recognition of the bicentenary in 1988 the Department of Education has been able to provide £50,000 to meet the cost of the computerisation plans. Subject to approval we plan to increase the grant to the library next year, 1988–89, by £15,000 to assist in the running costs of the new computerised system.

I will have to write to the noble Lord on the subject of homoeopathy.

On the payment to compensate for the error in the retail price index, a special lump sum payment was made in February this year to cover the loss of benefit for the period April 1987 to April 1989. It covered the categories receiving, I think, 14 or 15 benefits who were entitled to a special payment of £8 for the week commencing in February 1988; but perhaps I may write to the noble Lord on the 15 categories of benefit recipients.

I hope that covers all the questions that have been raised. We have the opportunity for a full discussion of all aspects of Northern Ireland on only two or three occasions during the year. I therefore hope your Lordships will forgive me if I have taken a considerable amount of time to answer the questions that your Lordships were kind enough to warn me would be raised. I hope that I have answered most of them. Doubtless, I shall have to fill in plenty of gaps in writing.

On Question, Motion agreed to.