House of Commons Hansard Debates for 11 Mar 1991

Mr. Cox : I have heard all this before. Mr. Freeman : When? Our constituents suffer from overcrowding--today, tonight, tomorrow morning. The Central line refurbishment is on schedule. A substantial sum is being spent on it ; the new stock will come into

Column 722

service in September 1992 and the resignalling should be finished two to three years after that. We shall make a start on the Northern line as soon as resources permit. Refurbishment of Angel station, which is on the Northern line, is costing £72 million.

My hon. Friends the Members for Hendon, South and for Surbiton both spoke about buses. The Government are grateful to them for their support for the principle of deregulation. This afternoon, my right hon. and learned Friend published a consultation document on deregulation and privatisation of London buses. The document spells out the arguments for deregulation and tendering. I am sure that the House will return to the subject. Some 4 million passengers per day travel on London Buses. As has been said, that is the same number as travel on Network Southeast and London Underground combined--a substantial number. That patronage has not fallen.

The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey said something about bus traffic being down by 30 per cent. If it is, it is not in London. There has been a fall in patronage in the provinces, but since 1979 the number of journeys on London Buses has remained unaltered at 1.2 billion per annum and the number of passenger kilometres has also remained unchanged, at between 4.3 billion and 4.4 billion per annum.

I am glad that patronage in London is broadly holding, but our proposals for deregulation are based on the principle that we can bring valuable benefits to Londoners by providing for more services to be offered with new technology, servicing different parts of the capital at different times, by commercial operators. We do not want to see the end of the traditional double-decker red bus, and that will not happen, but we want to permit new operators to come in and provide a service so as to get more people travelling by bus. Some faint hearts have argued that deregulation will exacerbate the problem of congestion in Greater London, but the reverse is the case. Our aim is to reduce congestion in Greater London by persuading more people, of all ages and callings, to leave their motor cars at home, and to travel by bus. I am grateful for that welcome to the publication of the deregulation paper by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State.

I am also grateful for the recognition by the hon. Member for Tooting that crime statistics on the Northern line, and the southern section of it in particular, have improved, in that there has been less crime. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) has asked me about crime statistics, and I will look at them. Crime statistics for London Underground as a whole have also improved, in the same way. The trend is encouraging. British Transport police are to be thanked and congratulated. In part, the improvement is due to the introduction of new technology such as cameras, panic buttons and mirrors, and the new technology which has allowed staff to be released from the mundane tasks of isssuing and collecting tickets. The hon. Member for Tooting referred to the escalators at Balham. I am told that they were working this morning and that they have been back in service two weeks after our joint visit. I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman thinks that they are not working or that they have broken down. If they have, perhaps he will let me know.

Ms. Ruddock : The special measures for the southern section of the Northern line included a 100 per cent. increase in staffing levels for particularly vulnerable

Column 723

stations. That 100 per cent. increase will be done away with from 1 April. That was the point of my question and of that asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall.

Mr. Freeman : I understand that there is a relationship between the number of staff available and crime--that is true on British Rail and London Underground--although there is not an exact correlation between crime statistics and staff. At Question Time, I gave the hon. Member for Vauxhall an undertaking that I would pursue the point, because I share her concern about the fear felt by women travelling alone on public transport. This is not a party political matter.

My hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton rightly drew attention to the GLC's low fares policy. The hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) is no longer here, but I thought that my hon. Friend was right. Irrespective of the permission which may or may not have been given for capital investment while the Labour GLC was in control of London Transport, by pursuing a low fares policy the GLC ensured that the resources needed for ploughing back as investment were not there. Whatever the rights and wrongs of 10 years ago, we have to address ourselves to the situation today.

The underground is overcrowded. To go back to a policy of reducing fares would be ridiculous. It would result in less resources and more overcrowding when what is needed is more investment. That investment, on the whole, can come only from the Government. We have already supported a significant underground building programme and I dare say that more projects are yet to come.

My hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton called for a strategy and, by implication, for a long-term co-ordinated strategy for London. Nothing about a co-ordinated or a long-term strategy is anathema to Conservatives. The hon. Member for Deptford smiles--perhaps she is surprised at that. Perhaps we have been hiding our light under a bushel all these years. Co- ordination must be at the heart of any sensible transport policy, and long- term thinking must be one of its essential features. Our policy should be seen to have both. The Question necessary to dispose of the proceedings was deferred, pursuant to paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of Estimates) and the Resolution [1 March].

Column 724

Northern Ireland (Appropriation)

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker) : Perhaps it will be helpful if I make clear that the debate may cover all matters for which Northern Ireland Departments, as distinct from the Northern Ireland Office, is responsible. Police and security are the principal excluded subjects.

7 pm

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Dr. Brian Mawhinney) I beg to move,

That the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 12th February, be approved.

The draft order has two purposes. The first is to authorise expenditure of £104.8 million in the 1990-91 spring supplementary estimates. This will bring the total estimates provision for Northern Ireland departmental services to £4,418 million for this financial year. The second purpose is to authorise the vote on account of £1, 941 million for 1991-92, to enable the services of Northern Ireland Departments to continue until the 1991-92 main estimates for Northern Ireland are brought before the House later this year.

Details of the sums sought are given in the estimates booklet and the statement of sums required on account which as usual, are available in the Vote Office. As you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, reminded the House, the estimates for the Northern Ireland Office, for law and order services, are not covered by the Order before the House today.

Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North) : Does the Minister agree that, if law and order are not covered, the application of this expenditure is somewhat curtailed and we do not reap the benefits that we should reap?

Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point.

Before drawing attention to some of the main features of the estimates, I should like to set them in the context of Northern Ireland's recent economic performance. At national level, we are experiencing a temporary downturn in economic activity as we make the adjustment to a low-inflation, more highly competitive economy. The Northern Ireland economy can be expected to follow a similar path. We can see this in the increase in unemployment during the past three months. The January figure of 97,500, or 14 per cent. of the work force, is disappointingly high, but it is still 1,700 below the figure for the same time last year.

Another encouraging sign is that, in the year to September 1990, output in both the manufacturing and the production industries rose by 3 per cent. and the numbers in employment increased by 1,200. But we dare not be complacent. It is essential that we defeat inflation, in the interests of both the Northern Ireland economy and the United Kingdom as a whole. While interest rates are still higher than any of us would wish, I am encouraged by the recent sharp downturn in inflation and the prospect of further reductions in the coming months. Equally, it is important that local industry--employees as well as employers--recognise that prosperity and enduring employment depend on improving efficiency and competitiveness.

Column 725

I now turn to the estimates. As is customary on these occasions, I do not propose to refer to every vote where supplementary provision is being sought. I shall concentrate instead on the main items. I shall start with the Department of Agriculture vote 1, which provides for Northern Ireland expenditure on national agriculture and fisheries support measures. An extra £1.3 million is required for payments under the hill livestock compensatory allowances scheme, and £1 million for residual payments under former capital grant schemes. These increases are offset by reduced requirements under other capital grant schemes, particularly the farm and conservation grant scheme, where uptake and investment levels are lower than expected. The result is a token increase of £1,000 in the vote.

In Department of Agriculture vote 2, covering local support measures, additional provision of £1.5 million is required, principally for disease eradication measures and for special temporary aid to the pig and poultry sectors. These increases are offset by additional receipts, mainly from timber sales, and by delays in the commencement of major fishery harbour development works. Again, this results in a token increase of £1,000 in the vote.

Turning to the Department of Economic Development, token supplementaries are sought for votes 1 and 2. In vote 1, the main increase is an additional £11.5 million for factory building, as a result of increased demand from companies for custom-built industrial premises. This reflects the Industrial Development Board's continuing success in attracting internationally mobile projects to Northern Ireland.

The Government will continue their efforts to encourage internationally competitive companies engaged in manufacturing and tradeable services to come to the Province, so as to create the conditions for growth in durable employment. My ministerial colleagues and I take every opportunity to promote Northern Ireland as a successful investment base and to challenge its negative image abroad. I know from my recent visits to the United States how essential it is to bring the positive attractions of Northern Ireland to the attention of potential investors, and I intend to continue to put this message across in the months ahead.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen (Wolverhampton, South-West) : I hope that, when my hon. Friend addresses American audiences, he emphasises that Northern Ireland is a United Kingdom responsibility and that the observations of many Americans have come very close to interference.

Dr. Mawhinney : I certainly make it clear that Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom.

In Department of Economic Development vote 2, additional funding of £6.2 million is sought for the local enterprise development unit. This will enable LEDU to meet current commitments for selective financial assistance and to continue the development of a network of local enterprise agencies. There are now a total of 27 such agencies operating in the Province, providing work space and business support to local entrepreneurs, who are currently providing some 2,000 jobs. Also in this vote, an increase of £1.1 million is sought for the fair employment support scheme, owing to higher than expected uptake. This scheme offers private-sector

Column 726

employers practical and financial help to implement best practice in relation to fair employment. Since the scheme was launched in March 1988, about 1,150 firms have taken advantage of it. That is very encouraging and shows that employers are facing up to their responsibilities in this important area.

Elsewhere in this vote, an additional £920,000 is sought for the Northern Ireland tourist board for additional marketing activities, such as an Ulster-Canada Year' promotion, to promote Northern Ireland as a holiday destination. An extra £550,000 is also sought for capital grants to district councils to improve tourist facilities, such as visitor centres and picnic sites. The past few years have seen a welcome upturn in Northern Ireland's tourism, and these extra funds will allow us to build on our success in attracting a record 1.1 million visitors to Northern Ireland in 1989.

As I said at Question Time some weeeks ago, it would benefit Northern Ireland and its tourist industry and would greatly benefit right hon. and hon. Members if they were to visit the Province. They would learn what a beautiful place it is, and would have their understanding put in a much more sympathetic and developed content than is apparent in the contributions of at least some of them. The Department of the Environment vote 1, seeks additional provision of £1.7 million for the maintenance of roads and street lighting. This is offset by reductions in other subheads and increased receipts from vehicle testing, leaving a token of £1,000. An additional £700,000 is sought for the Department's vote 2. The main increase is £6.6 million for the Housing Executive, bringing the executive's gross expenditure for the year to £467 million. This additional requirement is offset by almost £6 million in loans not taken up by housing associations--reflecting a more difficult housing market.

The Department of the Environment vote 3 is also a token, because extra receipts, including those from water charges, offset the additional £2.9 million required for capital expenditure to improve water services. All told, an additional £96 million will be spent by the water service over the next three years to improve the already high quality of drinking water supplies in Northern Ireland, in line with European Community requirements. This is part of a major capital programme of £500 million, over the next decade or so, that will also improve facilities for treating sewage effluent, thereby protecting coastal waters. Northern Ireland's bathing waters are already among the cleanest in the United Kingdom. In 1990, all but one of the 16 identified bathing waters met the mandatory EC standards. Department of the Environment vote 6 seeks an extra £250,000 to provide an additional 24 full-time firemen to be employed by the fire authority for Northern Ireland, bringing the total to 849. I move on to the Department of Education. A net increase of £13.6 million is sought in vote 1. The main addition is £20.6 million for grants to the education and library boards. That is needed to cover pay awards and price increases amounting to about £14 million, and increased expenditure on mandatory student awards and on the youth training programme. A further £2.8 million is for capital grants. These increases are partly offset by reduced requirements elsewhere, especially a decrease of £4.6 million in employers' contributions to the teachers'

Column 727

superannuation scheme, following a review of the scheme by the Government Actuary. I assure the House that the change will not affect the level of, or entitlement to, teachers' pensions, as will be apparent from the corresponding provision in vote 3 of the Department of Education.

The House will be interested to learn that an additional £360,000 is included in the vote for expenditure on grant-maintained integrated schools. The 1989 education reform order provided for the setting up of that type of school where parents wanted them. I am pleased to say that 10 proposals for grant-maintained integrated status have so far been approved. Between them, the schools have about 2,300 pupils on their rolls. The extra resources sought will ensure that these schools receive the same level of financial support as other schools of comparable size. In addition to the 10 proposals already approved, two are currently under consideration and further proposals are expected. That is further evidence of the growing demand from parents that their children should be educated alongside children of other denominations in schools that value both traditions equally.

In the Department's vote 2, a net increase of £1.9 million is sought for a range of services. The main increase of £2.3 million is for increased grants to the two universities in Northern Ireland. The increase has been recommended by the Universities Funding Council to cover expenditure on equipment and a computer network. Provision is also made in the vote for an initiative to improve access by disabled people to the arts.

For the Department of Health and Social Services, an additional £20 million is sought in vote 1. This includes £14.6 million for health and social services boards, mainly to cover increased pay costs and service development. An additional £7.1 million is required for the family practitioner service to meet extra expenditure arising from the new general practitioner contracts and increased drug costs. The new GP contracts, which were introduced from 1 April 1990, are raising standards of care by making services more responsive to the needs of the consumer and by placing greater emphasis on illness prevention. Information to date shows that GPs are supporting the initiative, especially in areas such as immunisation, vaccination and health promotion.

An additional £5 million is required in DHSS vote 3, including £2.4 million for health and personal social services. Of that sum, £1.7 million is for the independent living fund, reflecting increased demand. The aim of the fund is to give severely disabled people the help that they need to enable them to live independently in the community.

In vote 4, which covers social security, an additional £50 million is sought. This covers revised estimates of the numbers receiving a range of benefits, but chiefly a technical payment of over £40 million into the Northern Ireland national insurance fund, and expenditure on industrial injuries benefits, which is now a charge on the Consolidated Fund.

Rev. Ian Paisley : Can the Minister say anything about money that is available for new hospitals under the health estimates?

Dr. Mawhinney : The hon. Gentleman will understand that we are dealing essentially with supplementary

Column 728

estimates. The funding to which he refers will be covered by the main estimates, with which we are not dealing this evening. Finally, I draw attention to vote 3 of the Department of Finance and Personnel, where an additional £700,000 is sought for the community relations programme. Improving relations between the different parts of the Northern Ireland community remains one of the Government's highest priorities. We have developed a range of programmes over the past three years to promote cross-country contact and appreciation of cultural diversity. These include programmes by district councils to develop community relations work at local level and a cultural traditions programme that promotes appreciation of cultural diversity through the arts, the cultural institutions and the media, and through the Irish language.

Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann) : On that general point, and especially on the cultural traditions programme, does the Minister consider that it would be better for the programme to promote the traditions of both communities, unlike the conference organised next week, which will reflect the interests of one community only, judging by those who will participate in it?

Dr. Mawhinney : The hon. Gentleman will recall that when he advanced that argument to me recently I said that it was a fair one that would be reflected to those who have responsibility for organising the programmes of the conferences. That includes next week's conference and any others which may follow it. He will agree that there was a degree of cross-community contributions to the two earlier conferences.

Mr. Peter Robinson (Belfast, East) : Is the Minister prepared to say that unless on future occasions conferences clearly reflect both traditions, the Department will reconsider its funding of such projects?

Dr. Mawhinney : The hon. Gentleman knows that the cultural traditions programme falls under the responsibility of the Council for Community Relations. As I said, a fair argument has been advanced by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) which I shall reflect to those who have responsibility for organising the conference. Knowing them as I do, I suspect that the argument will be accepted as a helpful contribution and that they will take careful note of it.

Mr. Trimble : I thank the Minister for giving way to me for a second time. I take his point that the previous two conferences reflected both strands. They did so mainly because people from both communities were represented, partly through myself and my associates. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the restructuring of the cultural traditions group people representing our outlook were excluded from the committee charged with organising the conference ? Will he take steps to ensure that those who administer the fund will try to restore their committees to bodies that operate on a representative basis ?

Dr. Mawhinney : I am happy to pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman and his contribution in the earlier part of the development of the programme. I am happy to acknowledge that it was of real significance. As I said, he has advanced a fair argument. I shall reflect the concerns

Column 729

that have been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House to those who are responsible for organising the conferences. The Government's financial support for community relations work has been increased from about £500,000 in 1986-87 to £4 million in this financial year. That covers projects supported by the central community relations unit and the Department of Education. I expect that that expenditure in 1991-92 will be higher still. I am convinced that, over time, the programme will be seen to have contributed significantly to greater mutual understanding and to creating a climate where dialogue, rather than violence, is accepted as the means of resolving conflict. I am sure that that objective is supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

In these opening remarks I have sought to draw the attention of the House to the main provisions of the order. In replying to the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, will respond to the contributions made by hon. Members. I commend the order to the House.

7.19 pm

Mr. Jim Marshall (Leicester, South) : I thank the Minister of State for taking us so meticulously through the order. I shall not follow the customary practice on such occasions by going through the order in a similarly detailed way. However, I shall raise some specific items and then move on to the general problem of the economy of the Province. Before doing so, I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the Minister who is to wind up the debate and to the House as I have to leave at 9.45 pm. I have meetings in Leicester early tomorrow morning about a fire, which some people may have seen reported in the press over the weekend, so I shall be absent when the Minister winds up the debate.

My first specific point concerns Government expenditure priorities. A few weeks ago, the Secretary of State announced at the Central Community Relations Unit conference on equality of opportunity that a new main priority for public expenditure was to be designated, targeting social need. Although that is commendable, will the Minister press the Secretary of State to make a much clearer statement on that proposal and its implications in terms of resources and how it will interlink with other programmes and policies? Will the Government also make an early statement on their intentions regarding the privatisation of Northern Ireland Electricity? I am sure that the Government accept that the matter has been going on for far too long and is leading to great uncertainty. Will the Government make an early announcement as to whether they intend, as rumour suggests, to split electricity supply and generation in the Province? The Labour party's views are well known--that the privatisation of such a small energy producer is ridiculous in the circumstances. If the Government decide to split generation and supply, the result will be even more ridiculous. Will the Government make a statement on the resignation last week of the chairman of Northern Ireland Electricity? I presume that his resignation was not simply the result of personal pique. I am sure that the House

Column 730

would be delighted if the Minister would say whether the chairman resigned because he disagreed with the thrust of the Government's proposals on privatisation.

What are the Government's proposals on the possible gas pipeline between Britain and Ireland--

Mr. Trimble : Northern Ireland.

Mr. Marshall : I wish that the hon. Gentleman would learn to listen and hear the end of the sentence. My use of the word "Ireland" in this context is clear.

Will the Minister comment on the possible gas pipeline between Britain and the island of Ireland and the possibility of a spur from that pipeline going to the Province? I realise that my question contains two hypothetical points. On a third hypothetical point, if a decision were taken to have such a spur to the north, could the gas supply be used for commercial purposes and not just for electricity generation at Kilroot?

Mr. William Ross (Londonderry, East) : Surely the hon. Gentleman realises that, in seeking to have a gas pipeline to Northern Ireland, members of the Ulster Unionist party are concerned about the whole of the United Kingdom. If a pipeline came from south-west Scotland, it would benefit many more people who vote for the Labour party in that part of the United Kingdom. Furthermore, it would be much safer to send gas from Northern Ireland to the Republic. It would be less of a target for the IRA if it went from north to south rather than came from south to north.

Mr. Marshall : I do not wish to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. I would have far more sympathy with his views if he had been among those who condemned Northern Ireland Electricity for importing South African coal into the Province, thus denying employment to miners in the Scottish coalfields.

A further question concerns compulsory competitive tendering. We all realise that there are clear political differences on that issue and fears about it in Northern Ireland. What is the Government's latest position on compulsory competitive tendering in relation to the health and education boards and the district councils? The campaigns that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) have been fighting on behalf of local hospitals have the Labour party's support.

The Minister said that there is now clear evidence that the Northern Ireland economy is in recession. Economic activity has continued to decline with little or no prospect of improvement in 1991. The signs have been emerging over several months--they have not appeared suddenly--and I am especially worried by the fact that, although there have been signs of a downturn in economic activity, only in recent weeks have we seen evidence of it in unemployment figures. In the coming months, unemployment could increase substantially. Despite the Minister's sanguine response, the problem will be overcome only by clear changes in the direction of Government economic policy, not just in the Province but in the United Kingdom as a whole.

Mr. Ross : The hon. Gentleman has obviously not seen this evening's Belfast Telegraph, in which attention is drawn to the fact that the recession will probably not bite quite so deeply in Northern Ireland as in the rest of the United Kingdom, because the industries that were brought in and could move out again as soon as the recession hit

Column 731

them were lost 10 years ago, so it looks as though we shall suffer more lightly than the rest of the United Kingdom this time.

Mr. Marshall : If the hon. Gentleman listened more carefully to my comments instead of being obsessed with his own thoughts and his need to comment, he would appreciate that I said that there had been evidence for several months that economic activity in the Province was declining, and there is no evidence that that trend will be reversed in the next few months.

If the hon. Gentleman is correct--I accept his figures--and Northern Ireland will not be so adversely affected as the rest of the United Kingdom, that may be a source of comfort to some, but it will not comfort the thousands of people who will lose their jobs as a result of the economic downturn in the Province. Although the hon. Gentleman offers some consolation, in the medium to long term it does not offer any comfort to the people of Northern Ireland. As I said before his intervention, the long -term economic future of the Province can be assured only by dramatic changes in the direction of Government policy.

All hon. Members from the Province should be worried about the threat that the single market after 1992 is likely to pose to the Northern Ireland economy. "The Regional Economic Review" published in February 1991 by Cambridge Economic Consultants gives horrendous figures. It predicts a loss of up to 40,000 jobs in Northern Ireland in the first 10 years of the single market. The review states : "For the Northern Region, the North-West and Northern Ireland in the absence of any strengthening in regional policy, substantial falls in employment are projected."

As the House knows, the European Commission highlighted those manufacturing sectors in each member country that are likely to be vulnerable because of the single market. Unfortunately, some of them are major employers in the Province. They include clothing, carpets, glass, electrical machinery and aerospace products. The European Commission highlighted those sectors as being particularly vulnerable post-1922.

What has been the Government's response to the recession and what is their likely response to the difficulties that we may face in the Province post- 1992? Last year, we had a debate about reform of the Industrial Development Board, which will be one of the Government's main vehicles to encourage inward investment and further investment in the Province. I criticised that reform to some extent, and I repeat my criticism. I described the reform as "too little, too late" and as "timid and half-hearted" because of the Government's resistance to market intervention even when the market failed. I stand by that criticism. First, the proposals did not provide a comprehensive economic development strategy, which people in the Province-- with the exception of the Government--generally agreed was necessary. Secondly, I welcomed the need to concentrate on investment other than capital--investment in training--but I said that it should not be an either/or situation. We must try to achieve a mix of different types of investment. Thirdly, I said that real jobs should remain a permanent feature of the measure of success of any policy. That certainly does not happen with the Government's policy. I welcomed, and still welcome, parts of the training and employment strategy, but it needs strengthening in two ways. My first point applies not just to the Province but to the United Kingdom as a whole. There needs to be clearer

Column 732

recognition by companies of their responsibilities to provide training. Secondly, it is essential to seek the view of people other than just employers on improving the quality of training for young entrants in the labour market, on training for the unemployed and on retraining those already in employment. On that point, I differ from the Government. The Labour party believes that this strategy applies to trade unions, which should be automatically included, and to others with expertise--for example, the Fair Employment Commission, the Equal Opportunities Commission and for those who work with the unemployed.

Although the Government wish to keep within the guidelines laid down by the European Commission, in practice they fail to keep within the spirit of the provision of European Community structural funds. I repeat a charge which I made before from the Dispatch Box : the Government still refuse to apply genuine additionality in the operation of structural funds in the Province.

It is instructive to compare expenditure in the Irish Republic and that in Northern Ireland. It is expected that, between 1989 and 1993, the republic will receive 3,672 million ecu, with only 793 million ecu going to Northern Ireland. Committee B of the British-Irish inter-parliamentary body stated :

"The average allocation of structural funds across objective 1 areas is 521 ecu per head. Northern Ireland will receive slightly below this average while Ireland will receive 1038 ecu per head Per capita, citizens of Ireland receive about twice the amount received by citizens of Northern Ireland".

Rev. Ian Paisley : As I am sure the hon. Gentleman agrees, the percentage that given because Northern Ireland was an objective 1 area was increased by only about 8 per cent., just covering inflation, while the allocation was increased by more than 75 per cent. in the republic and by more than 100 per cent. in some parts of the objective 1 areas. We surely got a raw deal there. The Commissioner asked us why Northern Ireland Ministers did not submit proposals. That vital point must be ventilated in the House.

Mr. Marshall : I readily accept the hon. Gentleman's point, which reinforces my own.

The regional secretary of the Amalgamated Transport and General Workers Union in the Province, Mr. John Freeman, said :

"It is becoming increasingly difficult to attribute the Republic's success in attracting structural funds to its low GDP. The Inter-Parliamentary Committee report"--

to which I referred--

"indicates that Portugal and Greece will only receive 687 and 672 ecus per head respectively. Yet these are undoubtedly the poorest countries within the Community. In the case of Northern Ireland, perhaps there is scope for looking at the quality of the projects put forward. Certainly, in the Republic, there is a much greater scale of consultation over projects If Northern Ireland is to survive the intensely more competitive conditions post 1992, we require more than moral exhortations from Government to compete better, we need a complete re-examination of our relationship with Brussels and better bids for a bigger proportion of the structural funds".

The Opposition agree with those comments, but far more effort must be put into attracting increased levels of structural fund expenditure into the Province. What must be done to improve the long-term economic prospects in the Province?

Column 733

The Minister for Public Transport, who wound up the previous debate said that the Government were prepared to accept the need for a co-ordinated and comprehensive strategy. I remind the Government that such an economic strategy is also required if there is to be any long- term economic development in the Province. First, such a strategy must include a proper level of investment in high quality training and retraining and it must ensure that resources are targeted efficiently, and not just in terms of the industrial development board's dubious definition of competitiveness. We must ensure that real employment opportunities are created in all geographical areas of the Province.

Secondly, the strategy must ensure that the Province receives its proper share of the European Community's structural funds and that those funds are genuinely additional to existing levels of public expenditure. Thirdly, as part of a coherent and comprehensive strategy, there is a need to combine the functions of the IDB and the Local Enterprise Development Unit to provide a single, one-stop development agency.

Fourthly, as I said earlier, there is a clear need to impose a legal obligation on all employers to provide training. Unless there is such a co- ordinated, coherent policy, Northern Ireland will continue to lose out and could be further devastated by events after 1992.

Mr. James Molyneaux (Lagan Valley) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will have noted that the Minister took only 18 minutes to open the debate. I shall make my contribution by not speaking at all. I wonder if it would meet with your wishes if I were to suggest that all right hon. and hon. Members tried to limit their speeches to 16 minutes, so that everyone who wished to speak could be called.

Mr. Marshall : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the Opposition so wished, they would have had the right to wind up the debate. On this occasion--as on previous occasions--we do not intend to do so.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : The Chair will follow the conventions in these matters. I am equally grateful to the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux). He will recognise that the Chair has no authority on such occasions to limit speeches, but I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will heed the wise advice, for which I am sure that we are grateful.

7.42 pm

Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North) : I shall not make any promises about time, but I shall try to set a good example, as example is better than precept. It is all right for an hon. Member who is not going to speak to read us a homily on time, but we accept it in the spirit in which it was given. The debate can last until 11.30 pm, and I should think that we would want to take every moment of that precious time to debate the issues.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) for raising issues which are of great importance to Northern Ireland's economy. We have serious problems, and we must face up to them. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is now experiencing what we have

Column 734

been experiencing in Northern Ireland. In spite of all the eulogies paid to it, the Common Market will not solve our economic ills or bring us prosperity and employment.

I remember what the former leader of the Conservative party said when campaigning for us to join the Common Market. He said that we should have no more unemployment, that we should enter a vast market which was just waiting for the ability, talent and skills of the British people to take it over. We never had unemployment to the extent that we now have until we joined the Common Market. The report to which the hon. Member for Leicester, South referred makes solemn reading for us all. If we lose 40,000 more jobs in 1992 and in the following years, the situation will be grave. The Common Market struck a tremendous blow to Ulster's agriculture- based economy. Intensive farming was reduced by almost two thirds because we could not buy animal feed at a competitive price. Therefore, the intensive farming sector was hammered.

Shipbuilding and man-made fibres also come under the axe as a result of the Common Market's policy. There was a time when Northern Ireland produced 30 per cent. of all the man-made fibres in the United Kingdom, but that industry has practically gone. We received a body blow when we joined the Common Market, and we shall continue to receive such blows.

It will be noted that the three Northern Irish Members of the European Parliament have campaigned strongly for our fair share of the structural funds, but we did not get our fair share. We were diddled out of everything, because the 8 per cent. only covers inflation, which takes us back to where we started. It is no use saying that the Community recognises us as an objective 1 area when it is of no benefit to us.

I am glad that the hon. Member for Leicester, South highlighted what the Republic has been receiving. I have been highlighting that for years and shall continue to do so. The time has come when Northern Ireland should at least get back what it puts in. It does not get back what it puts in per head of its citizens. That is an important point. I do not know why the Departments are not eager to have the co-operation of their Members of the European Parliament. I have been in Europe for 10 years, but I and my two colleagues have only once been brought to Stormont and consulted on one matter. In those 10 years, the Departments have not been prepared to use the representatives from Northern Ireland. When we make our representations, we make them in a vacuum, because we have to find out what proposals are being suggested. I should have thought that the time had come when the Departments in Northern Ireland should make up their minds that they will get the money which is theirs by right.

I trust that there will be a Damascus road experience. We could call it a Brussels road experience, except that I do not like Brussels. The Minister needs to be converted. I welcome to the Dispatch Box his colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who represents agriculture. Northern Ireland's agricultural interests should never have been represented by a Member of the other place. Agriculture should be represented here, so that we can get at the Minister and the Minister can get at us ; we can then have a fair exchange.

I do not go along with the spokesman of the Ulster Farmers Union, who said that it was all right for a

Column 735

Member of the House of Lords to be responsible for agriculture. With all due respect to the upper House, I believe that the man who speaks for Northern Ireland's agricultural interests should be in this House, so that elected representatives can deal with these issues.

I am not raising matters tonight in order of priority ; some of the most important matters will come later. I will take matters as they appear in the order. Agriculture is in a state of suspense, as I am sure the Minister recognises. We do not know what will happen. We had a visit from the Commissioner, but I do not know whether anybody was much wiser after he left Northern Ireland. One point that I do know--I will repeat what I have said before in the House--is that politics is being played with agriculture in Europe. When politics comes into it, we cannot expect a fair deal for the farming community--certainly not for the Ulster farming community.

We all hear about small farms. Small farmers in Northern Ireland said, "We are going to be all right." Small farms in Europe are not 50 acres, 60 acres or 70 acres. They are pocket farms, some of only five acres, which grow a few rubbishy tobacco weeds. They will be highly subsidised as a result of future changes. The money will go to them and not to people who make their sole living out of farming. We have a serious problem in Northern Ireland, because people are being forced to leave the land. When a nation's toilers on the soil are forced to leave, it is a bad omen. We must do something.

The Under-Secretary of State has come new to Northern Ireland, so he may not be conditioned by the general talk of the Northern Ireland Office, which, as we know, has a bad influence on Ministers. He has a fresh mind, and he will work with good staff in the Department of Agriculture. I had the privilege of being chairman of the agriculture committee, so I know the staff there.

I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will be a fighter for Northern Irish farming in Europe. We need a fighter. The Labour Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Mr. Silkin, was a fighter for the farmers. They called him the thug of Europe. The Minister needs to be a thug to deal with some of the thugs in farming with whom we have to deal in Europe. I will add nothing to my comments, because I am keeping my eye on the clock. I know that the Minister belongs to a denomination to which I do not belong, and that it believes in short sermons. My congregation believes in a proper sermon. A sermonette makes Christianettes, but a sermon makes good Christians. I am not in the business of making Christianettes. We expect the Minister to tell us something about progress on the difficult problem of fallen stock. It is not a problem that is isolated in Northern Ireland because it extends across the United Kingdom. I am sure that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), who is the sole Conservative Back Bencher here tonight, will also be interested in that problem.

I am sure that the Minister knows that we are approaching the time when the problem will reach its apex, so we need to hear something from the Minister. I am sure that my colleagues, on the Government Benches and on the Opposition Benches, are aware of the problem. I believe that I can speak even for those colleagues on the Opposition Benches who do not fly the same flag that I fly on 12 July. I trust that we shall have a positive response

Next Section

Home Page