| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 762
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) referred to those with disabilities, and to the difficulty that they face if they want improvements to their homes. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We all come up against that problem. Part of it relates to an insufficient number of occupational therapists to make the assessments. I have written to the Minister about the issue.Mr. William Ross : Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that, even if we had enough occupational therapists, we do not have sufficient money to carry out the work that needs to be done after assessments have been made?
Mr. Mallon : That is a valid point, but money will certainly not be spent without an occupational therapist's report. Most areas want the number of occupational therapists to be increased, in the interests of the disabled.
I appreciate how valuable the small rural school is, having been taught in one, and having worked in another. The rural schools acts as a cohesive element in village communities. In rural areas, as Northern Ireland is, schools are small units. Both board and departmental decisions should bear that in mind. The Southern education and library board has decided to withdraw all school transport from children not of compulsory school age, who therefore have to leave school at about 2 pm.
One can imagine the effect of that on many schools struggling to retain their numbers and to remain open. Schools which have amalgamated have been hit the hardest. There have been closures due to insufficient numbers of teachers being available to supervise children ; they also have to fulfil the new curriculum requirements. School transport is expensive, but it plays a vital part in keeping schools open.
A matter which concerns the Minister's Department recently came to my notice. I wrote to the Minister, but unfortunately the matter was referred to a departmental head, so I take this opportunity to draw it to the hon. Gentleman's attention. Severe disablement allowance will not be paid to 23 disabled people who attend school in the Republic because of the requirement that they must be resident in the north of Ireland for 10 consecutive days. Those young people, who suffer from profound deafness, attend St. Joseph's school for the the deaf in Cabra. When they become 16, they will not be able to avail themselves of that allowance ; yet the area boards are paying for their education in the Republic. It is handier for them to travel there because of the direct train service. Such a circumstance was not foreseen when the legislation was passed, but it seems cruel that, because those terribly disabled people are furthering their education outside the jurisdiction, they are denied severe disablement allowance. I ask the Minister to consider that. I am concerned that community care grants are not being paid to some people for travelling to hospital. They have been told that they will not be paid retrospectively. When the small children of some of my constituents fell ill, their parents, who lived a considerable distance from the Crown buildings, were not able to avail themselves of those grants, because the office refused to pay them retrospectively. In some circumstances, it is surely impossible for parents to complete a form and all the formalities before visiting their child. That is a further anomaly that I ask the Minister to consider carefully.
Column 763
10.16 pmMr. A. Cecil Walker (Belfast, North) : I should like to take up some aspects of planning as they affect Northern Ireland. Planners, who are not elected, have enormous powers to alter a community, without being responsible to anyone in that community or to the wishes of the community in general. They operate under regulations that are so restricted that moral, spiritual and social matters cannot readily be taken into consideration.
The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) said that local councillors play only an advisory role and in practice have a limited influence on decisions, and that, whereas the applicant has power to appeal against a planner's decision, no such right is available to objectors.
Planning permission was given to infill a quarry situated on the main trunk road to Belfast airport. Despite many objections, the application was granted. As a result, overloaded lorries, transporting hundreds of tonnes of clay, have deposited a deadly and dangerous film of slime on that main thoroughfare, I have received an avalanche of correspondence from constituents and others who use the road, complaining bitterly of the road surface and the state of their vehicles. Many people, including senior citizens, use the road to gain access to the countryside, but as it is impossible to walk on the footpaths because of the mud, they are forced to use the road, thereby increasing the risk to their lives and to motorists who may have to brake in treacherous conditions to avoid them.
In addition, ratepayers must pay the Department of the Environment regularly to employ cleaning services. Despite all that expense, it is impossible to keep the road in an acceptable condition. I voice the concern of the residents of Balmoral avenue, who are incensed about a decision to designate that formerly highly desirable residential avenue as a main trunk route. Surely some other means should have been found for diverting traffic across this section of the city. Residents who must pay the exceptionally high rates levied on this prime area should not have to contend with this imposition on their right to live in some peace and tranquillity.
Another worrying factor in present planning procedures concerns off- licences and liquor stores. These businesses can be set up without planning permission. That is causing great consternation among those concerned with the problems relating to the consumption of alcohol. Many of these establishments have been opened adjacent to church premises and other community projects. The conflicts of interest can easily be imagined, particularly when intoxicated lager louts who have been drinking in the proximity of their source of alcohol come into contact with more socially motivated people who have been attending church and community activities.
Of equal concern in this undemocratic planning process is the problem created by the leasing of church buildings. Decisions are taken without reference to local opinion. Although in general the feeling is that listing buildings is a sound principle, in inner-city areas buildings of little architectural merit sometimes cannot be altered without infringing regulations. In one case, there is a need to dispose of a building no longer needed by the Church, but because of listing it is unsaleable, and unless it is sold, it will be destroyed by vandals.
Column 764
In yet another area of the inner city, a Church building has been virtually walled in on one side by a prestige development. Such dilemmas posed by regulations over which no one appears to have any control are seriously inhibiting the mission of inner-city churches. The Minister should look seriously at that and take the matter up with the various church organisations with a view to redressing this seemingly bureaucratic procedure.Page 5, vote 1, deals with education. I am deeply worried about the introduction of formal tests for eight-year-olds, despite recommendations from the Northern Ireland School Examinations and Assessment Council. The attainment testing of eight-year-olds could have serious psychological consequences on them. It is beyond comprehension that children at the tender age of eight could be forcibly reminded of the fact that they are below average. The reforms which the Minister seems intent on imposing on the educational establishment will have an adverse effect on our teachers. As the chairman of the Irish National Teachers Organisation stated at a recent conference :
"It seems to have been a case of an English solution to an English problem which mysteriously got posted to Northern Ireland." The view of most, if not all, of the teaching organisations is that whatever the need for such a system on the mainland, there is no case or demand for it in Northern Ireland.
In relation to page 5, vote 3, I express concern about the privatisation of domestic services in north and west Belfast. I am referring in particular to the tender by Grosvenor Cleaning Services. There are major doubts over the technical credibility of the company. It appears that no indication has been given of how the Grosvenor bid relates to comparator figures. There is concern that office cleaning comparators may have been used on what is essentially a social or health care contract.
There is also concern about the health and safety standards in the contract, as there is a potential legal liability to the Eastern health and social services board if this inadequate proposal leads to injury to board employees, contractors' employees or the general public. There are sufficient grounds to justify the rejection of the Grosvenor bid on the grounds of technical credibility.
In the Official Report of Standing Committee A for 19 November 1987 we read as follows :
"Of course it is true that on numerous occasions I have said that authorities are not obliged to accept the lowest tender. If there are reasons to do with a particular contract such as the quality of the specification or the services that are directly related to the subject matter of that contract, authorities are entitled to take these matters into account and not for that type of reason accept that tender."
I should like to take up again the problems of glass-fronted room heaters. The elderly cannot cope with these appliances, and there have been problems associated with fumes which are causing serious asthmatic problems. There are now alternative forms of heating which are more appropriate for the elderly--economy 7, for instance. Will the Housing Executive consider that alternative for people for whom solid fuel systems have run their course and replacements have become necessary?
I should llike to mention elderly people who were originally transferred from inner-city areas to the highly elevated suburbs of Belfast, particularly north Belfast, because of redevelopment in their inner-city areas. After 30 years, they have grown elderly and cannot cope with the
Column 765
conditions in those areas. I contend that, in such circumstances, they should be moved back whence they came to take advantage of the more centralised shopping facilities and flat living conditions. The elevated sites should be allocated to young families and more able-bodied people, who can more easily cope with that mode of living.10.26 pm
Mr. William Ross (Londonderry, East) : In reply to an intervention by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), the Minister said that there was nothing in these estimates for hospital building which, he said, was covered in the main estimates. I was surprised to hear that, because I notice that the order supplies supplementary cash and provides money for next year, to the tune of £426.5 million, for the Department of Health and Social Services. I should be astonished if there was nothing in that sum for hospital building--I am sure that there is.
That brings me immediately to the new hospital in Coleraine. With a little gentle urging from me, the Minister was kind enough to drop in and see a deputation about that hospital. I think that he found the people in it a most efficient and able group who presented their case admirably. The Minister knows perfectly well that the need for that hospital has long been acknowledged ; it was one of the framework hospitals for acute services in Northern Ireland. The debate as to whether it should be green field or rebuild has been finally laid to rest by the option of appraisal. In any case, the hospital is needed.
We are told that at one stage there was cash for part of the rebuild, but we know what Government cash is like--"Now you see it, now you don't." If the money was not spent on rebuild, it must have been spent on something else, so relief expenditure for other items should be available in some form. I hope that the Minister will listen to good advice, elect to rebuild, and let us get on with it. There is no need for delay. I offer him the following good advice from a letter written by an excellent source 117 years ago : "Don't throw good money after bad, build new ; if you build, build wisely ; of course you have a new building to suit its purpose, at moderate outlay. If you add and repair an old building not even originally constructed to suit their purpose, and certain to be deficient in the most essential requisites of health and comfort--you have at the end of all your additions and re-constructions a bad building, at immoderate outlay".
The Minister will be delighted to know that that letter was written by one Florence Nightingale, who certainly knew what things were about. It was written on 29 January 1874 to the honorary secretary of the Belfast nurses home, but I could not have put the case better in relation to Coleraine hospital. I hope that the Minister will follow the good advice of the matron of modern nursing practice.
Reference has also been made to hazardous waste. The Minister will be aware of the furore in my part of the world about the Du Pont proposal to build a toxic waste incinerator, or more accurately a hazardous waste incinerator. Some documents state that the Du Pont site produces 700 tonnes of toxic and hazardous waste per year, while others put it at 75,000 tonnes. The incinerator is an attractive proposal for the company because it means that it would not have to transport any of its waste off site while all its competitors in the island of Ireland would have to transport their waste to that site, thus adding to their
Column 766
costs. The incinerator is a good commercial enterprise for Du Pont, which would have a monopoly of the disposal of such waste--there is nothing similar in the rest of Ireland. Under European Community regulations it would also be mighty difficult to get that waste out of the island to burn it anywhere else.Although there might be other ways in which to deal with toxic and hazardous waste, the normal practice is to burn it at specific temperatures. If we are to have such an incinerator anywhere in Ireland, the worse possible place is the upwind side of the island. The prevailing winds are generally west, south-west or south. They rarely blow from the north or the east. Given the problems and attendant hazards which arose from the incorrect burning of waste in the Irish Republic, if we are to have such an incinerator anywhere on the island it should be erected on the east coast so that any toxic fumes produced would at least be blown out to sea.
I do not want the Minister to forget about the alarm generated a few years ago, when it was thought that a toxic cloud had been produced at the Du Pont works and was floating towards Londonderry. We were all thankful to discover that that report stretched the truth, but mistakes can happen and their consequences should be limited. To achieve that, it would be best to locate any incinerator where any possible fumes would be blown out to sea rather than across land. I believe that LEDU, the Local Enterprise Development Unit, and the IDB, the Industrial Development Board, are supposed to bring manufacturing industry to Northern Ireland. LEDU primarily deals with the native-born people and I am concerned about its activities. I repeat the concern that I expressed last year. I have been less than satisfied with the help that LEDU has given in a number of cases. An applicant for a grant for the production of high-quality concrete props was turned down for the second time after being encouraged by LEDU to apply and incurring considerable costs in producing a plan. A saw mill was also refused a grant, on the grounds of a shortage of timber, although that small-scale operation had sufficient timber to carry on. I also recall a long delay before a fellow finally got a grant for tools to write inscriptions for tombstones. Although he made his living in that way, it was years before the grant was paid. That seems a bit daft to me.
The problem may have been that people were already doing those things, and one might inquire whether it is wise to encourage applicants in such trades. However, LEDU fulfils a useful function in some sectors. It can give help and support at the lowest level where someone comes up with another way of doing something simple. It can also provide help and support in the final stages when a firm produces a plan, all neatly typed, with everything covered. LEDU then often pays the grant because all the preliminary work has been done. Unfortunately, there is a great hole between those two ends of the spectrum. It occurs when an individual is doing something that is new. I will cite two cases. One is that of a sock manufacturer, who found that the machines which were supposed to be simple to operate were not all that simple, but when he went back to LEDU for a bit more help, which would have saved the firm, it was not given and the firm went down the bunghole.
The second case was more serious, and I have mentioned it in the House before. A constituent of mine came up with a method of jointing metal tubing--a
Column 767
process with wide applications, especially in plumbing where lead in water is a problem. The concept is new, it works, and I believe that his products will come on to the market fairly soon. The case has caused me some heartache and pain as the impression given to the inventor by the LEDU leaflet was not fulfilled in practice, leading to a long and bitter exchange between him and that body.LEDU was not willing to grant further funding, because it was not prepared to let the inventor stay in control of the project. He was not prepared to accept that, and he was never satisfied that LEDU was directing him to the people who could give him the help that he needed with some of the difficult technical aspects of the project. He believes that, on one occasion, LEDU undermined his bargaining strength, and that it never set out a clear plan for how best to carry the project to fruition.
I could take up the rest of the time allotted to this debate with the detail of that case, but I will not. Nevertheless, I hope that the Minister will look again not only at that case but at certain implications of it. I may well return to the matter in more detail another time. It is necessary to find a solution acceptable to all, because this is something that will be useful and could pay rich dividends.
Beyond that case, we must find a more satisfactory way to deal with the individual who comes up with a
Column 768
completely new invention or industrial application. We need to find a better way to fund research and development, right through from inception to arrival at the marketplace. That is especially true of patent costs, which are high. Often the backyard worker does not have that sort of cash. The Government should look carefully at setting up a fund to try to carry these projects through because they often involve people with little experience of the commercial world. We should finance our native inventors. That is a far better way to spend money than throwing millions at de Lorean and the like. Millions were invested in textiles in the 1960s, but that industry melted away when the going got rough. Millions were spent trying to build aircraft at Aldergrove. If £1 million per year were spent on encouraging our native inventors, and if the Government were prepared to lose many of the projects, because many will go under, that would be a better way to go about things. Some of the projects will succeed, and those which succeed will pay rich dividends.I suggest that the Minister talks to some of those who have been frustrated by the activities of LEDU. He will then understand the anger that they feel and perhaps reach a clearer understanding of what I am saying and try to make that organisation better.
Column 769
Appropriation (Northern Ireland)10.44 pm
Mr. Peter Robinson (Belfast, East) : You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the others who have occupied the Chair this evening have been fortunate indeed. For almost four hours, Northern Ireland Members--people from both traditions in the Province--have spoken without any division or argument among themselves.
The only note of controversy injected into the debate came from an Englishman. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen)-- misery-guts that he is--took the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to task for having the audacity to attempt to resolve problems in the Province. The hon. Gentleman told us that the initiative had failed-- indeed, that it had been pronounced dead from the very beginning. He came to the House, complete with his funeral garb, to deliver an oration at the funeral of what he called the Brooke initiative.
The members of my party certainly do not want that initiative to fail. We recognise the very real need for progress towards the creation of structures in Northern Ireland. It was this House and the party of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West which took the Stormont Parliament from us. It is their fault that we do not have a local body with legislative powers. If some of them had been able to look into the future, they might not have been so quick to put their hands to the destruction of Stormont.
However, the hon. Gentleman was right about at least one thing. He recognises that the way in which Northern Ireland business is dealt with in the House is far from satisfactory. It should not be necessary to bring day -to-day, bread-and-butter issues here. However, I make no apology for raising in this debate issues that some hon. Members may consider trivial.
I want to start on a note of thanks to the Government. The last time I took part in an appropriation debate I raised a matter of concern to not only myself but the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder). I permitted the hon. Gentleman to intervene when, during my speech, I referred to Merton park, for which he and I, as Members of Parliament, share responsibility. Unfortunately, he did not return the favour this evening. He and I recognised the inadequacy of the way in which Merton park was being dealt with. The Minister undertook to look into the matter, and I was given the opportunity to speak to a number of officials. I am glad to say that it has been decided that there should be a fully integrated scheme, which will greatly enhance the lives of the people of Merton park. I trust that the Minister and his officials will ensure that good ideas will be translated into action and that the necessary finance will be available.
I realise that, because of the time restriction, I shall be able only to put down some markers. I hope that the Minister of State will draw to the attention of his ministerial colleague who is responsible for the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment the crisis in relation to grants for the repair and improvement of houses. The system is now so bogged down that only people with financial difficulties get any money out of the scheme, and they have to wait a considerable time for grants to come through. The Minister is guilty of very false logic and very false economy. The rate of unfitness of
Column 770
property will increase considerably before very long. The housing stock is not being repaired and improved sufficiently. It is a major problem, and I urge that funds are freed for such an important purpose.There has already been reference to planning issues. The hon. Member for North Down rightly talked about the difficulties that objectors have if a planning department recommends approval of the application. There is no automatic appeal for objectors. The hon. Gentleman will recognise--he was the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly--that the environment committee was able to wring out of the then Minister a concession that if two thirds of the members of a district council expressed serious concerns, there could be an article 22 inquiry. The hon. Gentleman and I recognised that the concession did not go far enough. That is a process that operates as a result of the grace and favour of the Department, but perhaps it has established itself to some degree in custom and practice. Many of us would like it to be established in planning law. A planning order is coming before the House, and I hope that the Minister will incorporate such a provision within it.
I think that the Minister should go even further because the two thirds restriction is unnecessary. A majority in a district council would be satisfactory. Planning is one area in which there has been great contention between the political parties within district councils. In some instances that is right, but the Minister should not be concerned if the district council is merely referring the matter to an appeal tribunal.
There are serious difficulties with enforcement because the Department is so slow to act. The most outrageous scheme can be pursued for a long time without the necessary action being taken, and this is causing great annoyance. Steps must be taken to accelerate the enforcement procedures. I recognise that there are legal difficulties, but the Department must be capable of finding means of ensuring that enforcement procedures operate much more speedily. During most appropriation order debates over the past three or four years I have referred to ex-post-facto applications. In most instances they are made by those who decide to build now and apply later. The applications are increasing in number and because of the slowness of enforcement procedures there is no official response for a long time. I have suggested that the Minister incorporates a penalty clause in the new planning order that is to come before the House which requires someone who builds without planning permission to pay 10 times the penalty that is normally imposed in Northern Ireland. The Minister has not, unfortunately, taken up the suggestion. In a recent schedule that came before a district council in the area which I represent, 25 per cent. of the applications were ex post facto. That shows how planning laws are being flouted. As for roads, I thank the Government for the progress that has been made with the construction of the dual carriageway between Supermac and the Upper Newtownards road. I am glad that it was decided at the Belfast urban area plan hearings that the Castlereagh roundabout should have not a flyover but an upgraded traffic light system. That system has been put into operation and it seems to be working successfully, as are the traffic lights at the Castledona junction. Those schemes were urged on the Government by the local council and
Column 771
they were reluctant to implement them. The schemes were implemented, however, and they have proved to be successful.I ask the Minister to consider the serious traffic problem at Ryan park, just up from the Castlereagh roundabout. I suspect that, before too long, I shall have to inform the House of a fatality there. The traffic moves quickly and young children have to cross the road to get to buses. There have been several near-misses. The Department has been pressed consistently on that matter, but, as yet, has taken no satisfactory steps to avoid the problem. I urge the Minister to consider this matter before a fatality occurs.
I turn to the education vote and transport to schools. In my constituency, there was a primary school at Clarawood. It was very much the centre of the area. All the life on the estate revolved round the school. It was used in the evenings for community purposes. All the young people in the area went to the school. The Government, as part of their rationalisation programme, decided to scrap it. They said that they could not allow a school with such low attendance to continue.
The children were forced to go to Orangefield primary school, some two miles away by road ; but it was not two miles away if one had to cross a muddy field. The Belfast education and library board has decided that, whether the rain comes down in torrents or whether there is snow on the ground, the young children have to go across the field because it will not provide them with the transport to go by road.
Mothers with young children of four or more are forced to wade across the field in the worst of weather. They must even cross a river which has a plank across it. The Belfast education and library board believes that that is a fit route by which parents can take their children. That is unsatisfactory. This step was taken only to provide financial savings. As the board took the local school from the area, it has a responsibility to provide children with the kind of minibus used by many other schools in the area which probably have less need. I urge the Minister to use his influence with the board to deal with this matter.
The Government's record on allocating funds to district councils for sport and leisure services is abysmal. They have cut so much that district councils looking for the normal grant aid for leisure provision now get nothing. The councils' capital programmes have come to a halt, unless they are prepared to put all the burden on the local rates.
The cuts in community services are beginning. Local communities suffer because the Government want their finances to look better, and do not mind local government finances looking worse. The Government are quite happy about the rates going up and the blame falling on local councillors. They do not want to take the blame, although the responsibility has been theirs for a long time. I urge them to put funds into the education budget so that the programme of capital expenditure on leisure centres and other educational provisions and important community work can recommence in the Province.
Column 772
11.53 pmMr. David Trimble (Upper Bann) : I appreciate that time is now rather limited, so I will keep to the period suggested. For that reason, I will have to be brief in some of my comments.
From the debate a few weeks ago on the draft Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order 1990, the Minister will remember that I made some comments about Spelga hospital in Banbridge. He will appreciate the considerable concern in the local community about the threatened closure of that hospital before proper refurbishment of the main Banbridge hospital is carried out. I hope that there will be a speedy resolution of the uncertainty, and that the matter will be resolved appropriately. The concern about Banbridge hospital is heightened by the fact that there is no casualty unit there at present, because of a lack of senior staff. I hope that something can be done about that.
I want to mention some Department of the Environment matters concerning planning. I am sure that the Minister knows that Craigavon district is unique in Northern Ireland, as the only area for which there is no statutory development plan. Well over 20 years ago, there was a non- statutory plan, but it has long since been superseded by the failure of the Craigavon new city concept. Planning in the area is carried out on an unsatisfactory basis.
I realise that there has been a recent study on the Craigavon central area and that there is talk about having studies on the Portadown and Lurgan town centres, but is that the right way to proceed? Should we not be thinking in terms of producing a proper development plan for the whole of Craigavon, rather than building up a patchwork for the central area, for Portadown and for Lurgan? Two specific matters are causing concern in the area. Under the central area plan, it has been proposed that there be a link between the M1 and the centre. As the Minister may be aware, that link would run over land that was originally vested in the mid-1960s for the new city. A number of years later, when that project was not carried through successfully, the land was surplus, and it was disposed of to the original owners. They were encouraged to invest considerable sums in bringing the area back under control and to put other investments into the area. They are now threatened with that area being re-vested. I want that matter to be looked at carefully. The concept of a link is good, but we want it to be routed so that it does not involve the re-vesting of surplus land, which has been disposed of. I raised the matter of the blight in the centre of Lurgan in the appropriation debate last May. I understand that that stems from a throughpass proposal which was part of the original new city proposals. The throughpass was planned to go from Arthur street to Malcolm road. As a result, part of the centre of Lurgan has been blighted for over a decade. Some work has been done by housing associations to try to recover the area.
Is the throughpass proposal really necessary? Like most of our Ulster towns, Lurgan has a broad central street running through it. There are occasional traffic problems, but they are no greater than in any other substantial town in rush hour. I should like people to study closely whether the throughpass proposal is necessary. If the proposal were
Column 773
finally to be dropped--it has effectively been dropped for 20 years, because nothing has been done to implement it-- the blight would be removed. A considerable area in the centre of the town could be redeveloped, which would be for the town's benefit.I want to raise a matter that may seem small, but which is important to the people concerned. During the very cold winter weather, I became conscious of the plight of people affected by Housing Executive renovation schemes. They had been rehoused temporarily in caravans during the cold weather. There was obvious inconvenience, and additional costs were incurred.
I discover that there is provision under legislation for the executive to make payments to compensate people who have been displaced temporarily. The payments are made on a standard basis without any regard to the costs incurred, yet the Department has the power to make regulations and I understand that that power has not been exercised. Can that be looked at? Can the regulations make provision for the special additional costs incurred everywhere during the recent very cold spell?
I had hoped to deal with two substantial points at some length. One relates to a matter that is the responsibility of the Department of Economic Development and of the Industrial Development Board. Last week, I dropped a note to the relevant Minister telling him that I propose to raise the matter in this debate. I am sure that it is not a lack of interest in the subject that has caused him not to be here this evening. The difficulty was caused by an imaginative proposal which was started a number of years ago by the Northern Ireland Aeronautics Technical Training Aviation company-- which is a mouthful, so I shall hereinafter call it NIATTA.
The proposal emerged in the late 1980s. It is a good proposal and tends to build upon skills that exist within Northern Ireland, both in terms of aeronautics and engineering. The proposal identifies a need for aeronautical training for engineering and servicing aircraft. Essentially, the proposal comprises two phases. The first is to train engineers, who may be used to service aircraft in Northern Ireland or elsewhere, which is important skills training, would build upon existing skills in Northern Ireland and would equip people for useful employment there or elsewhere.
The second stage of the development would comprise the establishment of a substantial servicing operation locally, which would be viable if the necessary investment were made and could provide up to 1,000 highly skilled jobs.
Since its inception, the progress of the proposal has been a sorry tale. Way back in June 1988, there was a meeting, as a result of which the secretary to the then Minister responsible for the Department of Economic Development replied to NIATTA saying : "if you are willing to set up a commercial aircraft servicing and training company as a prerequisite to the actual aircraft servicing phase of the business the Department would consider grant aiding the training of employees".
In August 1988, it was stated that the grant aid would be on the same training basis as on the mainland. However, in November that year, the proposal from the Department of Economic Development--as it was then--was to reduce the grant to less than 40 per cent. of the equivalent on the mainland. Despite that, a detailed
Column 774
business plan was submitted to the Industrial Development Board. Unfortunately, it has not responded effectively to the proposal. In March 1990, it requested additional information, which was provided on two subsequent occasions--in June and October 1990--giving detailed cash flow projections for the first phase of the development, not merely for one but for three years.Unfortunately, there has not been a positive response from the IDB, which keeps saying that it needs to have a detailed business plan for the second phase. In the nature of the business, that is unrealistic. The first phase concerns training of engineers who are working on servicing, but the second phase of establishing a servicing operation in Northern Ireland would require detailed knowledge of what hangars and runway facilities were available, what level of training would be achieved, what qualifications would be achieved and what relationships there would be with particular companies. That is an unrealistic request.
However, sufficient information is available to enable a decision to be taken on the first phase. Regrettably, the IDB is not responding to that proposal, which would be extremely valuable. It is an imaginative proposal, but it seems that the IDB is too earthbound in its attitude to the matter to be able to respond to it. I am sorry that the Minister is not available to reply to my remarks, but I hope that these comments will be carried to him, so that he can come back to me.
The other matter of substance, which I touched upon in an intervention on the Minister at the beginning of the debate, concerns the way in which the cultural traditions programme has been developed. I must explain the arguments that I mentioned indirectly then.
As part of the cultural traditions programme, there have been a series of conferences--the third will take place later this month. There are a total of nine major participants in terms of speakers and chairmen of working groups. When one examines the nine, one finds that, using the criteria spelled out in the current employment legislation to determine the ethnic origins of persons involved, five seem to be of Irish origin--using the term in its widest sense. Four of them can be identified, using the criteria in the legislation, as nationalist or belonging to the nationalist community. The fifth is perhaps not, but he is a civil servant, and I expect that his politics will not enter into the matter.
Consequently, we find that four of the five Irish participants at the conference on cultural traditions can be attributed to one community group, and that there is no one who can be regarded as representing the Ulster British tradition, at a conference which is supposed to deal with the traditions of both communities. I told the Minister that this was inadequate, and he acknowledged that that was a fair argument. The cultural traditions group may make the defence that it had invited a person to represent the Ulster-British viewpoint because an officer of my party, one of the honorary secretaries, was invited. That is no excuse.
Mr. Mallon : He was in Dublin.
Mr. Trimble : The conference has not yet taken place. The group knew that he could not attend because the Saturday of the conference coincides with the annual general meeting of the Ulster Unionist Council. All officers of the council are elected annually, so that officer could not possibly have attended. It is not as if the cultural traditions
Column 775
group did not know that, because I had exactly the same problem last year when I could not attend the conference because of the annual general meeting. The group knew that, so I am not prepared to accept its excuse.Mr. Beggs : Who is the chairman?
Mr. Trimble : I shall come to that.
The background to this matter is that the cultural traditions group was formed a couple of years ago and the then chairman, hon. Members will be amused to hear, was a man whom I regarded with considerable suspicion ; I told him so, so I am not saying anything behind his back. I doubted his attitude to the matter, but at least he recognised the need to include representatives of both communities. Consequently, he approached me in my capacity as chairman of the Ulster Society, because, outside the loyal orders and political parties, that society is the only body in Northern Ireland which is committed to promoting the Ulster-British culture and heritage. He invited me to join the conference committee, which I did, and we made a contribution to that first conference. Because of my involvement in a by-election last year, I was not able to undertake the same role in the second conference. The commitment from our society came from its secretary, Gordon Lucy. As a result, there was an input to the second conference.
For the third conference, my colleague was ignored. Gordon received no notification of any meetings of the conference committee. There was complete silence, and then we find the present conference arranged with an unbalanced membership. That is particularly annoying, because the theme of the conference is European issues, and the deputy chairman of my society is uniquely fitted to deal with that subject, because he is a recognised authority on the ethnic and cultural disputes in Europe. As my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) has said, there has been a change in the chairmanship ; I am afraid that the present chairman, Dr. Maurice Hayes, does not seem to display the same sensitivity as his predecessor. I hope that that will be examined.
Finally, I should like to deal with a couple of brief matters. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South- West (Mr. Budgen) spoke about the way in which Northern Ireland matters are handled in the House as a constitutional slum. A happening this evening reminds me that there is some truth in that. In conducting its affairs, the Northern Ireland Office tends to arrange for things to happen across the water in Belfast, and does not always arrange for people over here to know.
Earlier this evening, I received a telephone call from the BBC in Belfast asking whether I could comment on a draft Order in Council which, apparently, was published today in Belfast. Other hon. Members may have received a similar request. Of course, it is not available in London, and one cannot comment on it. Hon. Members who attend to their duties in the House find themselves at a disadvantage about what is happening on the ground in Northern Ireland, and that is unsatisfactory.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West went on to criticise the provision in the appropriation order relating to the Northern Ireland Assembly. I am afraid that I do not share his criticism. I am glad to see that there is some expenditure to keep some aspects of the Assembly going because there is a need for a regional administration or government, call it what we will.
Column 776
Hon. Members spoke about the problems that we face vis-a-vis Europe and the concepts of additionality. Dealing with regional and structural funds in the absence of a regional administration makes things worse. The European Commission and its civil servants go to other major European countries to discuss the operation of regional policy. When they go to Bavaria and want to know how regional policy should apply to that area, they can speak to the Government of the Bavarian Land, who will give a view. Unfortunately, when the Commission comes to talk to people in the United Kingdom and goes to Scotland and speaks to the Scottish Office, it does not get a Scottish answer : it gets a Treasury answer. If it speaks to the Northern Ireland Office, it does not get a Northern Ireland answer but a Treasury answer. The problem of additionality rests primarily with the Treasury.We in Northern Ireland in particular feel the absence of a regional administration, but that problem is not confined to us, and it should also be tackled. I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if my final comments have strayed from the subject of the order, but I will now conclude my remarks.
11.9 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Northern Ireland (Mr. Jeremy Hanley) : This has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate--perhaps more wide-ranging from one direction than the order warranted. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) follows one of his predecessors as a Member of Parliament for Wolverhampton in having a special place in Northern Ireland's history.
The debate was conducted with great courtesy, with all the speakers from the Province exhibiting great oratorical skill. They served their constituents with distinction, and spoke with care and in great detail. I shall try to cover as many points as possible in the time available to me.
The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall), who kindly gave notice that he could not be present for the end of the debate, expressed concern about the Province's economic situation and its possible impact on employment levels. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State said in his excellent opening remarks, the upturn in unemployment in recent months is extremely disappointing, but it must be seen in the context of the sustained period of employment growth that Northern Ireland enjoyed over the past four and a half years, when unemployment fell by almost 28,000.
The recent upward movement in Northern Ireland's unemployment level is less marked, proportionately, than in Great Britain, and we hope that it will be short-lived. It would be silly of anyone, including me, to make any predictions, but much of the employment downturn has been in sectors such as distribution, hotels and catering, which are particularly sensitive to changes in demand--and I suspect that they will recover quickly when demand picks up.
The hon. Member for Leicester, South drew attention to the Cambridge university report. I regret that its predictions were at the pessimistic end of the forecasting spectrum, but the Government recognise that the completion of the single market entails both challenges and opportunities. It is for individual firms to respond to them, and the Government's strategy is aimed at
Column 777
encouraging local companies to improve their competitiveness and to take full advantage of the opportunities on offer.The time ahead will not be easy, but Northern Ireland companies are well suited to meet those challenges and to exploit those opportunities. The hon. Member for Leicester, South spoke of targeting social need--something in which I have a particular interest, as have my colleagues. In allocating public expenditure resources nationally, we have consistently recognised the greater needs of Northern Ireland. That is reflected in the higher levels of public expenditure per head of population.
The targeting of social need priority seeks significantly to accelerate improvement of the social and economic conditions in the most disadvantaged areas and of the people of Northern Ireland. The thrust of priority is to address need, which is defined as deprivation or disadvantage, as identified by objective criteria, wherever it may exist in the community, and to apply any action even-handedly to all who fall within the objectively defined categories.
The hon. Member for Leicester, South mentioned the provision of a natural gas pipeline between Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland and Great Britain. The technical and economic feasibility of using gas for power generation is being assessed, several possible routes for a pipeline from Great Britain are being examined, and seabed surveys have been completed. The crucial issue will be the price of gas delivered to the power stations by comparison with existing fuels.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the privatisation of Northern Ireland Electricity and the resignation of its chairman. My hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham), the other Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, has already paid a well-earned tribute to Dr. Schierbeek's sterling service in his capacity as a board member of NIE, as deputy chairman and, for the past five years, as chairman. I, too, wish him well in the future. Following his resignation, there was speculation about the Government's proposals for the privatisation ; any comment would, I think, be best reserved until the publication of the White Paper later this month. There will then be ample opportunity for all the various interests to make their views known.
The hon. Member for Leicester, South also mentioned training and employment. He asked why the Government did not consult interested parties, other than employers. The Training and Employment Agency has an advisory board, whose members have been chosen because of the contribution that they can make to the agency's activities. They include representatives from industry and commerce, but also from education and, indeed, from trade unions and community organisations. I believe that the board will act as an important catalyst in forging effective partnerships between the agency and the business community.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) raised a number of important points, one of which concerned Rathlin island. I assure him that NIE and the Department of Economic Development are considering the possibility of providing a mains electricity supply for the island, and that the departure of the good Dr. Schierbeek will not alter that. Various types of installation
| Next Section
| Home Page |