House of Commons Hansard Debates for 3 Mar 1992

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That, at this day's sitting, the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.-- [Mr. Patnick.]

Column 264

Taxation of Chargeable Gains Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

10.25 pm

The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell) : I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The Bill is a consolidation of the enactments relating to the taxation of chargeable gains presently found in the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970, the Capital Gains Tax Act 1979 and in annual Finance Acts from 1970 onwards. It extends throughout the United Kingdom.

The legislation re-enacted in the Bill provides for the taxation of chargeable gains accruing to both individuals and to companies and has not previously been consolidated in one Act.

The Bill, which is pure consolidation, has been considered and approved by the Joint Committee on Consolidation, &c., Bills. It has been drafted by a former parliamentary counsel, engaged by the Law Commission. The Law Commission and the draftsman are to be congratulated on their efforts in tidying up this complex aspect of the statute book.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.-- [Mr. Patnick.] Bill immediately considered in Committee ; reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

Column 265

Appropriation (Northern Ireland)

10.29 pm

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

That the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 12th February, be approved.

The draft order has two purposes. The first is to authorise expenditure of £49.2 million in the 1991-92 spring supplementary estimates. This will bring total estimates provision for Northern Ireland departmental services to £4,725 million for this financial year. The second purpose is to authorise the vote on account of £2, 140 million for 1992-93, to enable the services of Northern Ireland Departments to continue until the 1992-93 main estimates are brought before the House later this year.

The Northern Ireland block has faced significant resource pressures this year, with expenditure on a number of demand-led programmes being higher than anticipated. The extra demands placed on the law and order programme have contributed to this. But, in fact, the major increases are encompassed by the supplementary estimates we are now considering--in particular in the health and education programmes. In the interests of prudent financial management, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 9 December 1991 a temporary pause on spending on new capital contracts in order to accommodate those new demands. We have always made it clear that this would apply only to the current financial year. I am happy to be able to confirm today that this is so. Indeed, the moratorium is already effectively drawing to a close. Departments are gearing themselves to release those projects which will not now involve expenditure until the 1992-93 financial year. In addition, within the sums in the estimates, my colleagues and I will continue to take the opportunity to release projects selectively where resources permit.

Mr. James Molyneaux (Lagan Valley) : Before we leave the issue of the dreaded moratorium, the Minister should be aware that what he has just said will provide a great deal of encouragement to those institutions and bodies that were clobbered as a result of it. Many of them were given the impression, rightly or wrongly, that the clamp on expenditure would be long term. In some cases it was rumoured that programmes would be put back for three years. I am glad that the Minister has been able to give us an assurance about that.

Dr. Mawhinney : I should be distressed if people felt that programmes would be put back for three years as a result of my right hon. Friend's announcement. It was always our intention, if at all possible, to limit the pause on spending to this financial year and I believe that we shall be able to do that.

Mr. Peter Robinson (Belfast, East) : Given what the Minister has said to the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), is he aware that the Department of the Environment road services division has already written to local councils to inform them that schemes have been put off as far as 1995-96?

Dr. Mawhinney : I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that I have called into question what either he

Column 266

or the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) have said. It is open to hon. Members representing Northern Ireland and local councils to take this matter up again with Departments, should they so wish.

To give hon. Members the maximum time, I shall refer only to the main areas where supplementary provision is sought. In Department of Agriculture vote 1, the major increases are £2.3 million for payments under the agriculture and horticulture development scheme and £4.4 million for the hill livestock compensatory allowance scheme, reflecting increases in rates of allowances and in numbers of eligible animals. Those increases are partly offset by reduced requirements of some £3.4 million on other capital grant schemes, where uptake and investment levels are lower than had been expected. In Department of Agriculture vote 2, additional provision of £4.1 million includes £2.3 million for the disease eradication programme, following an upturn in the incidence of diseases such as tuberculosis and brucellosis.

For the Department of Economic Development, additional provision is sought on three votes. In vote 1, an additional £3.9 million is sought for expenditure on custom-built factory premises, including the building of two advance factories in west Belfast, an area of particularly high unemployment. That is offset by other adjustments, including increased receipts of £3.5 million from the sale of surplus land and buildings. In vote 2, an additional £1.1 million is sought for the Northern Ireland Tourist Board. Also in this vote, an additional £2 million is sought for financial assistance to the gas industry to cover expenditure on clearing the Ormeau road gasworks site in Belfast, and £4.6 million is required for consultancy costs in connection with the privatisation of the electricity supply industry in Northern Ireland.

In relation to the Department of the Environment, vote 1, an additional £4.5 million is required. That includes £1.3 million for roads and bridges, including a major road scheme in Craigavon ; £500, 000 is for road lighting, and £700,000 for payments to Northern Ireland Railways. Those increases are offset by reductions in other areas and by additional receipts, leaving a token increase of £1,000 in the vote. In vote 2, an additional £5.4 million is sought ; £12.3 million is required for the Northern Ireland housing executive, mainly to enable it to repay loans. That is offset by additional receipts from housing associations and by a fall in the number of applications under the co- ownership scheme.

Department of the Environment vote 3, covering expenditure by the water service, shows a token increase of £1,000. That reflects various reallocations of resources within the vote, and includes an additional £3.4 million for consultants' fees for design work on water and sewerage capital schemes associated with EC directives. In vote 4, an additional £3.3 million is sought. That includes £3.7 million for community economic regeneration schemes, bringing total expenditure on urban regeneration to £39 million. Funds continue to be targeted at areas of social, economic and environmental need. For the Department of Education, a net increase of £10.7 million is sought for vote 1. An additional £11.8 million is required for grants to education and library boards, including £4.5 million for the youth training programme ; £8.7 million is for mandatory student awards, reflecting the success of Government policy to increase the proportion of school leavers who enter higher education.

Column 267

The pause on capital expenditure has had an impact on a number of capital projects in the education sector, but I assure the House that all major works contracts will be reactivated over the next few months. We also considered it a high priority to make funds immediately available to provide temporary classrooms at St. Anthony's primary school in Craigavon, which was destroyed in a despicable IRA bomb attack. I have visited the school three times, once with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and I pay tribute to the resilience of the staff, pupils and parents in their efforts to maintain the education process in such difficult circumstances. For the Department of Health and Social Services, a net increase of 2.8 million is sought in vote 1 ; £2.5 million is for grants to health and social services boards to meet increased costs ; and £15 million is required for expenditure on the family health services. That arises from the new general practitioner and dental contracts, increased demand for sight tests and increased drug costs. Those increases are offset by increased receipts of £2.7 million and by reductions of £13.5 million in capital expenditure, which will of course, be reconsidered in the next financial year.

In vote 4, which covers social security, nearly £15 million is sought to meet increases in the numbers receiving a wide range of benefits, including income support and disability benefits. In these brief remarks I have sought to draw the attention of the House to some of the main provisions of the order. In replying to the debate, my hon. friend the Under-Secretary of State will respond to detailed points raised by hon. Members. I commend the order to the House.

10.38 pm

Mr. Jim Marshall (Leicester, South) : These days, it would be strange to hear a Minister's speech that did not include an electoral bribe. Northern Ireland Members will be pleased to know that the expenditure on capital is to be removed in the next financial year. I presume that it is another example of promise now, pay later.

Dr. Mawhinney : Is the hon. Gentleman saying that, in the unlikely and bizarre event of the Labour party being elected to power, the moratorium will continue throughout the next financial year?

Mr. Marshall : No, I am not saying that. Northern Ireland Members will have heard me make speeches before saying that we

intend--economic circumstances permitting--to enhance public expenditure in the Province. I am simply saying that in the past few months, members of the Government have been increasing the public expenditure borrowing requirement with no apparent regard for the country's economic state of affairs. It just shows the depths to which they are prepared to stoop to bribe the electorate and gain a majority at the election. I have always respected Ministers who are responsible for Northern Ireland for their probity and lack of deceit and admired the open way in which they have addressed the House. It is appalling that, on this occasion, which is likely to be the last Northern Ireland appropriations debate of this

Column 268

Parliament, the Minister of State should fall from his usual high standard of probity and honesty and stoop to such low levels. It ill becomes him.

I have often thanked Ministers in such appropriation debates in the past. Leaving the bribe issue aside, I should like to thank the Minister for going through the order with such clarity and lucidity. The House will be wiser for his speech.

I have enjoyed the debates in the past four and a half years and I hope that hon. Members will agree that I have always sought to be fair, even- handed and non-partisan. It is a little unfortunate that the Minister introduced a degree of partisanship into this evening's debate. I have an added pleasure this evening because, although this is the last appropriations debate of this Parliament, I know that in the next few weeks the Labour party will be responsible for administering the affairs of the kingdom. The people of Northern Ireland can rest assured that, when that situation arises, it will herald a fresh start for the socal welfare and economic life of the Province.

Dr. Mawhinney : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Marshall : I shall give way in a few minutes, because the Minister may wish to respond then.

May I give a few words of assurance to the Minister of State and the Under- Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley)? If the Minister of State retains his seat, the probability of which is a little higher than--

Mr. Roger Stott (Wigan) : Both their coats are on a short nail.

Mr. Marshall : May I make my own point? It is just as good as the one that my hon. Friend seeks to make.

The probability of the Under-Secretary retaining his seat is less than the probability of the Minister retaining his. The Minister has been looking harassed in the past few months. The strains and stresses of his high office over the past few years are showing, but they will quickly disappear once he is languishing on the Opposition Benches, an experience that will be new to him. It will outline for him a new life that he has not experienced since 1979, as a member of the governing party and, latterly, a member of the Government. I am sorry that the Secretary of State is not here this evening because I remember meeting him at the cricket ground in Leicester some years ago. He was showing his son the beauties of cricket and of the ground at Leicester. I am delighted that the Secretary of State- -

Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South) : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will it be possible to stick to the appropriate order, rather than wandering round the playing fields of Leicester? We have only an hour and a half, and such debates do not happen often.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd) : That is a perfectly reasonable point of order. When the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) had finished, I was going to appeal for short speeches as I see that a number of hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, and I should like to call all those who wish to speak.

Mr. Marshall : My speech will be short, Madam Deputy Speaker. This point is not out of order as the Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1992 refers to the expenditure of Government Departments in the Province.

Column 269

Naturally, some of that expenditure is incurred in providing services and facilities to Northern Ireland Ministers. I accept that Members from Northern Ireland wish to have a considerable time for the debate and I assure them that that will be available to them. I will not wander out of order.

I am sure that the Secretary of State is looking forward to renewing his love affair with cricket. I wish that the

Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham), were present, as we shall miss his private conversations becoming public. The absence of his knowledge of agricultural affairs will be a severe loss to me and, I am sure, to the general public.

For the past four and a half years I have always paid tribute to Northern Ireland Ministers for the way in which they have sought to protect the economy and social welfare system of the Province from the worst excesses and ravages of successive Tory Governments. I pay tribute to them again. But we must never forget that, since 1979, Tory policies have had a deleterious effect on the economy in the Province. Without any shadow of doubt, the industrial base of the Province is smaller now than it was 13 years ago. There is no doubt that a sound manufacturing base is essential for the future of the Province, as it is for the kingdom as a whole.

Nationally, we shall establish the economic conditions conducive to investment and growth--conditions that the Government have signally failed to obtain. In the Province, we shall create institutions to encourage inward investment, particularly in those industries based on the exploitation of the new technologies.

Mr. Andrew Hunter (Basingstoke) : My hon. Friend introduced the order with such rapidity that there was scarcely an opportunity to intervene. I seek clarification from the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) on one point. Page 28 of the report refers to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, and the most appreciable increase of taxpayers' money that is devoted to it. Will the hon. Greater refer to that most appreciable investment and explain whether he finds it acceptable? Is taxpayers' money being wisely dispensed in that way?

Mr. Marshall : My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) will refer specifically to the Housing Executive, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes me to respond to his specific point, I shall. I pay tribute to the Government for the good work that the Housing Executive has carried out. I am one of the first to pay tribute to the Housing Executive, which has sought to house people without discrimination and irrespective of the community from which they come.

One point that my hon. Friend will make--perhaps I can rehearse the argument for him--is that we are a little worried about the moratorium on capital expenditure in that sphere. We are also concerned that capital expenditure is being held down because of the need to pay compensation for damage caused by IRA terrorist activities. We hope that that moratorium will be removed and that the Housing Executive and those seeking public accommodation through that executive in Northern Ireland are not made to bear an additional punishment because of terrorist excesses. When the Minister of State replies, perhaps he will address that issue.

Column 270

Previous industrial strategies have floundered on the lack of skills at all levels throughout industry. It is our intention to establish training programmes so that all young people are equipped for the labour market. We shall establish a pool of skilled labour that is attractive to new employers. Our objective is to establish a modern, diversified economic base for the Province, which offers the prospect of a job at home, rather than the prospect of dole at home or work over the water.

As proof of my good intentions--not to speak for too long--I shall conclude by saying something about the community workshops. That movement is in dispute with Ministers about levels of funding and the way in which it is provided. People in the community workshop movement feel that that reflects Ministers' lack of confidence in the movement. I should like the Minister to take this opportunity to allay that fear and to join the Opposition in complimenting the workshops on trying to provide a service to young people in the Province, especially the most disadvantaged among them.

I look forward to more being spent on the Northern Ireland Assembly. We hope that it will prove necessary to increase the budget of the Assembly so that it becomes a real, not a shadow, Assembly. If I may be allowed to stray out of order for one final sentence, we wish the talks, whether they are held now or after the election, all the best.

10.50 pm

Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South) : We have heard speeches by both Government and Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen this evening. The people of Northern Ireland will remember the old saying, "Live old horse and you will eat grass." The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) assured us that if the economic situation held up, we would be well looked after. That reminded me of the old professor in college who used to say that if a cow had a long enough tail it would reach the moon--"if".

I welcomed the comments by the hon. Member for Leicester, South about the community workshops. We have pressed the Minister on them before ; I hope he can assure us that, far from falling over the next three years, expenditure on the workshops will be maintained, to deal with the challenges that await them.

Mr. Jim Marshall : I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that Labour Governments have always sought to deliver to the Province on the economic front.

Rev. Martin Smyth : When Labour was in power we were treated as a full part of the United Kingdom, not pushed on to the

sidelines--despite claims to the contrary. But the economic situation is not so bright as the hon. Gentleman painted it. He asked us to believe that there would be an economic revival under a Labour Government. What I have to say will be of cold comfort to the House, but the people of Northern Ireland will not be taken in by such promises.

I do not imply that the Minister misled the House tonight, but people in the Province know that the true picture is quite different. We look forward to the Minister's commitments this evening being put quickly into practice.

The Poswillo report made several sweeping recommendations on the use of general anaesthesia, sedation and resuscitation, but the Government have failed--we heard

Column 271

nothing more about this today--to allocate funds to its implementation in Northern Ireland, despite having provided £9 million for that purpose in Great Britain, as announced in a statement on 22 January.

Dentists who do not receive help have two options : they can use their own money, thus cutting back on an already under-funded area of the national health service ; or they can refer patients to hospitals and thereby take up beds and hospital time, both of which are under pressure from other sectors. Will the Minister ensure that the necessary funding is allocated?

Does the Department of Health and Social Services vote contain any provision to bring the allocation to the Northern Ireland hospice into line with that recently announced for England and Wales? I understand that allocations for hospice provision in England and Wales amount to 42 per cent., whereas it is 30 to 33 per cent. in Northern Ireland.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) will remember a conversation that I had with him and his colleague the hon. Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham) about the funding of Fairholme in my constituency. I am still waiting for a definitive answer. I understand that the matter has been batted around Departments. From time to time emergencies may cause upsets, but there is a degree of short-sightedness in the Department when planning future expenditure. I refer specifically to the provision of a surgery in Great Victoria street. That has been on the stocks since 1988 and the Department and its valuer have been aware of it. Now the Department says that it cannot even consider the matter at least until the summer, and possibly not until the 1993-94 funding. What is to happen to the property in the meantime? It is in a redevelopment area. There has been talk about the needs of west Belfast. That property was in west Belfast before the last redrawing of the boundaries, as the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) will confirm. It is in an area of need, and work in an inner- city practice is being held up because the Department is not able to say that the problem can be taken on board, although it has been aware of it since 1988 and has been seeking to provide a facility. The Minister should consider the practical outcome of delay and act accordingly.

10.56 pm

Mr. Peter Robinson (Belfast, East) : I am sure that to hon. Members who are not from Northern Ireland these appropriation debates seem exceedingly parochial. But until the House determines that it will deal with Northern Ireland business in a better way and until Northern Ireland itself has structures capable of dealing with day-to-day issues in a better way, Northern Ireland Members have no choice and therefore make no apology for getting down to grass roots issues under the appropriation accounts.

Vote I for the Department of Economic Development covers expenditure relating to the Industrial Development Board. I do not intend to make any cheap jibes about the publicised statistics on the IDB. All Northern Ireland Members are aware of the difficult task faced by the IDB

Column 272

in trying to encourage investment in Northern Ireland. Now there is an opportunity for the Government to ensure something of a new start for the IDB.

When the Government are considering a replacement for the outgoing person in the IDB, Mr. Tony Hopkins, they should put in post someone who has the drive and enthusiasm to bring jobs to Northern Ireland and to sell the Province as a suitable location for investment. Much can be done if the right person is in post and I, like many others, think that it would be better to look to the business world for someone to fill it.

In the vote for the Department of Economic Development, under the heading of labour market services, expenditure is set aside for the use of the Fair Employment Commission. This evening's issue of the Belfast Telegraph states that on Monday the commission intends to publish its religious breakdown of workers in 1,700 companies in Northern Ireland. The list will give details of the number of Protestants and Roman Catholics in each firm in the Province. That move has, I believe, been opposed by all the employers' organisations. It has certainly been opposed by my colleagues in the House and, I understand, by the Ulster Unionists. It is an act of utter folly : the commission will, in effect, be publishing a hit list for terrorist organisations.

I can think of no greater administrative lunacy than to publish a head count of Protestant and Roman Catholic work forces throughout Northern Ireland. It will help terrorist organisations to target employers who, in their view, are not employing appropriate percentages and enable members of a work force to know exactly who is Protestant and who is Roman Catholic, thus helping to isolate small numbers of people.

Just as serious in economic terms is the fact that such a list will undoubtedly provide a basis for the boycotting of certain goods throughout Northern Ireland. We shall now have Protestant and Roman Catholic goods, and people will be encouraged to buy goods that happen to have been made by firms that are either Protestant or Roman Catholic. That may seem far- fetched to some hon. Members on this side of the Irish sea, but there is not the slightest doubt that it will come about if the list is published.

Mr. Roy Beggs (Antrim, East) : My party opposed the proposal to publish such information, in the best interests of both communities, and to protect them in their work-places.

Mr. Robinson : I do not doubt that every hon. Member holds the same view. The danger is just as great for one section of the community as for the other. When disaster strikes--as it undoubtedly will--let them turn to Bob Cooper and ask him why he had to be so pig-headed and proceed with this lunacy, in the face of all the advice that he had received from so many people who had been involved in both the business and the political worlds in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Eddie McGrady (South Down) : Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that, over the past few years, the commission has published a series of reports in respect of individual firms--for instance, banks and insurance companies? The reports have concerned a large number of employers, but there is no evidence that any of those firms suffered any diminution of their trade or income as a

Column 273

result, or that their work forces were attacked. If evidence of what he says exists, will the hon. Gentleman present it to the House?

Mr. Robinson : We are not talking about large employers ; we are talking about every firm in every back street that employs 25 people or more. The opportunities are thus multiplied considerably, and people will become much more exposed and vulnerable.

Let me join the hon. Members for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) and for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) in supporting the call for the Government to make clear their intention in relation to the community workshop projects. Those hon. Gentlemen have already said that there is something of a crisis in the community workshops in Northern Ireland. I should have hoped that every hon. Member would strongly approve of those bodies because they have a very worthwhile role in the Province.

Indeed, if it were not so, the Government would not have funded them initially, but there has been no significant increase in the money available to them since the financial year 1989-90. To date, they have still not been told what increase--if any--there might be for the new financial year.

If it is the Government's intention to add the community workshops to the moratorium, those organisations will expect a reduction in the amount of money made available to them. Although, thankfully, inflation has decreased considerably in the past few years, it is still in the round and likely to be 4 per cent. in the next financial year. That means that there will be less money available to the community workshops in that year while, at the same time, their expenditure is likely to increase.

I ask the Minister, therefore, if he will assure the community workshops that the finance available to them will be increased above inflation because they are lagging behind, not only in terms of inflation but in comparison to equivalent organisations such as other training centres. I understand that the average cost per place is about £550 higher in the training centres than under community provision, so I hope that the Government will examine the issue and remove the concern of those deeply involved with the community workshops.

In his opening remarks, the Minister referred to the moratorium. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) said that there had been concern in

Column 274

Northern Ireland that the moratorium might have been longer lived than the Minister implied. There is much concern in Northern Ireland that vital projects--especially road and housing projects- -have been held back, and for much longer than the Minister said. I cite the example of the roads programme.

In the borough of Castlereagh, two vital projects at Purdysburn road and Ballymaconaghy road have been put off until the mid-1990s well beyond the date of the moratorium. If those projects do not proceed, one can conclude only that the Department is not going to live up to the promise that it made in the Belfast urban area plan that, where it zoned for housing and other purposes, it would provide the infrastructure as a priority. If there is no such infrastructure, there will be no housing. If there are no houses, there will be fewer homes for people and fewer jobs in the construction industry. I know that, if the Minister at the Department of the Environment had more money available for roads, we would certainly be able to use it. The Treasury must ensure that finance is made available for those roads. There are only pence in the purse of the Department of the Environment's roads services and the money must be increased considerably.

I was concerned to discover that, because of the IRA terror campaign in Northern Ireland, the Housing Executive's budget was being cut. It seems that the people of Northern Ireland have to pay twice for terrorism. They have to endure the attacks of the Provisional IRA and its bedfellows and, at the same time, the finances are cut for the essential projects that might make life much easier for them. That is unfair, especially for my constituency. When cuts are made, they hit east Belfast harder than west Belfast. I shall not take this opportunity to tell the Minister where the bombers come from who wreck Belfast and who cause compensation to be paid, but it is surely unfair that my constituency has to suffer more as a consequence of IRA terrorism. Indeed, it has to suffer twice over. If the Housing Executive has to make cuts, I hope that it will be even-handed.

There is a long-awaited report--this may stretch the Minister--on the Crumlin road and the consequences of separation. There are consequences for the community generally. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us when the report will be produced and when the Government will be prepared to act on it.

Column 275

11.11 pm

Mr. Eddie McGrady (Down, South) : I am grateful to the Minister of State for speaking briefly and enabling more hon. Members to take part in the debate, but I would have been grateful also if he had outlined the reason for the moratorium on public expenditure. It commenced on 9 December, and it has caused great distress in Northern Ireland. The local buzz was that it was the result of the IRA bombing campaign in Belfast in the autumn of 1991 and onwards. It was thought, however, that the ensuing claims would not enter the pipeline for at least two or three years and could not be a draw, as it were, on the current budget. It was felt that a substantive budgetary error had been made.

During business questions and questions to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I requested that a statement be made to explain why a moratorium on all public expenditure--both capital and revenue, as far as revenue could be withheld--was applied for four months of the fiscal year, without explanation to the House. I find that remarkable and unsatisfactory.

I was told by the Leader of the House that I had an opportunity to raise the matter during this debate. It is only three weeks before the end of the fiscal year, and four months of the year have been dead in terms of expenditure. I do not understand why that should have been so, and I find it unsatisfactory. The moratorium had a devastating effect on the provision of services across the community. The construction industry and service industries suffered a tremendous cut, and that contributed in no small measure to increasing unemployment. Why did the moratorium occur? I hope that the Minister of State's assurances that it is now over will be further explained. I am not clear about what the hon. Gentleman said and what he meant.

The Minister who opened the debate was responsible for education and was involved with the Dromore high school's playing fields. There were difficulties because this large school had no playing fields and was landlocked. there was a willing landowner, however, and a contract, was signed, at long last, three weeks ago. Then the Department said, "Sorry, you can't do that. Send the money"--£600, 000--"into the central kitty. It would not be fair to the North-Western education board which had to hand in £2 million, if you spent that money."

I inquired, and discovered that the North-Western board did not hand in £2 million. Are we now being told that that contract, which was signed, can be fulfilled tomorrow, and the £600,000 spent as planned by the Southern education board, in co-operation with Banbridge district council and the Department of Education? That would be a clear explanation of the whole thing and we would know where we were going from then out.

I wish to comment in particular on health and social security matters. It is evident to me from my constituency experience that massive cuts are being made in the provision of health care to the consumer--both in hospitals and in the community. I can only extrapolate from those experiences and assume that the rest of Northern Ireland is suffering in exactly the same respect. Take the three hospitals in the South Down area-- the Downe hospital, Downpatrick, the Mourne hospital, Kilkeel, and the Cowan Herron hospital, Banbridge. One has been closed ; one is in a state of flux and no one knows

Next Section

Home Page