House of Commons Hansard Debates for 24 Jun 1993

Column 460

incomes are being denied access to legal aid because of the Government's decisions--Mr. Nadir may benefit from what may be as much as £1 million of taxpayers' money in legal aid. Many hon. Members would like some information about that.

On the matter of law enforcement--particularly as there is to be a debate on law and order next week--I wish to raise a matter with the Leader of the House that has been raised with him a number of times before. May we have as early a statement as possible about the Government's plans for the structure of the police force, as rumours have caused considerable anxiety across the country ? Can the right hon. Gentleman give any information on whether there will be a statement soon on the Sheehy report, which has implications for the morale and development of the police service ?

Mr. Newton : On the first and much repeated request concerning public expenditure, I am afraid that I cannot undertake to find Government time next week for a debate. I continue to find some conflict in the demands from the right hon. Lady who, were I to announce a debate on public expenditure, would almost certainly demand a Supply day. I am meeting her Supply day requests at a fairly rapid rate--roughly once a week.

The right hon. Lady will not have to wait beyond the end of next week for the satisfaction of her demands in respect of a statement on law enforcement, but I cannot precisely predict the day on which they will be met--except to say that she will have an opportunity to debate this extensively on Thursday.

Sir Michael Marshall (Arundel) : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the increasing number of problems to do with human rights that some of us have had a chance to see in Belgrade and Zagreb ? Will he find time to discuss those matters, perhaps within the wider context of a foreign affairs debate ?

Mr. Newton : I well recognise my hon. Friend's concern and the opportunities that he has with the Inter-Parliamentary Union to observe these matters at first hand--and to express his own well-known concern about them. I cannot give him a specific undertaking for a debate of the kind that he suggests, but I shall bear his request in mind.

Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South) : The Leader of the House has already referred to the pressure on the time of the House. May we have an early statement arising out of my question last week about the reform of the scrutiny of legislation for Northern Ireland ? We need proper scrutiny, not a charade.

Mr. Newton : Perhaps I may take this opportunity to thank the hon. Gentleman for his courteous letter, following our misunderstanding arising out of last week's question. I am afraid that I cannot give him the promise he seeks ; but the debate that is about to take place would seem to offer him the chance to raise the points about which he is concerned.

Mr. Stephen Milligan (Eastleigh) : Would my right hon. Friend consider holding a further debate on the financing of political parties? Is he aware that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) is a great advocate of the principle of the right to reply--indeed, he introduced a Bill for that very purpose? Given the unsubstantiated charge that he made in Tuesday's debate, would it not be right to

Column 461

hold another debate to give Ministers a chance to reply to what was a cowardly charge, because it was made when the President of the Board of Trade was recovering from a heart attack?

Mr. Newton : I am not quite sure whether I would like to make again the speech that I made on Tuesday evening--I do not know how the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) would feel about making hers again. I certainly take my hon. Friend's point, however. In the course of that debate, I observed, probably in more vigorous language, that I found it rather strange that the hon. Member for Hammersmith should repeat his allegations in the face of the clear statement by the Saudi ambassador to the United States, which I read out no less than twice in the course of the debate.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) : In requesting an urgent statement from the Secretary of State for National Heritage, may I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to information that I have received from a highly reliable source to the effect that it has been decided to abolish "News at Ten" and replace it with an ITN news bulletin at 6.30 pm? That would mean no news on the ITV network after 6.30 pm, and no news on the commercial network after 7 pm. That in turn will mean that the ITV network will not be fulfilling its national responsibilities. It is essential that we have a statement from the Government on this matter.

Mr. Newton : I shall certainly put that suggestion to the Secretary of State for National Heritage, but that is not to be taken as my assent to the proposition. My initial reaction is that this is primarily a matter for the broadcasters, not for the Secretary of State. They should determine at what times the news is broadcast.

Mr. Peter Luff (Worcester) : I do not know whether my right hon. Friend has received the same sort of vigorous representations as I received on Saturday in my constituency surgery from my local myalgic encephalomyelitis support group. If he has, he will understand why I attach such importance to an urgent debate in the House on that subject. ME sufferers are concerned about the detailed implications of the current benefits review and about some of the attitudes displayed by the Department of Health. Such a debate would do a great deal to reassure a large group of people about the importance that the House attaches to their problems.

Mr. Newton : I have not recently had representations of that sort, but as a constituency Member and based on my long ministerial experience in health and social security, I am certainly aware of the anxieties to which my hon. Friend refers. He will probably know that a task force is being set up, with representatives from the Royal College of General Practitioners, ME voluntary organisations and the Department of Health, with a view to looking at the existing literature and research and to disseminating information to health care professionals in a way that we hope will significantly aid the treatment and care of people suffering from ME.

People suffering from ME, in the same way as those suffering from any other disease with disabling effects, would be entitled to benefit if it is shown that they are incapable of work.

Column 462

Mr. Eddie McGrady (South Down) : May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to decisions made last week in the Paris Commission by the committee dealing with European environmental issues? Having learned that the atmospheric discharge of nuclear toxics would be increased by 1,100 per cent. and that maritime discharges would increase by 900 per cent., the committee passed a resolution asking the British Government to re-examine the introduction and commissioning of the THORP plant at Sellafield, and to arrange an independent inquiry on the real environmental effects. Moreover, the Nuclear Information Centre in Tokyo has said that the permitted level of discharge in the British Isles is five times the level permitted in Japan.

Given that this environmental problem affects all of us, may we have a general debate on the effects of the nuclear industry on the environment?

Mr. Newton : I assume that the hon. Gentleman was present during my statement. The first debate that I announced--for next Monday, which is an Opposition day--will deal with precisely that subject : "the economic, environmental and proliferation implications" of bringing THORP into operation. That should give the hon. Gentleman the opportunity he seeks.

Mr. Rupert Allason (Torbay) : Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that we can have a debate on defence immediately after the publication of the White Paper, which is imminent? Is he aware that last week's defence debate was considerably delayed? Is he further aware that a debate next week would give hon. Members from the south-west an opportunity to point out that they have always supported the nuclear deterrent, and the Trident programme in particular?

It might also give our right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence an opportunity to tell the House whether he was influenced by the fact, and by the corresponding fact that most of those lobbying for Rosyth from Scottish constituencies have been opposed to the Trident programme in the past?

Mr. Newton : I imagine that a number of people have observed the facts cited by my hon. Friend in the second part of his question. As for the first part, he will know that it is normal practice for the Select Committee on Defence to have an opportunity to study and report on the defence estimates before they are debated. That must obviously be an influential factor in the determination of the timing of such a debate.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : May we have a statement and an apology next week from the Secretary of State for Education, who has persistently accused Labour-controlled local authorities of preventing fair discussion of any opt-out proposals? May I draw the Leader of the House's attention to early-day motion 2209?

[That this House condemns the Chairman of Governors at Wibsey First School in Bradford for failing to ensure that all governors were notified of a meeting to discuss opting out, failing to ensure, as promised, that the teachers, who voted by 18 to two against, would have their views conveyed to parents, failing to comply with the 1988 Act by providing a true and accurate record of those eligible to vote when requested to do so by a parent-governor, censoring the material of the opposition group of parents and governors, changing the date of voting so that a meeting to discuss the

Column 463

issue was to be held after ballot papers were issued rather than before, as had been agreed ; condemns this record of cheating and chicanery which denies the proper conduct of the democratic process ; and calls on the Secretary of State for Education to repudiate the actions of the Conservative Chair of Governors.]

As the motion explains, the Conservative chairman of Wibsey First school, in my constituency, has engaged in considerable chicanery by changing the times of meetings and preventing teachers who voted 18:2 against opting out from conveying their views to parents. He has also engaged in a host of other activities designed to destroy the democratic process.

It is time that the Secretary of State accepted that any chicanery comes from the Conservatives involved, not from members of the Labour party, who are trying to present a fair case. That is not happening in Wibsey First school.

Mr. Newton : Let me leave the politics aside and deal with the practicalities. The arrangements for balloting parents on such matters are the responsibility of the governing body of the school ; in those circumstances, it would not be appropriate for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to comment. However, it is open to those who have complaints--as the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) clearly has- -to write to the Department setting out the grounds for those complaints, which will then be considered.

Mr. Rod Richards (Clwyd, North-West) : Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in the light of Tuesday's debate,

Column 464

when Labour Members--if I may paraphrase-- made silly buggers of themselves, many Conservative Members wish that every day was an Opposition day? Does he agree, however, that, given the importance of the issues that might have been debated on Tuesday, fewer days should now be allocated to Labour Members, until they learn to behave like a responsible Opposition?

Mr. Newton : I suppose that half of me finds that an attractive suggestion, but the other half has not quite reached the stage of wanting to blow up the usual channels.

Madam Speaker : I remind the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) of "Erskine May's" words :

"Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language."

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : As regards Monday's debate on Members' interests, would it be possible for the Leader of the House to arrange for the letters that were written by Conservative Members to the Attorney-General about Mr. Nadir's case to be put in the Library? Would it not be appropriate for us to see precisely why Conservative Members with no constituency interest wrote to the Attorney-General, instead of just reading about the matter in the newspapers from time to time?

Mr. Newton : As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, the motion on Monday is concerned with proposals from the Select Committee for clarifying the rules for the Register. I suggest that it will be best if the debate is confined to that.

Several hon. Members rose --

Madam Speaker : Order. We are now going to move on.

Column 465

Trident Refit

4.31 pm

Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) : In view of the statement by the Secretary of State for Defence earlier today, I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,

"the decision today by the Cabinet on the Trident refit contract and its adverse effect on the economy of Scotland."

First, it is clear from the reaction to the statement that there is widespread concern in the House that the decision made is contrary to previous undertakings by Defence Ministers that the Trident refit would go to Rosyth. Secondly, there is a need for the Government to give further details of how the decision was arrived at, to explain the economic and financial justification for the decision, and to outline what action is to be taken to protect the interests of the workers whose jobs are now threatened. Finally, there is a need for the House to consider how today's decision will jeopardise the security and defence of the country.

Rosyth is the biggest single industrial employer in Scotland, and its subcontractors and suppliers employ many thousands more. The Government have a duty to explain and defend their decision to the House, and to do so today.

Madam Speaker : The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,

"the decision today by the Cabinet on the Trudent refit and its effect upon the Scottish economy."

I am satisfied that the matter raised by the hon. Member is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 20. Has the hon. Gentleman the leave of the House? I require 40 Members standing.

The motion for the Adjournment of the House will now stand over until 7 o'clock tonight, when a debate on the matter will take place for three hours.

The leave of the House having been given, the motion stood over under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) until 7 o'clock this day.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think that it would be helpful and for the convenience of the House if, in the light of your decision, I said that the Government would not, in these circumstances, proceed with the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1993--that is, the second item of Northern Ireland business- -this evening.

Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North) : I should like to thank the Leader of the House for that statement.

Madam Speaker : That is most helpful. We should now make progress.

Column 466

Points of Order

4.34 pm

Mr. Barry Porter (Wirral, South) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am very much aware of the effect that the recent announcements have on people in Scotland, but are you aware that, in two or three days, the shipyard of Cammell Laird--a Scottish name--in Birkenhead is to close? That has a significant effect on the economy of Merseyside, and I put this hypothetical question : if I asked for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20, would you grant it?

Madam Speaker : The question may be hypothetical, but I must tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that I take these matters very seriously. He may have raised that point in some joviality, but I take such things seriously, and I will consider any Standing Order No. 20 application that he puts to me.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Reported in the newspapers today is a copy of a letter sent by a Member of Parliament to an officer of the Crown. I need not say which letter it is, because all know about it. What concerns me gravely is that this letter has been intercepted and leaked. It can have been leaked only by the sender, the receiver, or a firm of accountants that carried out a raid on a certain gentleman's hT Madam Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman mentioned privilege. If he thinks that this is a matter of privilege, he must write to me, not raise it on the Floor of the House. I have not seen the letter. I know nothing about it. I shall look at his letter when it comes to me.

BILL PRESENTED

Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) (Wales)

Mr. Barry Jones, supported by Mr. Alfred Morris, Mr. Alex Carlile, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. Neil Kinnock, Mr. Ray Powell, Mr. Donald Anderson, Mr. Gareth Wardell, Dr. John Marek, Mr. David Hanson, Mr. Roy Hughes and Mr. Martyn Jones, presented a Bill to prohibit, in Wales, discrimination against disabled persons on the grounds of their disability ; and for connected purposes : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 2 July, and to be printed. [Bill 215.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

British Nationality (Hong Kong)

That the draft Hong Kong (British Nationality) (Amendment) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.-- [Mr. Kirkhope.]

Question agreed to.

Column 467

Orders of the Day

Northern Ireland Act 1974

4.35 pm

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew) : I beg to move,

That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 26th May, be approved.

This draft order renews for another 12 months the temporary provisions of the Northern Ireland Act 1974, by which government by direct rule continues in Northern Ireland. It has become customary over the years to give the House an account of the Government's stewardship in Northern Ireland over the previous year and it is my intention to do the same again this afternoon.

Last year in the equivalent debate I said that I was committed to achieving the goal of a peaceful, just and prosperous way of life for all the people of Northern Ireland. While there has been progress, despite many factors pulling in the opposite direction, I must of course acknowledge with regret that peace, justice and prosperity do not as yet prevail for all in Northern Ireland.

Violence, injustice and loss continue to be inflicted by evil means and by evil people. They have struck no less viciously than elsewhere at communities where the people have long lived together in peaceful harmony and prosperity. I think of Coleraine, among others. The House shares the anger, the grief and the resolution of the victims, and of all the other victims and their families.

The ruthless use of violence for political ends remains the most malign and dangerous obstacle in our path. The threat to everybody's safety and security remains serious from terrorists at both extremes. The House will recall many of the 75 brutal murders by terrorists in Northern Ireland last year, and many of the 34 that have been perpetrated since the beginning of this year. It will also recall the bomb attacks on commercial and domestic property, such as Belvoir Park, Bangor and more recently Belfast, Portadown, Magherafelt and Newry. It will recall, too, the attacks on security force bases. There have been, for example, three mortar attacks on the Crossmaglen police station and patrol base this year.

It is difficult to do justice to the steadfastness of the men and women of the RUC, and of the forces who support them. It is beyond praise, as the whole House will agree. It is well matched by the qualities of the public, including the business community, of Northern Ireland as a whole.

We owe it to the security forces not to minimise or play down, let alone overlook, the significant successes that they have scored in the past year against the terrorists. We owe it to the general public, too. Throughout the past year, the security forces have had every support and strong, courageous leadership from my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates). I pay a warm and most grateful tribute to his work as a colleague over the past 14 months. Last year, 405 people were charged with terrorist-related offences, including 101 with murder and attempted murder. This year, as at 13 June, 168 people had been charged with such offences. Important finds of firearms, ammunition, explosives and other terrorist equipment continue to be made. In addition, determined inroads have

Column 468

been made upon the sources of terrorist finance, assisted by new legislation. Other considerable successes have been achieved which get scant publicity. The security forces have worked tirelessly to disrupt and prevent terrorist operations, and I will give some examples.

Since the beginning of March, four bombs in transit containing over 300 kgs of explosives have been intercepted, resulting in several arrests. Over 6,600 kgs of fertiliser, used in the manufacture of explosives, have been recovered. A range of other weaponry has been seized and several other murderous attacks by paramilitaries on both sides have been foiled, with the capture of Republican and Loyalist gunmen en route to commit murder. Those are some of the successes. Both the numerical level and the equipment of the security forces are kept under careful review. So, too, is the adequacy of the criminal law by which those guilty of terrorist offences may be brought to justice and judicially punished. It is important to recall the recent words of Sir Hugh Annesley, the Chief Constable of the RUC, who said :

"When a terrorist outrage occurs there is often a reaction suggesting that the handcuffs should be taken off the police and the army : that our hands should be untied from behind our backs. There are no restraints on the security forces, save those imposed by law and by the very nature of our democratic society. There is no political restraint stopping us from doing our duty or doing our best."

I assure the House that the Government remain unrelenting in their commitment to the defeat of the terrorists. That is our highest priority. I find inspiring the staunchness and resilience of those who resist their cruel attacks, and our commitment to their defeat is no less implacable.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : There may be a degree of pessimism about how far terrorism can be defeated in the Northern Ireland context, bearing in mind how long it has been going on, but does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, although the terrorist campaign--I speak principally of the Provisional IRA--has been going on for nearly four times the length of the last world war, there is not the slightest evidence of the terrorists achieving their objective? Does he further agree that neither in the House nor in the country is there the slightest wish to give up the campaign against terrorism or to give in to the bombers?

Sir Patrick Mayhew : I endorse every word that the hon. Gentleman said, and it cannot be said too often or too widely. There are many who recognise the truth of those words in the ranks of those who have perpetrated such crimes. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said and for what he consistently says in that sense.

Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North) : When does the right hon. and learned Gentleman expect to be in a position to respond to the proposals for changes in the law suggested by the Chief Constable?

Sir Patrick Mayhew : The Chief Constable has proposed certain changes in the law, some of which are well known, as representing his opinion. They call for careful and balanced consideration. It is necessary to ensure that all legal weapons are available to the security forces.

On the other hand, it is necessary to ensure that the state of the criminal law is not such as to represent in reasonable people's minds too draconian a body of law, so

Column 469

that support for the security forces is thereby lost-- [Interruption.] This is not a laughing matter, and I do not think many people think it is a laughing matter. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) does not laugh often. It is a pity that he laughted then.

Mr. Seamus Mallon (Newry and Armagh) : Regarding the Chief Constable's recommendations, is it not essential for the Secretary of State, as the representative of the Government in Northern Ireland and as an eminent legal person, to state clearly that there cannot be any circumstances in which the core of the Chief Constable's request--that is, the shifting of the onus of proof from the state to the accused--can be met? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it is in the interest of the law that such a statement should be made publicly and as soon as possible to the Chief Constable?

Sir Patrick Mayhew : I am being tempted to deal bit by bit, as the occasion arises and on invitations of that kind, with the serious and considered representations made publicly by the Chief Constable. I must resist that temptation.

Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann) rose --

Sir Patrick Mayhew : I have given way three times on the trot. I hope that hon. Members will now permit me to continue with my speech.

I come to the performance of the economy of Northern Ireland in the last year, and the House may take heart from that performance. It is becoming recognised that the Province has held up remarkably well under adverse worldwide economic conditions. Seasonally adjusted unemployment in May was down 1,100 on the previous month, the fifth fall recorded in the last six months. Although the total, at 104,500, or 13.9 per cent. of the work force, is still far too high, it has come a long way from the peak of 17.6 per cent. in 1986, and is significantly lower than the rate of unemployment in the Irish Republic, where it is 16.9 per cent.

Output levels in Northern Ireland have risen by 3 to 4 per cent. in the past year, which compares favourably with the figure for the United Kingdom as a whole, of about 1 per cent. Further encouragement can be drawn from the results of recent surveys of the local business community, where high levels of business confidence and improving market performance are reported. Those indicators provide evidence of the resilience of the Northern Ireland economy and of those who create wealth and employment in it. I am confident that its performance will continue to improve as the national recovery gathers greater momentum.

The Government's strategy of working in partnership with business to help improve its competitiveness will reinforce the progress made last year. Exemplifying that progress, I point to the record of the Industrial Development Board. The IDB had a very successful year. Ten new projects have been attracted by way of inward investment, bringing new products and technology to Northern Ireland and offering about 2,000 jobs. The high level of demand for the IDB's export services was another encouraging feature. Export orders worth £120 million were reported by companies using the IDB's export marketing services.

I report also the continuing development of a number of joint initiatives between the IDB and its counterpart in

Column 470

the Republic, the Irish Trade Board. Their purpose has been to promote the increased use of source materials obtained from within the island of Ireland and the joint marketing of Irish products overseas.

A good example of that was the successful exhibition mounted by the Irish Trade Board and the IDB in Chicago earlier this month, in which 25 Northern Ireland companies participated. I find that the best ambassadors for Northern Ireland as a base for investment from overseas are those who have already been encourged by the IDB and others to take the plunge. Once they have done that, they are the best ambassadors to those who are hesitating about whether to do the same, and they say, "Send them to us. We will tell them about it." I pay great tribute to the IDB.

There have also been impressive achievements on the small business front, for which the local enterprise development unit--LEDU--is responsible. Those have included a record number of new business start-ups, a 4 per cent. net rise in employment among LEDU's companies, representing about 1,000 jobs, and a record number of LEDU companies expanding and transferring to the IDB. A good contribution continues to be made by the Training and Employment Agency to the overall economic strategy to increase company competitiveness. Similarly, in its first year of operation, the industrial research and technology unit has successfully delivered almost £20 million of European Community support for Northern Ireland made available under the Stride, Prisma and Framework programmes. That has significantly strengthened the region's technological infrastructure. It has improved those quality testing services that are vital for industrial exports, and it has stimulated commercial networking between Northern Ireland companies and academic institutions and their European Community counterparts.

Tourism is an important topic. The highest ever number of visitors was achieved in 1992, the fourth successive record-breaking year, when almost 1.3 million visitors came to Northern Ireland. Individually, just as is the case with corporate visitors, their overriding impression of surprise is how normal the place is. They expect often to step off the aeroplane into a kind of Clint Eastwood scenario. They are astonished by how normal life is in Northern Ireland and by how unusually attractive it is in many respects. The Government's continued commitment to encouraging the growth of tourism is demonstrated by the increase in resources made available to the Northern Ireland tourist board this year--£12 million in total, which is almost £5 million more than only two years ago.

In addition to our support for the development of a desirable tourism infrastructure, the European regional development fund, influenced by the tourist board, has provided over £35 million in the period 1990 to 1993, and that in turn generated investments worth £51 million. I am an admirer of NITB, especially of its television advertisements, and I am one of a growing number.

I report with some pride the completion of the privatisation of the electricity supply industry in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland Electricity plc, the transmission, distribution and supply business, was successfully floated on the stock exchange on Monday 21 June. The sale of the Province's four power stations to three independent

Column 471

private generating companies was accomplished in early 1992. A total sum of £700 million has been realised for the public purse. One of the Government's main aims in privatising NIE was to broaden and deepen share ownership. In the event, in common with previous privatisations, the flotation of NIE proved very popular. Two thirds of the shares have been taken up by private investors. I was particularly pleased that so many Northern Ireland people and employees of NIE decided to invest in the company. Over 40 per cent. of the shares available to the general public have been allocated to Northern Ireland citizens, some 140,000 of them. Just as pleasing is the fact that almost 50 per cent. of NIE employees applied for and received shares, and therefore gained a direct stake in their company and its future development. That is a demonstration of their confidence not only in the company but in the future of Northern Ireland. All that is a very satisfactory outcome in relation to our original objective. Its success is a great tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, and to his official and professional advisers.

Mr. Eddie McGrady (South Down) : The Secretary of State has made great play of the benefits that the privatisation of electricity has provided for the investors, but he has not referred to the consumer. It is forecast that in the near future electricity prices in Northern Ireland will rise by 15 per cent. over the rate of inflation on a base that is already in excess of the rest of the United Kingdom. How does he justify that when energy costs for industry are so high and the ordinary consumer will have to pay a high price for electricity in addition to the VAT to be imposed next year of 8 per cent., and subsequently 17.5 per cent?

Sir Patrick Mayhew : The hon. Gentleman knows that up to 70 per cent. of electricity generated by NIE is produced by plant that uses oil. If the value of the pound comes down, the price of oil goes up. That is the principal reason for the increases in electricity to which the hon. Gentleman alludes. I am glad that I have been able to ensure that there will be no rise in excess of single figures that is 9 per cent.--this year and that the transitional arrangements shall extend across the range of industrial users, and there are 4,000 of them.

I am sure that the consumers in the hon. Gentleman's constituency will have benefited--I am sure that they will say that it is a good thing--from the special incentives for buying the shares. There are advantages for them.

For consumers there are wider benefits yet resulting from the privatisation. The industry has been restructured in the interests of promoting competition both in generation and supply. The planned development of the pipeline, and an electricity interconnector with Great Britain, promise, in time, improved fuel diversity and increased competition. They are attracting some £125 million of European Community support. The establishment of an office of electricity regulation, staffed by professionals and entirely independent, has further strengthened consumer rights in relation to electricity supply.

I believe that the House will welcome these indicators of increased economic activity. I have every confidence that,

Next Section

Home Page