| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan): I welcome both the new Fisheries Ministers. I am slightly disappointed that the Scottish Under- Secretary is the junior of the two again, and I hope that the Fisheries Ministers from other Departments will not take advantage of their hon. Friend's inexperience. That hope relates to two matters: first to the European negotiations at which the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) might well be the only Scottish representative. In the last six months of last year, the right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who is a very experienced Member of the House, represented Scotland on three occasions--the only three occasions on which Scotland was directly represented by Scottish Office Ministers out of a total of 48 Council meetings.
Secondly, during a number of years, Scottish Office civil servants, Opposition Members and even a few rebel Conservatives, as we have heard earlier, were advocating a policy of decommissioning which was frustrated and halted by what I thought were the largely personal prejudices of the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, based on his unfortunate experiences in his early ministerial career over the previous decommissioning scheme. We are now paying the price, as has become evident in this debate, for those wasted years. I took a careful note of what one of the fisheries representatives said to me in the briefing earlier this afternoon. He said that the fishing industry is still
"wallowing in the broken water of do nothing years".
I understand that the statistics which have been quoted to Ministers from Opposition and Government Members were supplied to the Scottish Fishermen's Federation by my colleague in the European Parliament, Winnie Ewing, the Member of the European Parliament for the Highlands and Islands. I am sure that my hon. Friend in the European Parliament will be delighted that the statistics have been put to such good use in this debate.
They are shameful statistics from a European and United Kingdom point of view. Of total funding from 1987 to 1993, 2.8 per cent. has come to the UK, in contrast to the huge amounts, as the hon. Member for St.
Column 1529
Ives (Mr. Harris) rightly said, which have gone to the Spanish fleet. The UK fleet has been at a substantial competitive disadvantage over that period as funds have gone elsewhere. Not only that, of course, but the lack of a decommissioning scheme in those years has imbalanced the whole fisheries policy so that funds are nowhere near the targets for MAGP or anything else--not just because of the flags of convenience vessels, although they were important, but because of the failure of policy and the failure to act. The points made in this debate are very important and interrelate with the two schemes before us this evening. If there is a combination of older fishing vessels and probably younger skippers, since that is the trend in the industry at the moment, going into deeper waters, there is a key safety consideration. The lack of reinvestment in the fishing fleet means that the average age of the vessels is increasing. Ten years ago, the average age of UK vessels, especially Scottish fishing vessels, was much less than the European average. Now it is greater than the European average. We have one of the older fleets in the EU and that raises implications for safety in fishing as well as for the competitiveness of our industry compared to others.We have about five member companies in the British Boatbuilders Association, of which only two are currently building boats. The arguments for a scrap-and-build policy are very important. It is not a question, as the Minister seems to think in following his predecessors by saying, that we cannot have a decommissioning policy on one hand and a reinvestment policy on the other. That is exactly the policy being pursued in our competitor countries across the Union. If we do not have such a policy, the Government will be putting our fishing vessels at a grievous disadvantage compared to the other fishing fleets. I am sure that the Minister would like to change that policy direction in his first days in the post. I shall make three brief points to amplify some of the detail in the debate. The case made by the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) was very good. Given the legacy of the lack of a decommissioning scheme in the crucial years of the 1980s, there surely would be a good argument for a catch-up policy to accelerate the commitment in the early years of the scheme to try to get back to something like the targets that we have to meet. That policy option must be available to the Minister and surely should be one for careful consideration. Should the scheme be front-loaded to catch up and try to redeem some of the mistakes of the past?
The Minister has qualified the flexibility that he seemed to show earlier in the debate. His point about the nephrops fishery does not stand up to a moment's serious examination. There has already been an increasing shift in capacity into the nephrops fishery in the North sea from the Fladen fishery in the current year. The two fisheries are heavily interrelated. The idiocy of the regulations is shown if one compares a nephrops fisherman with a scalloper. If a scalloper had a pressured stock licence, he would be eligible for the terms of the decommissioning scheme. Yet if that person qualified for decommissioning, he would not put any whitefish back into the pool to be available for the other fishermen who are under such pressure from quotas at present. A prawner boat would put whitefish back into the pool, yet that prawner is excluded from taking advantage of the decommissioning scheme.
Column 1530
We must understand the interrelationship between the fisheries. One cannot close off one option and expect that the position will stay still; closing off one option has an impact on the other cross-fisheries. I hope that the Minister will seriously consider being more flexible as quickly as possible. If he does not, he will find that there is more effort in the nephrops fishery, and that the situation has changed again for next year. I hope that he will pay attention to that point.The Minister's immediate predecessor, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), in a fairly critical fishing vote which was closely contested in the House, made a declaration to his hon. Friends on the Back Benches. He said that he would not stand for fishermen from Scotland or England being put at a competitive disadvantage to other European fleets with the onset of fisheries regulation. Even now in the decommissioning scheme, that is happening. We have heard of the scrap-and-build policy which is available to fishermen across the Community, but not to fishermen here.
We have had examples of boats for alternative use. I am grateful to Bill Farquhar from the Macduff shipyard for giving me an example. The Jean de la Lune was chosen to lead the parade of sail in the recent tall ships festival in Leith. It was actually a converted French fishing boat which had been commissioned out of the fishing fleet. Given the experience of the early 1980s, I can understand ministerial caution on this aspect. I am, however, certain that the Scottish Office inspectorate and the MAFF inspectorate are quite capable of telling the difference between a tall ship with sails and a working fishing boat. Some flexibility in this aspect would bring us into line with our European colleagues and would generate some much-needed work for our hard-pressed boatyards.
I hope that the Minister will look at boat building as an issue in itself. For many of us from the western approaches of Scotland and from the north- east corner of Scotland, fishing is a dominant part of our communities. In one village in my constituency, 65 per cent. of employment is generated by the fishing industry. I hope that the Minister understands why we cannot tolerate our fishermen, in what are hard times anyway, being placed at a competitive disadvantage to other European fleets. Although we welcome the decommissioning scheme, we ask that some effort is made by the new ministerial team to redress the errors of the past and to allow our fishermen the support to which they are entitled.
8.33 pm
Mr. David Porter (Waveney): I shall concentrate on
decommissioning. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) has already flagged up the issue. Before the Government belatedly and rather grudgingly introduced the decommissioning scheme, I advocated that there should be such a scheme. Like other hon. Members, I recall that the entire House was in favour of the scheme, with the exception of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who opposed it. I felt that if we had to obey multi-annual guidance programme rules, which were bizarre enough at the outset, the whole scheme seemed superficially appealing, especially if 70 per cent. of the grants were recoverable from Europe. In other words, the Community was giving us back our own money. What I advocated was a whole industry scheme, which we have not got.
Column 1531
The miners got £35,000 a man; we do not have anything like such a scheme, which compensates all parts of the industry. There could be a trickle-down effect if boat owners pay some money to ships' crews, to land staff, to fish merchants and, yes, to boat builders as well--in other words, to the whole industry. However, it is the owners who have had the investment and the risks, so, realistically, that is not very likely to happen. What happens to the other men whose jobs are destroyed when boat owners take decommissioning grants? Not only are they directly out of work, but their likelihood of further work is reduced because the fleet in a port becomes smaller. It is a vicious circle.So the whole nightmare of the common fisheries policy, with all its hideous consequences, goes on, using taxpayers' money to put people out of work so that our competitors can better fish us out of more work. That is exactly how people perceive the problem in the ports. To come this year with a new tranche of decommissioning and to claim that it is the solution would be laughable if it was not tragic. As a result of previous shortfalls, unattached licence entitlements and an attempt to fine-tune the system bureaucratically, we are left, in the words of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, with
"a collection of contradictions and anomalies. Almost every boundary in fleet segmentation is open to challenge on grounds of illogicality, inequality and irrelevance."
One cannot fine-tune a leviathan. The idea that one can part-buy out an allegedly excess fleet pushes out any idea that fish stock shortages can be addressed by some other method. The mechanism has become untouchable, just as the grotesque concept that all fish stocks are a common resource open to all has become untouchable. Decommissioning, like all aspects of the CFP, is not succeeding. If the fleet is reduced by 4.5 per cent. tonnage while the actual tonnage goes up by 3.3 per cent., that is hardly success. Discards remain a problem and quotas are becoming a blunt instrument that cannot legally leave a man making a living in most cases. So what do we do? Should we scrap the CFP and start again? Oh no, we just come up with some more schemes and mechanisms to destroy the market in a naturally renewable resource.
I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister of State to his new job. However, he faces a task that he cannot win. He already knows that the fishing industry has more regulation than the nuclear industry and that most of it is unnecessary. If he does not take steps deliberately to swap fish out of Lowestoft, as his predecessor did, I look forward to working with him. I have submitted a paper to his CFP review panel on how we can negotiate reform of the CFP by negotiating to leave it. My hon. Friend has not ruled out that option for consideration, yet his parliamentary answers, one given to me only yesterday, are sticking to the old line of, "All is well and just one more tinkering and we'll be there."
My hon. Friend the Minister says that international co-operation on conservation management is essential. I agree; we can all agree on that. However, the CFP is not an example of good international co-operation. The scheme tonight is just another piece in the whole discredited policy, and because it is not a whole industry scheme, if it is put to the vote, I could not in all conscience vote for it.
Column 1532
8.37 pmMr. Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire): I shall be brief because I know that the Minister needs at least nine or 10 minutes for the wind-up; that is right and proper. The schemes should be approved, but in so saying, I hope that the Minister--I accept that the tone in which he opened the debate was sympathetic, which is much to be welcomed in view of his new responsibilities--will not take it from the tone of the debate, in which I have concurred with just about everything that has been said on both sides about some of the wider issues, that these matters are not urgent and important. I shall concentrate on the shorter-term question of the nephrops fishery, which is an immediate and urgent matter for re- examination, for the reasons that have been explained. In the longer term, we shall look for reconsideration of the historically negative view that the Government have taken of decommissioning schemes and some of the wider European Union schemes.
My local fishing industry believes that it has paid a high price as a result of that historically negative attitude. That attitude has left us, as has been said, with a fishing industry that is short on the construction, modernisation and commissioning grants that have been available to our competitors. I, too, think that it is a scandal that the Spanish fishermen have pocketed £208 million to rebuild their fleet while we have receipts of a mere £19 million--only 2.8 per cent. of the total funds available. That means that, inevitably, our fleet cannot stay safe, modern and competitive. I hope that the Minister and the new ministerial team will consider that as a matter of urgency.
There is one thing that I want the Minister and his team to consider more than anything else, although I know that it will be difficult to try to persuade the Treasury. I want them to bring forward some of the money, because £12 million over three years is not nearly as useful as releasing the money in one block, so that it can be drawn down as necessary to provide the essential cash flow for the scrap-and-build policies and for the yards that are suffering difficulties.
The nephrops fishery is important too, and I hope that the Minister will undertake to meet some of us with individual local concerns in the course of his reconsideration. If the 1995 scheme is ruled out because the schemes are unamendable, I hope that he will see his way clear to listening carefully to the representations by Members with legitimate concerns.
I have a plea from the Eyemouth and District Fishermen's Association, saying:
"many boats have gone to the prawn fishing over the past two years due to the shortage of white fish inshore and the poor prices." I am sure that that is right. There is suspicion that the figures that formed the basis of the decisions that Ministers have taken on the 1995 scheme may be out of date. Indeed, I believe that the decisions were based on 1993 figures. There is evidence that over the past two years there has been a substantial shift to nephrops out of whitefish pressure stocks, and that is a matter of real concern. What has been said about the development of the Fladen grounds persuades me that there has been a substantial change, and that, too, needs to be considered as a matter of urgency. I also hope that, over the next year or two, when the wider issues concerning some of the elements of the scheme--such as the fact that we do not
Column 1533
allow decommissioning to take place when boats go out of European Union waters, or when boats have been taken out of the fishing capacity--are being considered, urgent attention will be paid to those problems.Better provision for decommissioning, together with rebuilding grants paid for with EU funds and even-handed access to Community assistance, are essential if the United Kingdom fishing fleet is to remain viable and competitive in Europe.
8.41 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Raymond S. Robertson): I begin by paying tribute to the work done ihis three years as the Minister responsible for Scottish fisheries by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). Everyone involved in the industry will agree that he was indeed a doughty fighter, and I am aware that his combination of experience mixed with guile will make him a difficult act to follow. I also thank hon. Members for their kind remarks about my appointment.
We have had a useful debate. Decommissioning is an issue of great importance to the fishing industry, not least because it forms a crucial part of the Government's strategy for tackling the problems that we currently face--principally the fact that too many boats are chasing too few fish.
We are not alone in that. The problem is widespread. Within the European Union, we are addressing it by setting targets for the reduction of fishing effort, so everyone in Europe is heading for the same goal. We are committed to meeting the targets, and decommissioning will help us towards that goal. As is equally important, it will help us to achieve a more secure future for the fishing industry, which is what I believe all hon. Members who took part in the debate want.
It is surely right that we should be prepared to make sacrifices today to secure longer-term prosperity. That is why in January the Government announced a further £28 million for decommissioning over the next three years. To respond to a question asked by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), my hon. Friend the Minister of State said that £12 million would be available each year for the next three years, not £12 million overall for the next three years.
The 1995 scheme represents an attempt to achieve a better balance between the number of fishing vessels and the number of fish. Some hon. Members have said that we should be prepared to provide more money overall, but that would require savings to be found elsewhere, and suggestions for that were rather thin on the ground during the debate. I hope and believe that we have the balance about right; £12 million of taxpayers' money this year and in each of the next two years is a significant and realistic contribution from public funds. As has been said, that is only one part of the Government's on-going financial commitment to the fishing industry. We are spending large sums on monitoring fish stocks and on enforcing regulations, both of which we do in order to protect fishermen's incomes. We have also committed about £10 million to help with development at three Scottish fishing harbours, and there is the Pesca money, which the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) mentioned. I can tell him that it is not only local authorities that can come up with the
Column 1534
matching funds. Others can come in too, notably local enterprise companies. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the fact that in Grampian we have been able to secure the lion's share of the Pesca money.Some hon. Members have said that we should be prepared to fix a higher level of compensation for vessel owners. However, the scheme is designed neither to provide social security nor to facilitate reinvestment. We ask fishermen to tell us how much they need to buy themselves out of the industry, and each person gives us a figure. We pick those that offer the best value for money so as to achieve the maximum reduction in capacity at the minimum cost.
Some people--such as the hon. Members for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), for Roxburgh and Berwickshire and for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald)--have criticised us for excluding nephrops. Of course, I recognise that there will be disappointment for vessel owners who would have liked to apply for decommissioning grants this year. But the bottom line is that we have met, and indeed exceeded, our European target for reducing capacity in the prawn fishery. We have reached that position because so many nephrops boats were successful in earlier rounds.
It would not be sensible--
Mr. Macdonald: I accept what the Minister is saying, at least with regard to area VI, but is not the logic of that that the fishery should now become eligible for reinvestment and rebuilding grants? If that is happening in the Northern Ireland fishery, will the Minister examine the case and find out whether the same terms could be applied to the west coast fishery?
Mr. Robertson: I shall come back to that, but Northern Ireland is a special case.
It would not be sensible or right to divert funds to achieve more decommissioning in the nephrops sector generally when other sectors are still so far short of their targets. For example, the important demersal trawling segment still has to be reduced by 17 per cent. to meet its multi- annual guidance programme target, while the beam trawler segment has to face a reduction of more than 35 per cent. to meet its target.
During the debate on the decommissioning scheme last year, the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) suggested that the scheme should be more carefully targeted. He said that the scheme "needs to be considered on a sectoral basis, where the pressure is."--[ Official Report , 14 July 1995; Vol. 246, c. 1209.] I find it odd that now he is criticising us for being more focused and considering quite carefully how best we can meet our MAGP targets.
It would be wrong for the Government to continue to reduce nephrops fishing capacity in a general way. Equally, we must have regard to the local impact of our decision to withdraw grants for decommissioning nephrops boats. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State said, the position of the fleet in Northern Ireland requires more careful thought. The industry in Northern Ireland is in greater difficulty than elsewhere in the United Kingdom, with about half the fleet, which is much older than fleets elsewhere, in the nephrops sector. As my hon. Friend also said, the Government have concluded that Northern Ireland warrants special treatment to help with the process of restructuring.
Column 1535
However, I make it clear to the House that I listen to what the industry says. The Scottish Fishermen's Federation has suggested that because some whitefish vessels may move into the nephrops sector, the MAGP target for nephrops may not be met next year. I give the House a firm commitment that we shall review all the eligibility criteria next year in the light of vessel movements between sectors, and of the current round of decommissioning.I assure hon. Members that if the MAGP target for nephrops is not met next year, the Government will be prepared to reintroduce those species into the scheme. I want hon. Members on both sides of the House to be clear that the exclusion of nephrops vessels this year in no way sets a precedent for 1996. If the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire and his hon. Friends want to come to see me this time next year, when we sit down to prepare the initiative, of course my door will be open.
We should not allow the industry to wither on the vine. The Government share the industry's concern that its future profitability should lead to healthy reinvestment in modern vessels. Some hon. Members, especially the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North, have said that we should reintroduce a scrap-and-build scheme aimed at ensuring that the age profile of the fleet does not become distorted. I fear that we cannot contemplate such a move while we are so far adrift from our capacity targets. To encourage investment now would increase rather than reduce our fishing effort.
However, I share hon. Members' concern that unsafe vessels should not be forced to sea by economic circumstances, placing the lives of their crews at risk.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray): Most of us want to see the introduction of a scrap-and-build policy because of the importance of making our fleet competitive. But if the Government are ruling that out totally, would it be
Column 1536
possible to abolish the scrap-only policy and allow our boatyards to convert decommissioned vessels into, for example, pleasure boats, which provide employment in many coastal communities?Mr. Robertson: On my first day as a Minister, I said to the industry what I shall say to the hon. Lady now--my door will be open for anyone to come in with constructive proposals for the future of the fishing industry and the fishing fleet. If the hon. Lady wants to come and see me with some of her constituents who are involved in the industry, she will find that my door is open.
We are committed to assisting in improvements to the safety of the fleet, and I commend to the House not just the decommissioning scheme, which will take out some of the older boats, but the safety improvement grants scheme, which will help upgrade the facilities of those that remain.
In conclusion, we have covered much ground in the debate. Some see the common fisheries policy as the source of all our ills, but there is no doubt that we would in any circumstances need to agree with our neighbours to share the common resources of the sea or the necessary means to avoid their decimation. Our targets are, I believe, equitable, and the costs of achieving them are borne in part by the EU. The Government are committed to working towards a more financially stable and secure fishing industry. I believe that the two schemes before the House will make a substantial contribution to that end, and I commend them both to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Fishing Vessels (Safety Improvements) (Grants) Scheme 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 1609), dated 28th June 1995, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th June, be approved.
Resolved,
That the Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning) Scheme 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 1610), dated 4th July 1995, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th July, be approved.-- [Mr. Burns.]
Column 1537
Appropriation (Northern Ireland)
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Before I call the Minister to open the debate, it might be helpful to make it clear that the debate may cover all matters for which the Northern Ireland Departments, as distinct from the Northern Ireland Office, are responsible. Police and security are the principal excluded subjects.
8.51 pm
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler): I beg to move,
That the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 8th June, be approved. The draft order, which covers the main estimates for Northern Ireland Departments, authorises expenditure of £3,437 million for the current financial year. Taken together with the sum voted on account in March, this brings the total estimates provision for Northern Ireland Departments to £6,142 million, an increase of 4 per cent. on the 1994-95 provisional outturn. The order also authorises the use of additional receipts to meet an excess vote in 1993-94.
The sums sought for individual services are set out in the estimates booklet, which is, as usual, available from the Vote Office. As you have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the estimates for the Northern Ireland Office for law and order services are not covered by the order.
As is customary on these occasions, I shall highlight the main items in the estimates, starting with the Department of Agriculture. The net provision in the two agriculture votes amounts to some £155 million. In vote 1, some £21 million is to fund EC and national agriculture and fishery support measures which apply throughout the United Kingdom.
In addition to the various pre-funded market support measures under the common agricultural policy, the vote includes some £6 million to assist structural improvements by way of various capital and other grants. Some £14 million is to provide support for farming in special areas by means of headage payments on hill cattle and sheep. In vote 2, some £133 million is for on-going regional services and support measures. This includes £60 million for the development of the agriculture and agricultural products industries and for scientific and veterinary services. Some £38 million is for farm support, enhancement of the countryside and fisheries and forestry services. Some £23 million is for central administration, and £5 million is for the rural development programme.
In the Department of Economic Development's vote 1, some £135 million is required for the Industrial Development Board. This will enable the board to continue to support and assist industrial development in Northern Ireland, mainly through the provision of factory buildings and selective assistance to industry.
The terrorist ceasefires announced last year, coupled with overseas interest in Northern Ireland as an attractive investment location, have significantly improved the prospect of achieving and sustaining higher levels of economic growth in the next few years. The board will continue actively to assist firms to set up and expand in Northern Ireland, and has set itself a target of securing 20 inward investment projects, involving some 4,500 job promotions during the current year.
Column 1538
In vote 2, some £95 million is required. Some £33 million is for the Local Enterprise Development Unit, Northern Ireland's small business agency. This will allow the agency to maintain its excellent track record in developing, strengthening and improving the competitiveness of small firms in Northern Ireland.Some £16 million is for the Industrial Research and Technology Unit, primarily to promote the competitiveness of local companies through increased industrial innovation, research and development and by technology transfer. This underlines the importance that the Government attach to helping Northern Ireland industry to grasp the emerging technological opportunities which underpin successful economic development.
Finally in this vote, £13.6 million is for the Northern Ireland tourist board to support the tourist industry in Northern Ireland. While 1994 saw the sixth consecutive rise in visitor figures--with a record 1.29 million people coming to Northern Ireland--the prospects, with the continuing ceasefires, for this year and beyond are very encouraging, with increasing interest in what Northern Ireland has to offer as a holiday destination.
In vote 3, £203 million is for the Training and Employment Agency. This will enable the agency to continue to provide a range of comprehensive training and support measures, and includes £77 million to fund almost 16,000 places under a new job skills training programme, and for on-going expenditure on a new training facility in west Belfast.
Some £55 million is for the Action for Community Employment programme, which will provide some 10,000 places for long-term unemployed adults in projects of community benefit. Some £18 million spread over a number of programmes is to assist companies improve their competitiveness by developing the skills of their work force, and to provide training for those intending to pursue management careers in industry.
In respect of the Department of the Environment, in vote 1, £180 million is for roads, transport and ports. That includes some £150 million for the development, operation and maintenance of Northern Ireland's public road system. Emphasis continues to be placed on the maintenance of the road system, with expenditure of almost £1 million more than in 1994-95.
The maintenance programme is complemented by new road construction, and local minor road improvement and safety schemes. Construction work on stage 1 of the Belfast cross-harbour road bridge project was completed in 1994. Work on the second stage of the project linking the M3 Lagan bridge to the Sydenham bypass is scheduled for completion by the end of 1997.
Vote 2 covers housing, where some £203 million will provide assistance mainly to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, and to the voluntary housing movement. When net borrowing and the Housing Executive's rents and capital receipts are taken into account, the total resources available for housing this year will be some £593 million. That is an increase of £20 million over 1994-95, and will support the continued improvement of housing conditions.
Vote 3 covers expenditure on water and sewerage services, on which gross expenditure is estimated at £202 million. Some £94 million is for capital expenditure, and £108 million for operational and maintenance purposes.
In vote 4, £142 million is for environmental services. That includes some £35 million for urban regeneration measures, which continue to be targeted at areas of social,
Column 1539
economic and environmental needs. As in previous years, it will generate much higher overall investment through the successful partnerships that have been established with the private sector. Provision for the new Public Record Office of Northern Ireland Agency, launched in April 1995, is also covered within this vote. The estimates for the Department of Education seek a total of £1, 380 million, an increase of 4.3 per cent. over last year's provision. Vote 1 includes £842 million for recurrent expenditure by education and library boards, an increase of £39 million over 1994-95. That includes £794 million for schools and colleges of further education, which will help maintain the pupil-teacher ratio at present levels. Some £48 million is for libraries, youth services and administration and £41 million is for boards' capital projects.That includes the provision of new laboratories and technology workshops to enable further progress to be made on education reforms. Some £143 million is for voluntary schools, and £15 million is for integrated schools, an increase of some £4 million over 1994-95. In vote 2, £119 million is for local universities, to enable them to maintain parity of provision with comparable universities in the rest of the United Kingdom. Some £124 million is for student support, including grants and student loans. The vote also covers expenditure on a range of youth, sport, community and cultural activities, including some £16 million for arts and museums and some £3 million for community relations.
Mr. Roy Beggs (Antrim, East): How much of the money allocated to education in Northern Ireland is contributed to meeting the cost of educating in Northern Ireland students from the Irish Republic? Does the United Kingdom manage to get that money back from the European Union?
Sir John Wheeler: I cannot supply an answer off the cuff on how much money from the estimates is spent on educating persons from the Republic of Ireland, but if I can give the hon. Gentleman more detailed information in the fulness of time, I shall ensure that he has it.
Mr. William Ross (Londonderry, East): I have listened carefully as the right hon. Gentleman has detailed the sums to be spent on various aspects of education. He will be well aware that a large school building programme was launched in Northern Ireland in the 1950s and 1960s. Many of those schools had a fairly limited design life, and are now coming to the end of it. What provision are the Government making in future years to replace those schools?
Sir John Wheeler: I am indeed aware that many of the school buildings erected in Northern Ireland in the 1950s and 1960s, as was common elsewhere in the United Kingdom, and in other countries too, have perhaps completed their useful cycle. That concern is borne in upon me by the Minister of State who is responsible for the Department of Education. He urges upon me the necessity of finding ever-increasing sums of money to meet that particular difficulty. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall attend to it when the coffers permit.
In vote 3, gross provision of some £224 million is for the Department's administration and other costs. That includes £122 million for the Social Security Agency, £19
Column 1540
million for the Child Support Agency, and some £13 million for the health and personal social services management executive. In vote 4, £1,463 million is for social security benefit expenditure administered by the Social Security Agency. That represents an increase of 5.8 per cent. on last year. It covers not only the general uprating of benefits from April 1995, but an increasing number of beneficiaries.In vote 5, £406 million is to cover expenditure on the independent living fund, housing benefit, the social fund and payments to the Northern Ireland national insurance fund.
Finally on the Department of Finance and Personnel, within votes 1 and 3, some £5.6 million is for the community relations programme. Together with the expenditure by the Department of Education, total spending on the community relations programme will be some £8.7 million. That reflects the importance which the Government continue to attach to community relations in Northern Ireland.
I have drawn attention to the main provisions of the estimates. In replying to the debate, the Under-Secretary of State will respond to the points raised. I commend the order to the House.
9.7 pm
Mr. John Spellar (Warley, West): A couple of weeks ago the House considered the renewal of direct rule. That debate necessarily concentrated, although not exclusively, on political issues and the peace process. Today's appropriation debate traditionally allows us, as the Minister made clear, to consider the day-to-day economic issues facing Northern Ireland. Some of those are problems shared with the rest of the United Kingdom, while others are more specialised and unique to Northern Ireland. Although I wish to be comprehensive in my coverage of those issues, I am aware that a number of hon. Members representing Northern Ireland want to participate in the debate and raise particular issues of concern to their constituents.
I should like to deal first with the economy. We greatly welcome the recent reduction in levels of unemployment in Northern Ireland, especially among the long-term unemployed. We also welcome the Secretary of State's acknowledgement in his speech to the House on 5 July that that rate is still too high. We note the extremely high levels of unemployment in some especially deprived areas. Although we record the significant progress already made, we must do more to reduce the appalling level of unemployment, which, let us remind ourselves, is still officially around 12 per cent. We must especially try to reduce long-term unemployment, which is one fifth of that total--a far greater proportion than in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Those levels of unemployment are economically disastrous and socially damaging, as I am sure that we are all aware. We want action to target social need and to tackle the relative deprivation of specific areas and pockets in Northern Ireland. Measures to tackle unemployment must be accompanied by enforced fair employment legislation. In that, I commend the proposals recently made by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty).
The recent reduction in unemployment also reflects the encouraging fact that Northern Ireland industry is enjoying similar growth to the rest of the country in the
Column 1541
manufacturing sector and is ahead of the game on export-led growth. As the Minister and the House will be aware, that was reinforced by figures in yesterday's Financial Times , showing that Northern Ireland had the fastest growth this year of any region in the United Kingdom.We should also acknowledge that, since our last appropriation debate in the Chamber, there has been welcome news of new orders for Shorts and for Harland and Wolff--both important employers, and key parts of the sector employing skilled and technical labour in Northern Ireland. Harland and Wolff received an order from British Petroleum for a floating production system, which is especially welcome as it may well offer access to a whole new world market as oil production moves further and further offshore.
The Ministers will remember that both Opposition Front-Benchers and hon. Members from Northern Ireland have pressed that case, and the need to secure the future of Harland and Wolff, very strongly in the Chamber, and I am sure that we all welcome the news.
We are awaiting the follow-up from the Washington conference and hoping for new investment for other industries from that. We need to echo tonight the concerns expressed by Baroness Denton that the recent disturbances should not discourage inward investors and frustrate the strenuous efforts that we have all put in on behalf of Northern Ireland and inward investment there.
Inward investment--increased investment from the United States and elsewhere--will provide some new job opportunities, we hope a considerable number, in the medium to long term. However, as Labour Members have repeatedly emphasised from the Dispatch Box, Northern Ireland urgently needs a new economic strategy, including an immediate action programme for jobs and longer-term measures focusing on investment, innovation and training. I notice the figures in the Minister's report emphasising the work being put into training, but we must ensure that, for example, the modern apprenticeship ends up with real apprenticeship leading to real skilled work, instead of being regarded as a make-weight training measure.
Northern Ireland needs a change of direction and a new economic strategy that includes measures to help small businesses, which comprise a considerable sector--indeed, a far larger sector of business in Northern Ireland than in the rest of the UK economy--a unified framework for skills training, incentives for businesses to take on long-term unemployed people and to focus on long-term unemployed people, and improvements in nursery care to help in that process.
I say in a slightly stronger tone that we are worried that the Government might be seen to be undermining some of those efforts by ignoring their own guidelines on fair treatment. I shall refer to those later.
However, the fruits of that endeavour are more in the future, and other sectors have considerable difficulties now. The Minister will not be surprised to hear that I once again draw attention to the plight of the construction industry and, more, that I accuse his Department of complacency in its response to the industry's difficulties.
Let us be frank. The problems that confront the industry partly result from a welcome outcome of the peace--the reduction in property damage, in the work undertaken to rectify that and in insurance claims. The Minister will know that I mentioned the problems of the construction
| Next Section
| Home Page |