| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
10.50 pm
Sir James Molyneaux (Lagan Valley): I have no means of knowing whether the Chair has arranged for Lord Nolan to sit in on the debate, and if so, whether he can blow a whistle so that anyone who appears to have an interest in the matters under discussion can be forewarned.
In a way, all of us are bound to have financial interests somewhere in the 11 pages of this order. I am distinctly nervous when it comes to the mention of retirement pensions. I am less anxious about the case for maternity benefits. Younger colleagues, who have served and are serving their apprenticeship in this House consumed with the burning ambition to progress to higher things, might be concerned over the mention of £163,000 for the Northern Ireland Assembly.
As time is pressing, I shall resist the temptation to deal with specific matters, but will consider the wider picture as it would affect any Government. I hope that that may appeal to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West(Mr. Dowd), who spoke for the Opposition.
Northern Ireland appropriation order debates should not be allowed to give the impression that Northern Ireland is an obscure colony. It is an integral part of the United Kingdom and this appropriation order confirms that. It merely authorises the allocation of funds made available by Her Majesty's Treasury, which, in turn, derives that money throughout the United Kingdom by unitary taxation, as it is applied to all four constituent parts of the kingdom.
The advantages of belonging impose matching responsibilities. While we represent Northern Ireland and have a right to suggest how the total sum should be spent, we do not have the right to demand reckless expenditure which, if it were repeated in England, Scotland and Wales, would jeopardise the nation's finances and devalue the currency, whatever the complexion of the Government in power. In that regard, our parliamentary party has been consistent since its inception in 1974.
In my modest contribution to the debate on the reply to the Gracious Speech in November last year, I reiterated our principles: no fixed exchange rates, which has incidentally become a very popular view in the interval since I made that speech in early November; resumed repayment of the national debt; maintaining the Government's excellent record on low inflation; a steady reduction in the public sector borrowing requirement; and, support for the Chancellor's carefully phased cuts in interest rates. The Chancellor was on the Front Bench that day and he seemed to approve. Although I am a modest man with much to be modest about, I like to think that perhaps I had some influence on his decisions when he was finalising the Budget that he presented the following week.
With regard to the broad sweep of funds granted by the Treasury, the Minister may find it useful to explain more fully the impact of the so-called peace dividend. Savings resulting from what has been called the temporary cessation of military operations will have been reflected to some extent in part I of the order. Part II will presumably reflect certain reductions in public expenditure in keeping with the Government's policy of sound money, with which we do not greatly disagree. That means a reduction in the budgets of various sectors such as housing and hospitals. The authorities in those sectors managed--but only just--to avoid swingeing reductions in plans for this year and next year.
However, with the rolling resumption of terrorism, the peace dividend will have disappeared. There will inevitably be an increase in security-related expenditure throughout the United Kingdom--bearing proportionately on Northern Ireland. I am not referring to the costs of security forces because they are not contained in the order.
I am asking for an assurance that as security-related expenditure rises, the Government will regard that as a regrettable extra and will not be tempted to raid from the Northern Ireland budget the already reduced funds allocated to the Departments for the year 1996-97. Will it be accepted that, although the Northern Ireland Departments will do their best to cope with cuts in the coming year, they simply could not function if further cuts were made in their budgets for 1997 and the remaining years of the decade?
Paragraph 4(2) makes the rigid requirement that any money borrowed, with interest due, must be repaid not later than 31 March 1997. I make that point because, on
1 November 1995, in a Committee debate on the financial provisions order, I referred to the flexibility that the order gave in the dates for the repayment of loans by various organisations in Northern Ireland. It was explained by the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the right hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), who was acting for the Government on that day, that a rigid repayment date could sometimes impose an administrative burden on organisations such as the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. On that occasion, the Committee could see the sense in that proposal and it unanimously approved the order. The question arises in my mind: why is the Department of Finance and Personnel, in this appropriation order, denying itself the flexibility that it accorded to others in the financial provisions order?
I know that many other right hon. and hon. Members will no doubt wish to deal with the activities of some of the departmental votes, but I wish to concentrate on the financial aspects of the Department of Economic Development listed on page 8, in vote 3. I want to focus on the enterprise and investment scheme that was introduced by the Government in the 1993 Budget to provide for a new equity investment in unquoted trading companies by outside individuals, "outside" in that case meaning persons not connected with the company, such as employees and shareholders with more than 30 per cent. of the capital.
Despite the fact that various tax reliefs are available to investors, only about 200 companies have benefited in the two years of the scheme's existence throughout the entire United Kingdom. Potential small companies have not noticed that whereas various forms of support are restricted to manufacturing industry, which has always been a sore point, this scheme has benefited service industry companies, including retail and wholesale distribution companies, hotels and restaurants. That has always been a much-despised sector, but it has chalked up assets of £8 billion throughout the United Kingdom in the last full year.
I am baffled and disappointed by the lack of response to the scheme in Northern Ireland, which is noted for its diligence and business acumen. It is a part of United Kingdom that, despite all that the enemy could do over past years, is benefiting from a steady improvement in its natural economy. I know of numerous small potential investors on the one hand and small enterprising companies on the other. The challenge for us all is how to bring them together.
It is true that the enterprise investment scheme is based on the Department of Trade and Industry in London, with welcome Treasury support. It is also true that the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the right hon. Member for Westminster, North, who is responsible for finance, and his colleague, the Under-Secretary, Baroness Denton, are making determined efforts to project that scheme in Northern Ireland. However, the two Ministers would be the first to admit that they need the support of all of us.I think that I can assure them of the backing of all hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland because, throughout my 25 years in the House, my colleagues from Northern Ireland, whatever their party affiliations, have banded together to support initiatives that have improved the material well-being of all our people in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Eddie McGrady (South Down):
I do not share the understanding of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux) of the cuts in Government expenditure that have been imposed on us over the past few months. I make no apology for again referring, as have other hon. Members, to the vicious cuts in the action for community employment programme, whereby the groups involved were unilaterally informed on 12 December 1995 of a 25 per cent. cut in their budget. There was no advance consultation.
It is interesting to note that the document issued by the Department in February 1993, "The Strategy for the Support of the Voluntary Sector and Community Development in Northern Ireland", promised that there would be consultation with that sector on key issues before decisions were made by the Government. Why was that promise not honoured on this occasion?
Another document was issued that related to training and employment. It stated:
The providers embraced that whole-heartedly under the concept, advanced to them by the Government, of partnership. Once again, the Government acted unilaterally. The so-called partners in training were advised of the vicious cut by a press release. The Minister must answer to the voluntary organisations which provide such a dedicated service to the Northern Ireland community--they deserve much better treatment than that.
The Department failed to pursue through the system the consequences for our communities of that draconian cut. The most vulnerable--the aged, invalids, the young, pre-school children and the unemployed--have been hit directly. The Minister has made a vicious cut in that sector but, if services are to be maintained and not disappear entirely, another Department must pick up the tab. Will the Minister confirm whether that is the Government's intention? Will services to the most vulnerable members of our community be cut as a result of the Government's actions?
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West(Mr. Dowd) referred to the 2,000 to 3,000 jobs which may be affected--as will diverse organisations, such as Cancer Research, Age Concern, meals on wheels and play schools. There will be a fundamental withdrawal of services and the Minister must address that issue. Will he confirm whether the Government's ploy is simply to reduce spending on the Training and Employment Agency in the hope that the peace and reconciliation fund will meet the difference in the long term on the basis of its social inclusion philosophy?
I shall deal now with the Department of the Environment. My hon. Friend mentioned the roads infrastructure bonanza of the 1960s and he questioned whether the funds should be
renewed. Certain areas of Northern Ireland never enjoyed that bonanza in the 1960s--I refer to my constituency and to the neighbouring areas in south-eastern Northern Ireland. In the intervening three decades, there has been no meaningful capital expenditure on roads or communications infrastructure in those areas.
If we are to achieve any share of the job bonanza that is promised to Northern Ireland and any share in the forecast huge increase in tourism, we must have reasonably modern road access to that area, which is one of the legs of the tripod for tourism development in Northern Ireland: the lakes of Fermanagh, the north coast and the Mourne and St. Patrick's country. The latter does not have the accessibility to create meaningful infrastructure for tourism or inward investment. I shall not go into great detail, but the primary routes into that area--the A7, the B8 and A24, Belfast to Downpatrick, Belfast to Newcastle, and the coastal roads--will not be improved until 2001, except through the expenditure of a small part of the minor works budget. It is beyond me how that policy gets past the equal treatment qualification. It seems as though those areas which did not receive funding in times of plenty will certainly not receive it now.
I must refer to one aspect of the roads infrastructure in light of last month's debacle involving the ferry between Strangford and Portaferry, which is the major link between the Ards peninsula and south-east Ulster. The ferry service did not operate for several days--the main ferry, the back-up ferry and even the small passenger cruiser were out of action at the same time.
The Department of the Environment commissioned a firm of marine consultants to carry out an assessment of the ferry operation and make recommendations. The firm reported to the Department in April 1995, recommending that the motor vessel named Portaferry be replaced. The Department has sat on that report and, despite the endeavours of my party and others, we have failed to elicit a reasonable response to proposals made to the Department by the commission that it appointed. Will the ferry be replaced or not? It is a simple question.
Perhaps the Minister will take aboard an entirely different concept. Is it more meaningful in modern times, instead of replacing the ferry, to build a bridge between the Ards peninsula and the rest of the south-east? It would create much greater scope for increasing economic prosperity, based on the limited amount of industry that exists. It would connect the two areas of Down, which have the entire fishing industry of Northern Ireland, and facilitate commerce in agricultural produce. Does that proposition figure in the Minister's thinking?
I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that, if we are to have a meaningful social housing programme to take us into the new millennium, increased funding will unfortunately be required. All the primary indicators of the way in which our housing stock is developing show an unhealthy trend. Unfitness is increasing and is now8.8 per cent.--higher than the Great Britain average. In some substantial rural areas it is as high as 28 per cent.
In the past five years, waiting lists have increased considerably and the population forecast of household growth is 7,500 per annum, yet the total targeted of the Housing Executive and the housing associations is only 2,300 per annum. Added to that is the increasing need to
provide specialised housing for the care in the community concept, which will obviously increase as the population ages.
A comment was made about the fact that the demand to rehabilitate houses by way of grant--repair, renovation or restoration--has obviously greatly outstripped that anticipated by Government. Is there any meaningful anticipation that adequate funding will be provided for the Housing Executive or whatever the new set-up will be after the housing consultation that is taking place?
I shall now discuss the severe cuts throughout the health boards--3 per cent. this year. Those cuts were announced in a press release by the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), on 12 February 1996. It is an unusual press release. It is five or six pages long and admits clearly--for the first time ever, in my experience--that the 3 per cent. cut cannot be provided for out of the boards' funding. The Minister anticipates that only 1.5 per cent of that cut can be provided for out of the boards' funding. The Minister continued:
That is the first time ever that, in a ministerial press release, a deliberate cut in services has been acknowledged.
"the Training and Employment Agency seeks an active partnership with voluntary organisations and local community interests in support of training and other initiatives which enhance employment programmes."
"I will be asking Boards, GP Fundholders and Trusts to work together to minimise the impact of the remaining 1½% reduction on services to patients and clients."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |