| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
5.35 pm
Sir James Molyneaux (Lagan Valley): Under the heading of the Department of Economic Development, vote 1, may I mention that, since I put my supplementary question at Question Time this afternoon to the Minister
of State, the right hon. Member for Devizes(Mr. Ancram), about the possibility and desirability of the establishment of an economic committee representing both Houses of Parliament, I have been asked by interested Members to explain what I have in mind.
I have explained that I have in mind a body established not by rigid legislation but by simple resolution, perhaps even for a trial period. At the time, the right hon. Gentleman wondered whether the need for such a committee could be met by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. That is a worthy body, but it suffers from having far too wide a remit. Only occasionally can it concentrate on matters connected with the economy, and its members cannot be expected to meet at short notice to discuss with people such as Baroness Denton matters that require urgent attention, to consult overseas investors or to support the Baroness at major international conferences.
I do not imply or suggest that the committee, when it is formed--I shall not say "if" it is formed--should go to such places as a whole body, but a balanced team representing the various parties in the House, not the Northern Ireland parties alone, would be able to do much to underpin what Ministers, especially Baroness Denton, do when they go abroad to those prestigious gatherings.
There have been some such gatherings in the recent past, and many have been fruitful. I dare to suggest that they could have been even more fruitful if such a back-up body had been in place. Such a body, consisting of people experienced in industry, business and technology, from both Houses of Parliament, would do much to co-ordinate and boost measures to expand Northern Ireland's economy, not on a temporary basis, but on a rock-solid permanent basis.
Under the heading of the Department of Education, vote 1, I make a special plea for funds for two school replacements, and I shall give two examples of pressing need.
One is Ballycarrickmaddy primary school. The Official Reporters will be relieved to note that I propose to give them the spelling of that name in block letters. It is a rather ancient and small building that forms the core of a school that consists almost entirely of portacabins connected by muddy paths. It is unprotected from the weather, which is of the type one would expect on a hilltop site. The South Eastern education and library board has approved plans for a replacement school, which have been forwarded to the Department of Education.
I ask the Minister of State and his colleague to transmit to the Minister responsible for education a plea to ensure that account is taken of the fact that several other schools have been closed in that locality, the pupils from which are being bussed into Ballycarrickmaddy school. The roll has rocketed to 135 pupils, and it will be further increased in September because of the recent construction of 50 new homes within the catchment area. It is fashionable to advocate new schools as status symbols, but I am making this request, which is driven by dire necessity, on behalf of the South Eastern education and library board, the governors, teachers and pupils.
Another worthy funding request comes from the governors, teachers, parents and pupils of Tonagh school in Lisburn for a relatively small extension to a fairly modern school, where the number of pupils is increasing. Funding for the project would be comparatively modest. The number of pupils is increasing partly because of the
housing estate in which the school is situated, and partly because of the adjacent estates from which pupils are attracted by the high standards of teaching and discipline for which the school is noted. I visited the school recently, and I was shown the sketch plans at the site. Even to my inexperienced eye, the proposed extension represented no real structural problems within the curtilage of the site, as there is plenty of space. I hope that this modest requirement will be sympathetically considered for early action.
I apologise to Ministers for bouncing a matter on them unexpectedly, but I received correspondence on an urgent matter in this afternoon's post. I shall give the Minister of State copies so that he will be au fait with the details of a matter that must be dealt with by his colleague, the Minister with responsibility for education. The present chief executive of the South Eastern education and library board, Tom Nolan, is to retire. All of us who have had dealings with him will concede that he has been one of the most efficient education officers in Northern Ireland for a long time. His retirement will leave a big gap in the administration of education throughout Northern Ireland, and I hope that--as he is a comparatively young man--he will find another role. I say that as a 75-year-old.
The board wrote to the Department of Education on5 March 1996 to inform it of the retirement of the chief executive, and asked for guidance from the Department on how to trigger the procedures necessary for the appointment of someone as important as a chief executive. The board is up against a timetable, as the new chief executive has to be in post by 1 January. The Minister will know that there is a staged sequence of events in such appointments, starting with advertising and followed by listing, short-listing and innumerable interviews and assessments. The effect is that the board now faces a deadline of no more than six or seven days.
I apologise for appearing to bounce the issue on Ministers, but I need a response. There may be a good reason why the Department failed to acknowledge the letter from the board of 5 March. Two reminders were sent, but neither was replied to. The board now needs advice on how to proceed. Without such advice, it would be quite illegal--given all the restrictions placed on such appointments--to proceed unless and until the board has the Department's permission. The Department must respond within the coming week to the responsible request from the board.
The vote on health was mentioned by the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley). On 12 February 1996, the Minister said:
The Down and Lisburn trust is based in my constituency and that of the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), and it is calculated that it will lose£1.8 million in the current year, but the situation is far more serious than that. Because of the late notification of the reductions announced on 12 February, there was no time to make the necessary adjustments. As a result, there will be serious service reductions in what I would call non-emergency areas of the health service in the current year, 1996-97. In those areas, the cut will not be
3 per cent., but about 30 per cent. We can imagine the effect of that in human terms--it will be disastrous. The missing services will distress patients and the general public, and it is forecast that additional reductions will be made in 1997-98. That will mean the disappearance of many facilities.
Since the Minister's statement on 12 February, the Chancellor of the Exchequer--as is his right--has been holding forth about the national finances. In a major speech recently, he indicated that education and the health service would be protected sectors and would not suffer when the Government made any cuts necessary to keep the national finances on course. The Chancellor implied that, if across-the-board cuts were forced upon the Government, they would not be applied to those protected areas. I regret that I do not have to hand the exact reference, but that was the broad sense of the Chancellor's statement and I have reason to believe that it is the broad sense of his views.
My plea to the Minister is this: in the short term, if extra funds can be found--as I believe they can--priority should be given to a booster injection in the current year to relieve the hardship that will undoubtedly result from the fact that the announcement was made comparatively near to the commencement of the current financial year.
Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South):
I always understood that appropriation debates dealt with money delivered to the Northern Ireland Office which did not include security funding. Surely the fact that there has been a security bonus should not result in money being deducted from the Northern Ireland appropriation fund, as we were told that these were different budgets.
Sir James Molyneaux:
That has always been a puzzle. I can never understand where we benefited from the peace dividend and the savings on security and security-related measures. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us. For one moment, I thought that my hon. Friend was going to ask what had happened to the billions of pounds that have accrued over the past five years from privatisations. It is not a piffling sum, but in the region of £87 billion. That little nest egg must be hidden away somewhere, too. Goldsmith does not have it all.
I mentioned my first priority, and I shall repeat it for good measure. If there are any lottery funds lying around, please devote them to a booster injection for the health service in the current financial year. My second priority is slightly longer term. In the 1996-97 expenditure round, I plead with the Minister to move heaven and earth to ensure that there will be no--repeat, no--further reductions in the Northern Ireland allocation for health for 1997-98 and beyond.
"The resources are simply not available to meet all the demands placed upon health and social services"
and added that spending on existing services would have to be reduced by 3 per cent., or £30 million, throughout the Province.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |