| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. William Thompson (West Tyrone): The Minister compares Scotland and Wales with Northern Ireland, but perhaps he would acknowledge that, although the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly are democratic and have democratic Executives, an undemocratic institution
is proposed in Northern Ireland. If people elect a party, the policies of that party cannot be carried out because of the system. That is completely undemocratic.
Mr. Murphy: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman; he will not be surprised at that. We have disagreed on these matters for some time. He holds his views sincerely, as we all do. In Scotland, some 70 per cent. of people voted for the system of government that they will have. In Wales, we voted for a change, too--by a much narrower margin, but we had a majority. The biggest percentage of people who turned out to vote was in Northern Ireland. Of those people, in a referendum that was specifically geared to an agreement, which every household in Northern Ireland received, 72 per cent. voted yes. We may disagree with that and hold our different views, but there is no doubt in my mind that the system of government--with the Assembly and the Executive--was approved by the people in a plebiscite. I believe sincerely that the majority of people in Northern Ireland still want what was approved.
In these coming days, the burden and duty on those of us who will be in Castle buildings will be to follow the wishes of the people by ensuring that the agreement is implemented and that there is an Assembly. Why should people in Northern Ireland not have an Assembly when the people of Wales and Scotland will have such bodies in a fortnight's time? They want one. That is why we should be absolutely certain that this is the very last such debate in the House of Commons, and that the next one will be for the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Madam Speaker:
Order. Before I call another Member, it may be helpful at this stage if I remind the House that debate on this order may cover all matters for which Northern Ireland Departments, as distinct from the Northern Ireland Office, are responsible. Police and security matters are, of course, the principal excluded subjects.
10.22 pm
Mr. Malcolm Moss (North-East Cambridgeshire): I shall start by echoing some of the Minister's remarks. We are debating this order against the intensification of efforts by both the British and Irish Governments and the Northern Ireland parties to break the deadlock in the peace process. The Opposition hope that those efforts will be successful and that an agreement can be reached by 30 June. We are anxious to see the formation of the new Northern Ireland Executive, and we want all eligible parties to take their seats in the Executive, in accordance with the Good Friday agreement.
As the Minister rightly pointed out, this is not a debate on decommissioning, but the Opposition are clear that only parties that have established a commitment to exclusively democratic and peaceful means can take their seats in government. As we have said on many occasions, there can be no question of Sinn Fein members taking on Executive responsibilities without a credible and verifiable start to decommissioning.
One of the reasons why we are so keen for the Executive to be established is so that responsibility for the matters that we are discussing can be rightly determined
in the Assembly, in Northern Ireland itself. These are particularly important matters, relating to public expenditure on several key areas in Northern Ireland, such as health, education and transport, yet they are being addressed late at night in a debate on an order which is limited to just three hours. Of course, that has been one of the perennial defects of direct rule, which the establishment of the Assembly is intended to rectify. How much better it would be if these issues could be determined by a local Administration sensitive to local priorities.
Many of us thought that, once the Northern Ireland Act 1998 had become law, we had debated the appropriation order on the Floor of the House for the very last time. I suspect that that concerned appropriation order No. 1--No. 2 is of course before us--although I share the Minister's wish that this is the last appropriation order to be debated by this House.
As the Minister helpfully said, the order covers the main estimates for the Northern Ireland Departments and authorises spending of some £4,282 million for the current year. It does not, of course, cover the money spent by the Northern Ireland Office, including on matters such as security, policing, prisons and compensation. Many hon. Members will look forward to the sums spent on those areas being reduced in the context of peace becominga firmly established feature in Northern Ireland. Regrettably, that is not yet the case, so those areas must continue to be top priorities for Ministers in the Province.
The order covers areas of expenditure across all Northern Ireland Departments, but I want to focus my brief comments on the Northern Ireland economy. One of the key by-products of peace will be the boost to the economy, which will make Northern Ireland a much easier place to sell to potential inward investors. In that context, I note the money being granted to the Industrial Development Board, which comes to just over £81 million.
The IDB has done an extremely creditable job over the years, attracting many prestigious inward investment projects. To a large extent, they have been attracted by a combination of policies--low taxation, flexible labour markets and less regulation. We fear that the present Government risk throwing away many of the competitive advantages that the Conservative Governments of the 1980s and 1990s fought so hard to gain. That would be particularly damaging, especially given the exceptionally high growth rates currently being enjoyed in the Republic of Ireland, not to mention some of the tax incentives there.
Let us look at Labour's record. Instead of making it easier to employ people, the Government have been piling extra red tape, regulations and burdens on to business. The social chapter, the working time directive, the national minimum wage and statutory union recognition will all saddle business with extra costs. [Interruption.] There are groans from those on the Government Benches, but these views are borne out across the board.
After the last Budget, Chris Humphries, director- general of the British Chambers of Commerce, said:
Mr. Moss:
We have said all along that we oppose the Government's proposals on the minimum wage, and we continue to do so.
I know that one of the particular concerns of hon. Members representing Northern Ireland was the massive hike in fuel and excise duties in the last Budget, including a 12 per cent. increase in fuel duty. The Government are clobbering the road haulage industry and, in Northern Ireland, giving a green light to the racketeers and smugglers across the border with the Republic. We believe that most of the proceeds of such racketeering and smuggling go into the pockets of the terrorist organisations.
Although we welcome the extra money for the IDB and the amounts being spent on economic development generally, let us be clear in our minds that it will be money wasted unless the Government wake up to the reality of the damage that their policies are doing to business.
I shall pick out a couple of matters for comment. Significant amounts of money are being devoted to the Training and Employment Agency--rightly so, as it is very important. However, perhaps the Minister would give an idea of the cost of each job created by the new deal in Northern Ireland. In the United Kingdom as a whole, the cost is in the order of £11,000 per job, making it the most expensive job creation scheme in history. Also, in the country as a whole, almost half of those who go on to the scheme come off it without any positive result. They move on to other benefits or disappear entirely.
The Government make much of the comprehensive spending review and the extra money being given to health and education. We have made it clear that we welcome that extra money.
Mr. Eddie McGrady (South Down):
I endorse the Minister's hope that this will be the last time that an appropriation order is debated in the Chamber, and that the democratic will of the people of Northern Ireland, so clearly expressed and so passionately sought, will be fulfilled over the next couple of weeks. In the meantime, it behoves us all to use our best endeavours to honour the will of the people as expressed in the referendum on the terms of the Good Friday agreement, which the people endorsed and are entitled to have delivered. That does not mean that we have to agree with all of it, but if we subscribe to democracy, we have an obligation to ensure
The need for a local Administration is apparent each day. In all the Departments of Government, many measures have been shelved and not brought into effect. They are awaiting proper debate by the people of Northern Ireland, through their representatives, in the context of what best suits the Administration there. It is essential that that proceeds as quickly as possible.
I share the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) about the task of the new Minister of Finance and Personnel--who we hope will be in office before too long--in the light of the shortfall in provision for the expenses of the new Assembly, which were grossly underestimated by officials in many Departments. As the Minister noted, they have reached £27.6 million, instead of £14 million.
The new Minister will have to deal with the debacle that has resulted from the Chancellor's May 1998 so-called bonanza. The Good Friday agreement was endorsed by the Chancellor's statement that funds would be provided for an £87 million programme of essential and urgent major roadworks. Those included the Banbridge to Newry section of the Dublin-Belfast arterial route, the West Link in Belfast and the Toome bypass. On 21 April, a major roadworks programme was launched for 1999-2000 to 2002-03 by the Minister. That was in addition to the £87 million that was to come out of the Belfast port sale.
Examination of the proposal of the Belfast harbour commissioners, which was accepted, showed that it was wanting in many respects. I am deeply concerned about the indications given in the ministerial introduction to the debate that the funding shortfall, be it temporary or permanent, will mean that not only the roads programme, to which the money from the harbour sale was specifically dedicated, but other aspects of the budget will be affected.
I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that the budget of the Housing Executive for social housing, that for the agricultural and farming community and a number of other budgets will not be restricted because of failure to receive, or delay in receiving, receipts from the proposed privatisation of Belfast harbour. It is most important that we know that as soon as possible.
We all know that duty on fuel is part of the escalator. We in Northern Ireland, along with the rest of western Europe, accept our share of responsibility for achieving a greener and better environment, but the problem is that we are suffering disproportionately from the application of that tax. When we were debating clause 2 of the Finance Bill, I said, as did people from all parties subsequently, that increased fuel and road tax duties were causing great difficulty for haulage and transport companies and petrol retailers in the border areas.
The only land border between the United Kingdom and any other country is that with the Republic of Ireland. The enormous differential in fuel costs and road tax levy costs between the UK and the Republic of Ireland is already on record. In that debate, I suggested that, although the scheme implemented by the Netherlands Government in respect of their problem vis-a-vis the German fiscal system has created a differential, it is not nearly as big as that between the UK and the Republic of Ireland. I have pursued that suggestion ever since.
I understand that the Netherlands Government give a grant to Dutch border companies within 10 km of the German border sufficient to equalise the fuel prices of Germany and the Netherlands. In the area between 11 km and 20 km from the border, a levy grant is given to alleviate the difference, making it half the differential between the products of the two fiscal regimes. I am terribly disappointed that, despite many representations being made by many parties, we do not seem to be any nearer receiving an answer; because of that, there is further unemployment in Northern Ireland, and the transfer of companies to the Republic of Ireland is growing apace. It is vital that we receive an answer on the scheme as soon as possible.
One difficulty is that the matter of who is ultimately responsibility for whether such a measure is a tax concession or a levy concession from the estimates seems to travel back and forth like a shuttlecock between the Chancellor at Westminster and the Northern Ireland Office. If the measure is introduced, as I hope it will be, and the money has to come out of the Northern Ireland block grant, provision must be made for that. The Confederation of British Industry is deeply concerned about the long-term impact that such a huge differential will have on the economy of Northern Ireland. I shall not quote from its lengthy document on that; it is sufficient to refer the Minister to it.
The Department of Health and Social Services deals with long-term care. Some years ago, under the previous Administration, there was a great push to create private nursing homes at the expense of the public or statutory nursing homes. I participated in the struggle to ensure that there was a choice between those two sectors for the less well-off in our community. It appears that economic circumstances are being created in which the private sector is being pushed out of existence. I take as an example the case in the southern part of my constituency, where some 73 bed closures took place in a relatively short time because the funding was not sufficient to meet the cost of care and had not risen in line with inflation. If that process continues, the state will have to pick up the difference and supply the residential beds that have disappeared from the private sector.
The whole question of long-term care seems to have been put on hold. Some of the health boards that administer parts of my constituency have been instructed not to proceed with further implementation of long-term care projects because they cannot meet the justifiable increases in the cost of their staff and doctors. They will have to cut services to provide the funds for those--quite proper--increases in salary, which should have been properly funded to enable the new salary scales to be paid and to allow existing services to be at least sustained, if not improved. The long-term care document says that expenditure on the care of the elderly in our community should be increased. That now seems destined not to happen.
"I do not believe we are yet seeing the evidence of the business friendly face the government promised in its manifesto. Business is more heavily taxed, more heavily regulated than we were two years ago.
21 Jun 1999 : Column 869
The smoke and mirrors Chancellor has not given us the whole picture. The net effect of Tuesday's Budget is that businesses will be £500 million worse off in 1999, £1.5 billion worse off in 2000, and £1.2 billion worse off in 2001".
That is an increased burden of £3.2 billion over the next three years, and it comes on top of the extra £5 billion a year in business taxes that Labour has already imposed.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North):
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the national minimum wage. Can we work on the assumption that, at the next general election, the Conservative party will totally oppose the national minimum wage and, if elected, will ensure that it is dropped?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |