House of Commons Hansard Debates for 21 Jun 1999 (pt 34)

10.42 pm

Mr. Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire): The Minister said that he hoped that this would be the last time that we debate these estimates, and I very much agree with him. Now that Wales and Scotland are enjoying devolution, we must remember that it is never too late to delegate. I continue to hope--for the sake of fulfilling many of the dreams and ambitions of constitutional reform, but, even more, for the sake of securing peace in Northern Ireland--that Northern Ireland takes its rightful place in what is becoming a federal United Kingdom.

It is worth bearing in mind that £4.2 billion is a lot of money. It is more than £3,000 a head in Northern Ireland, which continues to be the part of the UK most dependent on public funding. In the medium to long term, we want that to change. As Northern Ireland's economy benefits from the peace dividend, I should like to think that the proportion of income generated through private enterprise will increase.

I welcome the money for health and education. The increase in the education budget is about 6 per cent., which is well above inflation. That is very much in line with what the Government promised; more to the point, it is in line with our expectations of proper investment in education, which, for many years, has been starved of that sort of investment across the UK, including Northern Ireland. I therefore award the Minister a big tick, a "well done" and a 2-1 for that.

What concerns me most is the continuing question of the funds that will accrue from the sale of the port of Belfast. Last year, the Chancellor announced under the roads programme a special package for Northern Ireland, which amounted to some £70 million. The money was to come from the privatisation of Belfast harbour through a public-private partnership. As the Minister knows, I have grave reservations about the privatisation process, although I do not intend to pursue those now. Other hon. Members from Northern Ireland may wish to discuss that.

However, I remind the Minister that it is widely acknowledged that such a flotation would raise much more than £70 million, probably in the region of £110 million to £120 million. Lord Dubs has consistently informed Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly--my contacts are in the Northern Ireland Alliance party--that any money in excess of £70 million would be retained within the Northern Ireland budget. We have since learned that that may no longer be the case, and that the £70 million will be spent not only on road schemes, but on projects such as new school buildings and beef marketing. Great pressure has been put on the Committee of the Assembly to support the privatisation plans. If those plans are not agreed, the threat is that the projects will be delayed or even shelved.

Is it still Government policy, as outlined in Lord Dubs's submission to the ad hoc Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly on the privatisation ofBelfast harbour, that any money in excess of the £70 million contained in the Chancellor's proposals

21 Jun 1999 : Column 873

should be retained in the Northern Ireland budget? To underline the point, I remind the Minister of the reply that Lord Dubs gave to Mr. Neeson of the Alliance party on this subject. He said:

"The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave an undertaking that the proceeds from the sale of Belfast harbour would stay in the Northern Ireland block and therefore would be spent for Northern Ireland purposes. The Secretary of State and I have reiterated that on a number of occasions. I cannot see that the Assembly would do otherwise, because it would be their money. It is unusual for the Treasury to give such a commitment in relation to a privatisation, but one has clearly been given in this instance. It is there in black and white."

Will the Minister confirm that all the money from the privatisation will be ring-fenced for inward investment in Northern Ireland, and will not be drawn out of Northern Ireland by the Treasury and put into the collective coffers for the United Kingdom? That is an extremely important point. The Minister is obligated, especially on account of the Government's statements in the House and in the other place, to reaffirm that the money will be protected for Northern Ireland interests.

I congratulate the Minister on his confirmation that the current figure in the estimates for the cost of running the Assembly will be modified and increased if the Assembly begins to operate in line with its full intended purpose. I assure the Minister that he has saved the House from a long and tedious list of on-costs and unaccounted costs, which I would have read out had that assurance not been given. In reward for his far-sighted and fair-minded considerations, I shall spare him a whole page of my speech--a rare occurrence.

I want to comment briefly on a matter of continuing concern: rural life and farming in Northern Ireland. I looked at the figures, and I understand the Minister's comments in justification of the investment in agriculture. I am still concerned that agriculture is under great pressure in Northern Ireland, as in other parts of the United Kingdom. I hope that the Minister will be flexible on the need for further investment to protect a traditional way of life in the Province. It is a political decision to support smallholdings and family farms. Indeed, Northern Ireland has much in common with Wales, including the area that I represent. It is important to acknowledge the Government's warm words of reassurance for Northern Ireland farmers. I hope that those words are backed up by action, especially if the crisis deepens for any reason.

I am duty bound to comment on my continuing hobbyhorse and favourite worthy cause: Armagh observatory and planetarium. Having considered its budget, I can see that the increase from £798,000 to £818,000 is in line with inflation. The Minister is to be congratulated on his continuing concern for something that really is a centre of excellence in the United Kingdom. The Armagh observatory, in particular, is now participating in a proactive way in the international effort to track and catalogue asteroids and other heavenly objects that might collide with the earth.

You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that when I first raised this matter I was regarded as something of a crank--[Hon. Members: "No, no."] I thank hon. Members for their consolation. I am glad to say that, following an Adjournment debate on that very subject a few months ago, both the national and the international specialist press

21 Jun 1999 : Column 874

have acknowledged the substantial step forward that was taken by Ministers in recognising first that asteroids pose a genuine threat to life on earth, and secondly--specifically--that Northern Ireland's Armagh observatory makes a significant contribution to the investigation of what I would describe as a developing area of astronomy. An inflation-linked increase for Armagh observatory could be the most important investment that the Minister has ever approved.

Mr. William Ross: I assume that the hon. Gentleman has read the report of a recent debate on this subject in the other place, and has also read an excellent document on near-earth objects, which sets out the dangers very clearly. There is a copy in the Library.

Mr. Öpik: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have read both. I congratulate him on his interest in the subject, but I fear that I shall be ruled out of order if I stray any further into the subject of space. I commend both the documents that he mentioned to any other hon. Members who are interested.

Finally, I want to raise an issue that others have mentioned: the importance of recognising that we should have fewer debates on Northern Ireland here. This is one debate that I hope very much will pass from us to the Northern Ireland Assembly. As I am about the only member of my party who is not standing for its leadership, I thank Northern Ireland politicians for giving me a chance to keep myself busy in the evenings; but I would rather be idle than see this debate return to the House of Commons next year. I think that we all hope sincerely that, next year, we shall be debating and commenting informally on decisions made on the budget by Northern Ireland politicians, rather than their debating ours.

10.52 pm

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Inverclyde): I am sorry to hear that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) is not standing for the leadership of his party.

In his opening remarks, the Minister compared and contrasted the present condition of political devolution in Northern Ireland with that obtaining in Wales and Scotland. I visited the Scottish Parliament a few days ago in its temporary accommodation on The Mound in Edinburgh. I need hardly remind the Minister that First Minister Dewar--as he is known in Scotland--has already published details of eight Bills dealing with matters with which a Northern Ireland Assembly would deal in the round. As the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), will acknowledge, some of those Bills are less popular than others, but that is another story.

Along with the hon. Members for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) and for Montgomeryshire, I sincerely hope that this is the last occasion on which we shall discuss orders of this kind. There are, of course, profound differences between Belfast and Edinburgh and Belfast and Cardiff, but let us hope that Ministers in a Northern Ireland Assembly will, in the near future, engage with their Back-Bench Committees in the furtherance of legislation in their Province.

I want to ask the Minister some specific questions about the order.

21 Jun 1999 : Column 875

Vote 2 deals with fisheries and other matters. Although we hear a great deal about agriculture in Northern Ireland--which is right and proper, as it is a very important industry--we hear rather less about Northern Ireland's fishing industry and fishing communities. Will the Minister confirm that he and his ministerial colleagues are anxious to ensure renewal of the older parts of Northern Ireland's fishing fleet? Especially in smaller fishing communities, it is essential that skipper owners should be given the opportunity and encouragement to replace old vessels.

In Scotland, we have similar problems with our fishing fleet, and Brussels--some might say unfortunately--is the final arbiter over their resolution. Nevertheless, it is essential that we should maintain a lively fishing industry, which must be based on a modern catching sector.

Are moneys being found to encourage training of young fishermen? These days, I probably should have added "young fisherwomen" to the end of that question, but it is primarily young males who take those fishing jobs. The Minister may not be able to answer those questions today, but I should welcome answers to them later.

Vote 7 deals with, among other things, ferry services, which were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady). Many ferry services already link Scotland to Northern Ireland, and we welcomed establishment of the Ballycastle-Campbeltown service. However, what discussions have been held between the Minister's officials and ferry companies on developing a service between Northern Ireland and Port Glasgow--which, as the Minister will know, is not in my constituency, but is not far from it. Such a service could be an important development for Northern Ireland, especially for its tourist trade.

I have no wish to harm the interests of people in Stranraer or in Troon, but there is keen interest on the lower Clyde in development of another service between Northern Ireland and the Firth of Clyde that uses the most modern ferry vessels--such as those built in Australia, as the Australians seem to be the experts. Have any discussions on developing more such ferry services been held between the Minister's officials, P and O Stena and other companies?

Vote 12 deals with expenditure on education. Recently, I received a letter from the chief executive of PlayBoard, on a matter which the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and other hon. Members are interested in and concerned about. The letter states:

"PlayBoard recently wrote to Assembly Members, MPs and other key Members of Parliament within the GB political parties on the lack of infrastructure support for the New Opportunities Fund in Northern Ireland".

After being approached by PlayBoard members, I wrote to the Minister on that very issue, to solicit his observations and advice on PlayBoard's mildly critical view of the Government and their officials.