| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. William Ross: Does the hon. Gentleman care to consider my thesis that one of the reasons why there are so many of those bodies is the powerlessness of local government? There are so many things that local government could and should be doing, but which it is not doing.
Mr. Barnes: It is certainly an encouragement to voluntary organisations when local government is not active or achieving what it should be achieving, or when it is prevented from operating in the manner it is in Northern Ireland. I am a great advocate of establishing the equivalent of parish councils in urban areas--what are called neighbourhood councils. I think that such councils should act as pressure groups on behalf of their communities. Like voluntary organisations, they should get together and enact plans in their areas to pressurise those with administrative responsibility in wider local government, in the Province and in Westminster.
I thought that the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) was excellent. Anyone from Northern Ireland who listens to his contribution--as they will do--will be very impressed with the relevance of Labour's policies to Northern Ireland in such matters as training, education, jobs, provision for small business, the minimum wage, the social chapter, electricity prices in Northern Ireland, beef, specific provisions on Northern Ireland and Labour's promise on the Northern Ireland skills audit. All these are of tremendous relevance to the people of Northern Ireland.
The great pity is that, however much attention is paid in Northern Ireland to my Front-Bench colleague's views, Labour does not run candidates in Northern Ireland so the people of Northern Ireland cannot take up his valuable ideas. Labour organisation in Northern Ireland, tying in with our policies, needs to be taken on board to make those views a reality. Unless other political parties in Northern Ireland are willing to pick up some of our ideas, offer them to the electorate and do so in a way that cuts across community divisions, Labour is in a very good position to do it. I am afraid that that is a bit of a back-handed compliment to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central but it is sincere.
It is great that we are debating the Northern Ireland economy, which is important not only in general terms but in developing the peace process. An improved economy and growing prosperity are good in themselves but can also be very important in tackling the problems of violence and intimidation.
Michael Barratt-Brown wrote an excellent pamphlet on the tragedy in Yugoslavia. It points out that some of the major problems that caused its conflict arose because economic factors divided the people. On a smaller scale, Northern Ireland has been behind Britain in terms of economics--for example, it has had higher unemployment rates. This has meant that it has been possible for extremists to develop sectarian policies and get paramilitary support--they find it easier to do so in adverse economic circumstances. We should all be very aware of the links between economics, divisions and violence.
There is a problem in talking about growth in Northern Ireland. There is a sense in which growth and improved prosperity undermine violence, but an agreement to end violence would allow economic growth to develop. Economic growth and the end of violence are not in separate compartments. We cannot say that the start of one will lead to the other--they are interlinked.
We have opportunities to debate Northern Ireland economic matters but we sometimes fail to make full use of them. Twice a year we have appropriation debates.I have always said that they are the nearest thing to Budget debates for Northern Ireland. We should take care to develop them into serious discussions such as that which we are having today. It is often the case--again, this might be natural given the position of local government in Northern Ireland--that Northern Ireland Members attend appropriation debates and use them as opportunities to stress constituency problems and their case loads because no other avenues are available to them. Sometimes, however, it would be good to change that and have a debate like today's so that we can determine the different political stances.
I congratulate the Ulster Unionist party on providing this opportunity to discuss the Northern Ireland Economic Council's report and on producing its own document entitled "Economic Prosperity for All". It is dated May 1996 so I presume that it is linked with this debate. I am not saying that I go along with all the ideas expressed in it, but it is important that the party has produced it. I would encourage other political parties in Northern Ireland to develop their own approaches and strategies.
The leader of the Social and Democratic Labour party said that there were common interests between his party and what the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley(Sir J. Molyneaux) said, but if we look back to the previous election, it is clear that there were some differences in the two parties' manifestos. In a sense, the SDLP manifesto contains economic values that I would warm to more readily than I could warm to the contents of the other manifestos. It said things such as:
and that it is concerned that
It states that a shift to a more general indirect taxation
It also mentions reform of the common agricultural policy and the refocusing of investment strategies and appeals for inward investment. That is also part of the UUP's position, although it is given a different flavour.
Given the indications of agreement from the leader of the SDLP, I wonder whether what we had in 1992 was a traditional Social Democratic and Labour party agenda and that what is now developing is new Social Democratic and Labour party provisions which, as long as they are in line with what was said by members of our Front Bench, might be entirely acceptable but might not have developed as clearly in some areas as they had in the past.
One problem with the economic structure of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom is that Northern Ireland has only about 3 per cent. of the UK population and is therefore not seen as being a major influence in determining policy. The Northern Ireland Office often seems to run up against the general stance adopted by the Conservative party and is sometimes obliged to pick up some nonsense such as the privatisation of electricity, the hands-off state and agency provisions, which operate elsewhere. It is felt that such agendas can be plonked on Northern Ireland, but the Government should pay attention to the economic and social circumstances of Northern Ireland. Even if the Government do not believe that policies of a more collective nature are appropriate for Britain, they should consider their relevance to Northern Ireland.
As the council's report shows, dependence on benefits is considerably greater in Northern Ireland than in Britain, so cuts in benefits have a disproportionately greater effect in Northern Ireland unless they are made good by improved job opportunities. In addition, because of the poverty trap, disincentives to take work will be even greater in Northern Ireland than in Britain. The minimum wage, which was stressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central, is therefore of great relevance to Northern Ireland. Employment opportunities would lead not to the same degree of poverty trap provision, but would allow improved earnings to enter the family budget.
It has been pointed out that Northern Ireland's housing market has experienced some buoyancy. Growth in the Northern Ireland economy might therefore be hindered in ways that it is not elsewhere. Economic growth and development, especially the sort in which I believe, has often been associated with house building. The emergence from the problems of the 1930s, at the end of the depression before the war started, was very much associated with council house building. All sorts of benefits accrue as a result of house building because people in new houses want new furniture, new curtains and new wallpaper, which gives a Keynesian-type boost to the economy. There might be less scope for that to occur in Northern Ireland due to the slightly more buoyant housing market of recent years and some of the roles played by the Housing Executive, although the Government have been trying to interfere with it.
Economic performance was relatively good in Northern Ireland in 1995. As in housing, that means that there is less slack to pull in. The Government should consider that seriously when they work out which policies they feel are relevant to Northern Ireland. We should examine reports of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs and consider the work of the British-Irish interparliamentary body, which often discusses economic relationships in the European Union.
Such matters are the stuff of politics. Hon. Members rush into the Chamber to discuss Northern Ireland concerns about bombs, the constitution and high politics, but, as is obvious from today's debate, they do not do that for the bread-and-butter concerns of the people of Northern Ireland. Yet the Northern Ireland people want us to address exactly those matters. Indeed, in doing so, we sometimes discover different combinations of alliances. Perhaps we should have more solid argument and some good ding-dongs in the House about Northern Ireland's economic direction among all its politicians rather than ding-dongs about constitutional developments and community divisions. That is the direction that the House needs to take.
The Northern Ireland Economic Council's report contains much of considerable interest. It certainly does not just peddle Government prejudices for certain policies. It was unfortunate that the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), who has now left the Chamber, suggested that there should be cut after cut to facilitate income tax reductions. That might be a big debate affecting British politics, but in Northern Ireland, it could have a serious effect on the possibilities of achieving improvement and growth.
The report makes a number of suggestions on page 68. It calls for greater partnership between the public and private sectors, which is certainly the language of new Labour, and should therefore be carefully considered.It also says that there is
"We believe that efficient and effective public services are essential to our well-being and development as a community",
"moves from direct to indirect taxation are at the expense of those on lower incomes".
"should not proceed unless accompanied by relevant compensation measures for people in lower income groups".
13 May 1996 : Column 674
"the need to ensure that economic opportunities provided by the paramilitary ceasefires are built upon".
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |