§ 11. 41 pm
§ The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Norman Lamont)I beg to move,
That the Regional Development Grant (Prescribed Percentage, Amount and Limit) Order 1984 (S.I., 1984, No. 1843), dated 26th November 1984, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th November, be approved.The Co-operative Development Agency and Industrial Development Act 1984 provided the structure for the new scheme of regional development grants. The affirmative order specifies the key components—the rate of capital grant, the amount of job grant, and the grant per job limit, called the prescribed limit in the order. Although the official Opposition spokesman appears not to be present, I take it that it is none the less in order for me to address the subject.
In setting the rate of capital grant—the prescribed percentage—the Government weighed, on the one hand, the risk of setting the rate so low that it would not be taken into account when investment decisions were made and, on the other hand, setting the rate too high with the risk that much of the amount paid would be dead weight. We also took into account previous rates of grant and responses made to the White Paper.
The job grant—the prescribed amount—has been set at £3,000. As the House will recall from our previous debates, from today and from the Committee stage, this is an alternative to the capital grant and, I must stress, is available where it is more advantageous to the applicant. Companies will automatically receive the most favourable of the two forms of assistance.
Hon. Members are aware from our debates during the passage of the Act that our regional aids are subject to limits laid down by the EEC which are binding on all member states. In respect of the amount which may be paid as job grant in development areas in Great Britain, this limit is 5,500 European units of account. When last notified by the EC Commission, this was £3,150. Given currency fluctuations, obviously it would not be desirable for the job grant to be set right at the EEC ceiling. Consequently, the limit was set at £3,000 to avoid such problems.
Before turning to the grant per job limit — the prescribed limit, as it is described in the order — I should say that job grant will be payable only in respect of net new jobs created by a project. Again this will be familiar to those hon. Members who served on the Committee which dealt with the legislation. For RDG purposes a net new job is a job created as a direct result of a project within a development area within the undertaking carrying out the project, net of any jobs lost elsewhere in the development area within the same undertaking also as a direct result of the project. Any jobs lost in an intermediate area over and above any jobs created in an intermediate area will also be netted off. Let me repeat that it is not the Government's policy to subsidise the shuffling of jobs between assisted areas. I do not think that that makes any sense.
Lastly, on the grant per job limit, I do not intend to repeat all the arguments which underline the Government's introduction of a grant per job limit into the RDG scheme. I have quoted one case many times, including this afternoon, and so I shall not name it again, but at least that project created jobs, albeit expensive ones.
625 Regional policy is about jobs, and the Government make no bones about the fact that our intention is that the policy should be more closely related to the creation of jobs. We have introduced a limit of £10,000. At that level only projects that cost more than £65,000 per job—above average capital intensity—will be affected by it. Therefore in many cases it will not bite and thus will not affect the predictability of grant. But where it bites it has the effect of considerably reducing what in the past has been excessive expenditure.
There is one exception to the limit. The first £500,000 of RDG eligible expenditure on a project undertaken by a small undertaking will be exempt from the grant-per-job limit. Where project costs exceed £500,000, grant on costs above that amount will be calculated in the normal way — the grant-per-job limit will apply. That provision will, we expect, exempt completely over 90 per cent. of small firms from the limit. But in the case of a small capital-intensive firm, there is that cut-off point above which the limit will apply.
As in the case of job grant, the grant-per-job limit will be applied to net new jobs created by the project. It will be our policy in currently forseeable circumstances not to approve projects undertaken by large undertakings which do not create jobs. However, there may in future be circumstances where such projects might be approved. I do not know what they might be, but if they arise we have provided in the order for a maximum grant of £500 to be payable on the project. Without that provision we should be required to pay grant at 15 per cent. on all capital expenditure under such projects with no limit. That, in our opinion, is a reasonable sum when viewed in the light of the stated policy—no jobs, no grant.
It is the Government's view that the rates of grant, together with the limit specified in the order, provide a sufficient incentive for both capital-intensive and labour-intensive projects, and that the scheme will retain a high degree of predictability. And of course regional development grant will continue to be automatically payable.
At the same time, the Government believe that they have curbed the worst excesses of previous policies. We hope that the result will be a system of grant which will be cost-effective and will free resources which can be used for the benefit of the country as a whole. I commend the order to the House.
§ Mr. Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry, North-West)I apologise to the Minister for being a few seconds late. I should point out to the House that the reason was the lack of response on the television monitor.
§ Mr. Nicholas Soames (Crawley)That is no excuse.
§ Mr. RobinsonI was looking closely at the monitor and I do not understand the reason, but perhaps it could be brought to the attention of those in charge of the electronics of the building. It was still showing a Division several minutes, I understand, after the Minister had started his speech.
We are discussing three items—I am sure that the Minister will not mind me saying this — that we discussed at great length in Committee and at other stages of the Bill that will impose upon British regional policy 626 an immensely tight corset of restrictions and limitations that we need not assume. I hope that the Minister will be frank and come clean with us on that.
The 15 per cent. prescribed percentage, which is the new level of RDG that is down from 22 per cent. under the Common Market regime to which—the Minister has been clear about this — he has made our policy subservient. Under that regime the prescribed percentage of RDG can go from 25 to 35 per cent. for assisted areas. Clarification and confirmation of that point from the Minister would be of interest to the House and would show just how tight the regime is that he is imposing on us tonight.
The Minister will agree that there is no requirement in the EC regulations for a cost per job limit to be imposed. The £10,000 limit is too low. On reflection, the hon. Gentleman may agree with me and increase it. He said that it allowed for anything up to £65,000 capital investment per person to qualify. What is the average for our major competitors in the Common Market of capital employed per employee in manufacturing industry, because that is what we are talking about and we must reach their levels if we are to be competitive?
We have had too many arguments about restrictive practices and strikes and the rest, but setting aside those matters, about which the Government make so much play, capital employed per employee in British manufacturing industry today is way below the level of our major competitors in the EC, let alone in Japan.
When the Minister translates the £10,000 cost per job limit into the total amount available for investment per employee—per new job created—he will agree that it is an extremely low level. Indeed, it is almost an incentive to create low capital-intensity jobs, in itself part of the Government's plan. Be that as it may, this will not be an incentive towards the major capital investment that we need in many of our industries if we are to become and remain competitive.
The prescribed amount for job grant, at £3,000, is extremely low. I am sure that all Opposition Members would agree with that.
§ Mr. SoamesWhere are they?
§ Mr. RobinsonThe hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) is making sedentary interventions. I have not seen him in his place throughout tonight's debate. I am putting a few points succinctly to the Minister and I hope that they will be equally succinctly answered. We will do that much better without the hon. Gentleman's sedentary interruptions.
The £3,000—the job grant, to put it bluntly— is about 10 per cent. below the Common Market limit. I see no reason for that. We might as well use what flexibility exists within the Community regulations. I recall, during the Committee proceedings, reading a Community document which said that the EEC was reviewing the present limit of 5,500 ecus. When does the Minister expect the Community to take a firm decision on that, and does he know what level the ERDF officials have in mind for the job grant?
I have on many occasions raised with the Minister the question of the elimination of modernisation and replacement schemes, remembering that we seem to be one of the few countries that has yielded on the question of non-job-creating modernisation schemes, something that we shall bitterly regret.
627 My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) has raised with me a matter concerning the Tameside metropolitan borough. It is dealt with in a letter from the chief executive of that borough. The Minister will be aware that under the new regime that he has introduced, the Tameside metropolitan borough in its entirety has, for the first time, been brought into intermediate area status.
I will not read the letter but will pass it to the Minister, who I hope will bring it to the attention of the Secretary of State for the Environment. The chief executive refers to the restrictions that are now being made on capital spend, and this is not by any means a profligate authority.
This has nothing to do with savings or current expenditure but simply with cutting back on the capital spend of the borough, on the infrastructure of local government. The letter points out that the borough is being given access to the ERDF yet is unable to avail itself of the benefits of the fund. We have supported the Minister's efforts to get as many ecus as we can. That was the whole purpose of redrawing the map. Yet these constraints may make it impossible for us actually to take up anything like our full entitlement of ERDF funds.
It is vital that we clarify this as quickly as possible. As the Minister knows, 80 or 90 per cent. of the ERDF money last year was taken up by public authorities and local government. If those bodies which suddenly qualify for it cannot take it up, the whole purpose of extending the map to get at the El Dorado of Community funds will be frustrated. I have asked for straight answers to many of these questions many times before, put that point is a new one. I draw the Minister's attention to it at this early stage and make it clear that we intend to monitor the situation very carefully.
§ 11. 56 pm
§ Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth (Stockton, South)The Government claim that their new regional policy offers much better value for money. Towards the end of last year the Minister said that it would not be so easy to dig into the gold mine as some companies had found it in the past, and the order seeks to ensure that. The prescribed percentages, limits and amounts are one of the main instruments to achieve tighter restriction of the system and a reduction in the amount of regional aid paid out. In fact, however, the so-called gold mine had been rapidly run down under the old system.
In real terms, regional expenditure fell from £1.5 billion in 1975–76 to £917 million in 1982–83. In cash terms, the new scheme will reduce the total from £670 million in 1984–85 to about £400 million in 1986–87. In my region, the total fell from a peak of £483 million in 1976–77 to £109 million in 1982–83. Under the Government's scheme, the regional figure was halved in real terms between 1979–80 and 1982–83.
The ending of the 22 per cent. grant and the introduction of a uniform 15 per cent. grant for the development areas will be the Government's bluntest instrument for reducing regional expenditure. Why 15 per cent? We have listened to the Minister and read what he has said, but the reduction from 22 per cent. to 15 per cent. appears somewhat arbitrary and designed simply to achieve a cut in regional aid. I hope that the Minister will tell us today how he believes that that figure can be justified.
628 The Government have indicated that the overall balance between automatic grants and selective assistance will shift significantly towards selective assistance. One hopes that that means that major industrial developments, which are of great benefit to the country as a whole as well as to the regions, will still obtain aid from the Department of Industry and that they will be encouraged to develop in the regions, as so many of them have done in the past. It means that companies will receive severely reduced automatic aid and that they will have to press for additional support which will be at the Government's discretion. Both the CBI and others have argued that the shift towards discretionary aid, accompanied by bureaucratic delays, may deter both new and small existing businesses from moving to the regions.
The Minister says in a press release that
the changes … will save a great deal of Government money which was doing virtually nothing to bring new jobs to the assisted areas.In my own constituency there has been a substantial amount of regional aid for heavy industry. Bearing in mind the 20 per cent. level of unemployment there and the high level of unemployment that has persisted over a very long time, thank goodness that at least capital-intensive industries have been encouraged to come to the Teesside area—for example, ICI, Monsanto, British Steel and a whole series of petrochemical, oil and heavy engineering industries—which probably would not have come had it not been for the old grant system. Although in terms of capital and numbers employed that may not be a favourable balance in the eyes of the Minister, at least they are providing jobs in an area that desperately needs them. I hope that that will not be forgotten by the House when considering the order.The argument that the old grant system did not help the regions has been proved to be without foundation. Studies show quite clearly that regional policy has had a substantial impact upon industrial location since the early 1960s, diverting about 250,000 jobs to the assisted areas, of which roughly 185,000 went to the four development areas. There is considerable evidence that although certain regions have not shown an improvement when compared with the more prosperous regions, those regions were nevertheless helped to keep up and not drop behind, as has happened in recent years.
The order sets a cost per job limit on regional development grants of £10,000 for capital expenditure and a £3,000 job grant as an alternative. Firms will automatically receive the greater of those two figures. The Government may be right to argue that the cost to the taxpayer of job creation under the old system—£35,000 to £40,000 per job—was too high, but in our view the new ceiling is too restrictive. It might have been acceptable if the savings produced by these limits could be used to finance other support for job creation in the regions—for instance, employment grants to encourage additional, highly qualified manpower to move to assisted areas, or some of the other suggestions that have been made about helping development in the regions. There should be increased sources of finance—for example, an industrial credit scheme and small firm investment companies, to channel preferential finance. Those schemes ought to have a regional dimension, which we believe should be funded by central Government. If some of the savings that the new scheme will bring about had been diverted in that way to small firm investment 629 companies or to enterprise agencies and co-operative development agencies in the development areas to help them to pump-prime new enterprises, some of the objections on the Opposition side of the House to the cuts would have been less vociferous.
The difference in the treatment of capital grants for projects that do not provide jobs seems quite arbitrary. It would be helpful if the Minister could explain why they were fixed in the way that they have been. Firms employing fewer than 200 employees have a limit of £75,000, or 15 per cent. of the capital expenditure of some £500,000. For larger undertakings the figure is a derisory £500, which the Minister mentioned when he opened the debate, or 15 per cent. of £3,333.
I take those figures from the report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which, as the House will have seen, comments adversely on that rather farcical anomaly. It said:
It seems surprising to the Committee that the Department contemplates a significant number of applications, if indeed any at all, where the expenditure involved in the project is so trifling a sum … it seems to the Committee that in the case of large undertakings section 4(1)(b) seems unlikely to operate so as to provide grant on a basis related to the expenditure on assets.The Minister will have seen that report and I hope that he will respond to that criticism because the Department seems to have adopted the expedient as an alternative to a zero limit, which they have no power to set. I should be grateful if the Minister would respond to the criticisms and explain that further to the House. It is clearly a serious criticism.
We are opposed to the arbitrary and blunt instruments laid down in the order, largely with the objective of reducing public expenditure, not of helping the regions. Indeed, it has been done at their expense. I agree with the remarks of the hon. Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) and others that this is one of the most blatant pursuits of divisive policies that the Government could pursue. It is dividing the nation further and for that reason we shall oppose the order tonight.
§ 12.7 am
§ Mr. Norman LamontFirst, let me answer the questions asked by the hon. Member for Coventry, North—West (Mr. Robinson), at least one of which I had dealt with before he came into the Chamber.
The EC limit on grants for capital expenditure is 30 per cent., as the hon. Gentleman may recall from Committee. There is an alternative of a job grant and when companies choose that alternative that cannot come to more than 40 per cent. of the capital expenditure when it is in the manufacturing sector. The hon. Gentleman will recall that that was spelt out in some considerable detail in Committee. The EC capital limit is 30 per cent.
The limit on the job grant is £3,150 translated from ecus. We fixed a limit of £3,000 merely to allow some headroom for fluctuations in the exchange rate. We do not wish to be pushed up against the limit because of movements in the exchange rate. We are not far from it.
We have no information that the job grant is being reviewed by the Commission. I do not think that that would come under regional policy or the European regional development fund because those limits apply not just to regional policy but to state aid. So it is more a matter for the competition directorate.
We are all familiar with figures which demonstrate a high degree of capital behind each worker in a number of 630 competitor countries. I made the point that the £10,000 cost per job limit would support in total, when distinguishing between the cost to the Government and to the firm of the investment and then adding them, some £65,000—which is double the average capital intensity in British industry. We do not want to choose some degree of capital intensity that exists in some other country. I am talking, in relation to United Kingdom manufacturing industry, about doubling the average and, as we have said again and again, we are concerned to have a system that is more neutral between subsidising capital and labour.
The hon. Member for Coventry, North-West referred to replacement, but that is not in the order, although it is in the legislation. I shall take up with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment the point that he made about controls and capital expenditure.
The hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) raised some other points. The choice between 22 per cent. and 15 per cent. is a matter of judgment, and, as I explained, it was our judgment that 15 per cent. would be a sufficient incentive to influence investment intentions. As the hon. Member knows, we have selective assistance available on top of that for inward investment. The hon. Gentleman's second point was about whether selective assistance would still be available to help with more capital-intensive projects that we thought were desirable. I accept that, for industrial and economic reasons, if not for employment reasons, many of the things that have happened in his part of the world are desirable, and they are projects to which we would consider giving help. The purpose of the changes that we have made is to enable us to have that choice and to exercise that judgment.
The hon. Member for Stockton, South compared the £10,000 cost per job with the £35,000 that was the figure given in our consultative document published at the time of the review as being the cost of the net new jobs in assisted areas that regional policy had created in the past. The two figures are not directly comparable. The £35,000 per net new job—a figure that we wish to lower—is the cost of all the instruments of regional policy, whereas the £10,000 applies only to regional development grants. There are other differences that work both ways, including the way in which job displacement affects our calculations. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will accept my assurance that the two are not comparable.
The hon. Gentleman referred to comments made by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments about the limiting of capital grant to £500 in the case of projects of large undertakings that provide no jobs. The provision is in article 5(1)(a)(ii). The Committee has done this on the ground that section 4(1)(b) of the amended 1982 Act, which deals with projects that involve capital expenditure only,
seems unlikely to operate so as to provide grant on a basis related to the expenditure on assets.As the Committee pointed out in its report, in cases where expenditure on assets is less than £3,333, approved projects will receive grant on a basis which is related to the amount of capital expenditure. I have told the House on many occasions that our general policy is not to approve projects of large undertakings that will not create jobs, although any projects of this kind for which application is made will be considered on their merits. As regards projects that are approved, there will be a direct relationship with the amount of expenditure involved.
631 As regards projects where expenditure exceeds £3,333, it is true that there will be no such direct relationship. However, I do not accept—and I have firm legal advice on this point—that either the Act as a whole or the enabling power in section 5(1)(d) imports any requirement that the prescribed limit — £500 in this case— should result in the amount of grant payable in any particular circumstances being on a basis that is proportional to the expenditure on assets. The provision in article 5(1)(a)(ii) is therefore, in my view, intra vires the Act. I am confident of that. I reject the Committee's contention that there is doubt about the vires of the provision, and I commend the order to the House.
§ Question put:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 134, Noes 73.
632| Division No. 72] | [12.14 am |
| AYES | |
| Atkinson, David (B'm'th E) | Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey |
| Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y) | Jones, Robert (W Herts) |
| Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset) | Jopling, Rt Hon Michael |
| Baldry, Tony | King, Roger (B'ham N'field) |
| Biffen, Rt Hon John | Knight, Gregory (Derby N) |
| Bosoawen, Hon Robert | Knowles, Michael |
| Brooke, Hon Peter | Knox, David |
| Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes) | Lamont, Norman |
| Bruinvels, Peter | Lang, Ian |
| Burt, Alistair | Latham, Michael |
| Carttiss, Michael | Lawler, Geoffrey |
| Cash, William | Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh) |
| Chalker, Mrs Lynda | Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark |
| Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) | Lester, Jim |
| Conway, Derek | Lightbown, David |
| Cope, John | Lord, Michael |
| Currie, Mrs Edwina | Lyell, Nicholas |
| Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J. | McCurley, Mrs Anna |
| Dunn, Robert | MacGregor, John |
| Durant, Tony | Maclean, David John |
| Fallon, Michael | Major, John |
| Favell, Anthony | Malins, Humfrey |
| Fenner, Mrs Peggy | Malone, Gerald |
| Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) | Marlow, Antony |
| Forth, Eric | Mather, Carol |
| Freeman, Roger | Maude, Hon Francis |
| Gale, Roger | Miller, Hal (B'grove) |
| Galley, Roy | Mills, lain (Meriden) |
| Garel-Jones, Tristan | Mitchell, David (NW Hants) |
| Gow, Ian | Montgomery, Sir Fergus |
| Gregory, Conal | Moore, John |
| Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N) | Moynihan, Hon C. |
| Ground, Patrick | Needham, Richard |
| Grylls, Michael | Neubert, Michael |
| Hanley, Jeremy | Newton, Tony |
| Hargreaves, Kenneth | Norris, Steven |
| Hawkins, C. (High Peak) | Osborn, Sir John |
| Hawksley, Warren | Page, Richard (Herts SW) |
| Hayward, Robert | Patten, Christopher (Bath) |
| Heathcoat-Amory, David | Patten, John (Oxford) |
| Heddle, John | Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian |
| Henderson, Barry | Portillo, Michael |
| Hickmet, Richard | Powell, William (Corby) |
| Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) | Proctor, K. Harvey |
| Holt, Richard | Raffan, Keith |
| Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A) | Raison, Rt Hon Timothy |
| Howarth, Gerald (Cannock) | Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon |
| Roe, Mrs Marion | Thome, Neil (Ilford S) |
| Sackville, Hon Thomas | Thurnham, Peter |
| Sainsbury, Hon Timothy | Trippier, David |
| Sayeed, Jonathan | Twinn, Dr Ian |
| Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb') | Waddington, David |
| Silvester, Fred | Walden, George |
| Sims, Roger | Waller, Gary |
| Skeet, T. H. H. | Wardle, C. (Bexhill) |
| Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) | Watson, John |
| Soames, Hon Nicholas | Watts, John |
| Spencer, Derek | Wells, Bowen (Hertford) |
| Squire, Robin | Wheeler, John |
| Stanbrook, Ivor | Wilkinson, John |
| Stern, Michael | Winterton, Mrs Ann |
| Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton) | Winterton, Nicholas |
| Stevens, Martin (Fulham) | Wolfson, Mark |
| Stewart, Allan (Eastwood) | Wood, Timothy |
| Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire) | Young, Sir George (Acton) |
| Sumberg, David | |
| Thomas, Rt Hon Peter | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Thompson, Donald (Calder V) | Mr. Peter Lloyd and |
| Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N) | Mr. Archie Hamilton. |
| NOES | |
| Ashdown, Paddy | Lloyd, Tony (Stretford) |
| Banks, Tony (Newham NW) | McDonald, Dr Oonagh |
| Barron, Kevin | McKay, Allen (Penistone) |
| Beckett, Mrs Margaret | Maclennan, Robert |
| Beith, A. J. | McWilliam, John |
| Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh) | Madden, Max |
| Bermingham, Gerald | Marek, Dr John |
| Boyes, Roland | Maxton, John |
| Bruce, Malcolm | Meadowcroft, Michael |
| Campbell-Savours, Dale | Michie, William |
| Canavan, Dennis | Millan, Rt Hon Bruce |
| Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y) | Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride) |
| Clarke, Thomas | Nellist, David |
| Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.) | O'Neill, Martin |
| Cohen, Harry | Owen, Rt Hon Dr David |
| Cook, Robin F. (Livingston) | Patchett, Terry |
| Corbyn, Jeremy | Pendry, Tom |
| Cowans, Harry | Penhaligon, David |
| Craigen, J. M. | Pike, Peter |
| Cunliffe, Lawrence | Powell, Raymond (Ogmore) |
| Cunningham, Dr John | Radice, Giles |
| Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly) | Robinson, G. (Coventry NW) |
| Dormand, Jack | Sheerman, Barry |
| Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G. | Skinner, Dennis |
| Ellis, Raymond | Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E) |
| Evans, John (St. Helens N) | Snape, Peter |
| Fatchett, Derek | Soley, Clive |
| Fisher, Mark | Spearing, Nigel |
| Godman, Dr Norman | Steel, Rt Hon David |
| Harrison, Rt Hon Walter | Stott, Roger |
| Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth) | Strang, Gavin |
| Home Robertson, John | Straw, Jack |
| Howells, Geraint | Wigley, Dafydd |
| Hoyle, Douglas | Wrigglesworth, Ian |
| Hughes, Simon (Southwark) | |
| Johnston, Russell | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Kirkwood, Archy | Mr. Don Dixon and |
| Leadbitter, Ted | Mr. Frank Haynes. |
| Lewis, Terence (Worsley) |
§ Question accordingly agreed to
§
Resolved,
That the Regional Development Grant (Prescribed Percentage, Amount and Limit) Order 1984 (S.I., 1984, No. 1843), dated 26th November 1984, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th November, be approved.