HL Deb 13 December 1989 vol 513 cc1304-27

3.5 p.m.

Lord Parry rose to call attention to the post-war changes in the rural and suburban communities of Britain; and to move for Papers.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the hurly-burly politics of Wales at any time over the past 40, 30 or 20 years, it would hardly have been thought likely that I should be rising in your Lordships' House at this time to put forward the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Yet here I am. It would have been thought less likely that I should have been citing in aid the Financial Times, which I have with me because last Friday, almost anticipating the discussion that I hoped we might have in the Chamber, it produced a supplement which I consider to be important and basic to that discussion.

The supplement was headed by an article by Bridget Bloom. I know that many of your Lordships will have read it. In the course of the next 15 minutes, I shall attempt to summarise part of it so that it can be read into Hansard and be a part of our record. I am grateful to the noble Lords who have put down their names to take part in the debate and to those who are in the Chamber. I am especially looking forward to the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester who has been in touch with me about some of the concerns that we share.

In the article, the Financial Times claimed that there was nothing short of an industrial revolution in reverse taking place in the rural areas of Great Britain. That is an interesting concept in itself because if a revolution is an explosion of energy then we should at some time expect to see an implosion of return force. It has been a mighty long time coming as the industrial areas and the industrial cities have sucked out of the rural areas some of the brightest and best of their talents and their resources. Bridget Bloom quoted Professor Hall of Reading University who a couple of years ago said that a profound decentralisation of the population was taking place on a large spatial scale. He went on to define two areas in Britain that were obtaining some benefit out of the commercial and industrial changes that have taken place over the past 30 or 40 years.

Most of us are used to referring to the golden triangle and its importance and the benefits to the people who live within it. Professor Hall referred to the golden belt and the golden horn and suggested that developments were taking place along the motorways which were to the real benefit of the small communities and some of the older towns and rural communities that were sited within them. None of us will quarrel with that. We have a similar example along the M4 which is only history repeating itself, because when Isambard Kingdom Brunel pushed the Great Western Railway westward from London there happened by accident the development of small commercial and industrial villages which became small towns and communities.

In the article to which I have drawn attention Professor Howard Newby of Essex University is mentioned. He now heads the Economic and Social Research Council. He declared in a ringing phrase, for the first time since the industrial revolution, technological change is allowing rural areas to compete on an equal basis with towns and cities for employment". The professor went on to say: The most obvious sign in the countryside itself of the new rural revolution is, without doubt, the spread of 'development'".

It is interesting that throughout the article the word "development" is always put in inverted commas. The article goes on to describe "development" as: a proliferation of new houses, housing estates, new roads and motorways, superstores and business parks which you will see … on a drive northwards from London into East Anglia—through Suffolk, Norfolk and Cambridgeshire, past provincial centres such as Ipswich, Norwich and Cambridge and around a score or two of once sleepy market towns such as Woodbridge, Diss, Wymondham or King's Lynn".

The professor says: The same phenomenon can be observed westwards from London, beyond the Home Counties. Professor Hall defines the Golden Belt as embracing Devon, Dorset, Somerset, Oxfordshire and Northamptonshire, as well as Cambridgeshire, Norfolk and Suffolk. The Golden Horn, he argues, stretches from the Isle of Wight to Lincolnshire and takes in Hampshire and West Sussex too".

That means that either accidentally or on purpose there has been a spreading of the benefits of the industrial commercial society at precisely the time when the heart of our great cities has been emptying. When we found in the gracious Speech from the Throne the other day the Government's reference to bringing in legislation to restore the depradation and decay that has gone on in the inner cities, it seemed to some of us that that should be extended to the towns and villages—the urban and rural areas with which we are familiar in England and Wales.

There are two critical reasons, the experts say, why this movement is taking place. One is the communications revolution, the revolution in the art and state of technology which makes it possible for individuals to run their enterprises from rural settings now just as easily as they once did from the centre of cities—in fact more easily. All of us have been sad and have examined the problem from time to time, but this has coincided with the decline of agriculture as the basic underpinning of the economy of the rural areas.

The problems faced in agriculture have themselves strangely enough given new opportunities in the sense that new uses have had to be found for land. New employment has had to be found for people, usually based on the land. The challenge has been to people to move out into the rural areas.

The continuing loss of jobs in agriculture has meant that any job that can be created in rural areas is vital. I am glad that there is agreement on this; it is difficult to be sure how many jobs have been created in the rural areas because of the strategies, the devices used by successive governments. I shall come back to that in a moment.

In the three years to last January, for example, under the new unemployment statistical analysis it is possible to point out that there was a decline in unemployment in some of those areas that I have listed, such as Norfolk, Suffolk, Devon and Dorset, and even in Cleveland there was a falling off. However, I totally agree with the article in the Financial Times; there is a downside to these developments. I keep saying that I agree with the Financial Times. In Welsh politics we used to say that The Times was as much behind the Tories as the Tories were behind the times. That was one of our endearing little quips in our arguments.

Today I am happy to say that I agree with the Financial Times in many of the points that are made in the article, particularly that there is a downside to the developments. All the bodies such as the Rural Development Board and the Rural Development Council and others which are concerned realise that the downside weighs very heavily on the future and the prospects of the rural community. Village schools are still closing and for 15 per cent. of the rural population without use of a car, access to medical facilities, shopping and other services is difficult. There are pockets of real poverty persisting.

I wish to invite noble Lords in a sense to come with me on another journey, the one which I take when my duties here are ended every week. We go out of Paddington westward on the splendid 125 train. The first part of the journey is comfortable and we live in the style to which we have increasingly grown accustomed. As we head westwards, it is possible to be very comfortable on the train. But the further west we go, the less efficient the service becomes.

That is true of the economy of Great Britain: the further out one moves from the centre, the more difficult are the living conditions for people. Noble Lords may wish to come all the way with me and leave the trunk route at Swansea—most people leave it at Port Talbot because they come to London using their company car or their personal vehicle and park at Port Talbot. That is what I did on Tuesday; I am not dodging the issue. People avoid getting off the train at Swansea and climbing into a dilapidated DMU unit or a utility springer train, finding themselves almost as part of some Hogarth cartoon of medieval discomfort as they rock westwards to the place where I grew up.

I shall tell noble Lords a word or two about the town from which I came. At the turn of the century its population was rising towards 9,000. Its population today is something less than 3,000. That reflects the drain, the blood loss, the energy loss of the rural areas of Britain that has happened throughout our lifetime. The most melancholy thing we had to do was to go to the railway station which we had in Nayland in the blissful days before Lord Beeching. We had to go there and see our friends off to find work in the industrial conurbations.

Noble Lords might come to the conclusion that everything is fine in Great Britain and that such things do not go on any more, but they do. It is just that we are too far away to notice. If we are looking for a real villain in this perhaps we should look at the preoccupation that we have had with the centralisation of resources when we might have been far better had we localised them and kept them safely based in the community.

The population of the town which I know was about 3,000. As various events have occurred, such as the closure of the naval dockyard, trained and educated personnel have moved away and enriched other communities as they depleted our own. The Trinity House service base for the whole of Wales closed down. The fish market closed down and the fishing fleet moved away. All the time it was a story of decisions being taken outside the community but which affected the community. That community had no means of representing itself against the decisions taken to its disadvantage.

I am anxious to insist in our debate today that we do not become smug when some of the policies work effectively and some of the areas benefit, and we do not assume that there is a universal benefit and that life in Great Britain, as we move towards 1990, is comfortable and easy for everybody. In many ways it is more difficult for people living in a small country town today than it was in the days of my childhood. There are fewer services. We have five chapels without a resident minister. Two churches which once had a vicar and two curates are now staffed by one vicar. We have support services on the private side which have closed down. There are support services on the public side starved of funding.

I know that the Minister is a reasonable and intelligent man but it would be quite wrong if, when he rises to speak in the debate, he were to lead the House into an easy assumption that everything that has been done in the past 10 years has been absolutely marvellous and that what we need is more of the same. I was chairman of the Wales Tourist Board when the change of government occurred. I must say that I used to prefer it when I was sitting on the other side of the Chamber looking this way. The incoming Government immediately carried out an analysis of all quangos and boards in order to see which should be swept away. The word "quango", incidentally, was a term of abuse. What I find fascinating is that, 10 years on, many of these boards are strengthened. They have greater powers than they have ever had and the present Government boast of the successes that they have achieved. However, when Professor Beryl examined the Wales Tourist Board, he found it to be cost effective and doing a good job. I was chairman at the time. I shall quote from the annual report of the Wales Tourist Board, which shows one effective contribution to the economy of the rural areas of Wales. It states: Total revenue from staying visitors in Wales in 1988 is therefore estimated … to be in the order of £740 million, an increase of some 6 per cent. on 1987 … Wales will have earned at least £375 million from day visitors, giving a total revenue figure of about £1,115 million, at current prices, during 1988".

I am now into the final minute allotted to me so I cannot talk about demography. However, I can give a reminder concerning a quotation from another article in The Times that: the lush fields and country lanes of rural Britain sometimes conceal social problems of a very similar nature to those of the inner cities, where poverty is more immediately visible. A study two years ago by the Anglican diocese of Hereford—the most rural in the Church of England—which drew on an unpublished Department of the Environment investigation of five rural areas concluded that 25 per cent. of all households in the sample areas were living in or on the margins of poverty".

Perhaps we shall hear something more about that. I rest my case. I beg to move for Papers.

3.22 p.m.

Lord Addington

My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Parry, for bringing this matter to the attention of your Lordships. When considering this question I had to think long and hard about the changes that have occurred since the last war. I must admit that I am at something of a disadvantage in this respect as I have not seen as many of those years as other noble Lords.

The noble Lord, Lord Parry, referred specifically to the problems of Wales and mid-Wales. I shall concentrate my remarks more upon the other side of the country, the East Coast, for the simple reason that it is an area of which I have far greater experience. One of the main problems that occurs in our rural society is that housing in part of the areas referred to as the "golden triangle" or the "golden horn" is rapidly becoming too expensive for anyone who is not on a good salary. Spiralling prices have been noticeable in places such as Norfolk and Suffolk and have resulted in many people being priced out of the market. As house prices have risen so sharply, those who have land to build on or who already have houses are not renting them but selling them. Renting does not give a realistic return on their capital assets.

If we are to tackle this problem, we must do something to make sure that more housing is available, especially for those on low incomes. The stock of local authority dwellings has not been as high as many people feel it should be. Indeed the introduction of the right to buy has meant that much local authority housing stock has been removed from the rented sector. Even if that local authority housing stock is initially sold cheaply to local authority tenants, it does not remain at that cheap price but immediately rises on resale to the prices level demanded in the private sector. Often such dwellings are resold very quickly. We must do something to create a situation whereby local authorities, housing contractors or others are given an incentive, or are directed to find an incentive, to provide rented accommodation which stays in the rented sector.

I do not pretend to be an expert in this field but I am only saying that one must allow local authorities to build new houses while still taking into account such factors as green belts. Local authorities must ensure that such houses remain within the rented sector. This is a problem and central government must at least encourage local authorities in this regard.

Moving on from the housing problem, I wish to draw the attention of your Lordships to the problem of rural transport and the effect that it has on the rural community. The noble Lord, Lord Parry, referred to the golden areas in our society. They are golden areas if one can afford to buy a house there and to run a car. If one has a family and one member of that family has to stay at home to look after the others, two cars are needed in rural areas, for the simple reason that the local bus services are not good enough. There are no two ways about it, in rural areas one needs a car to get about, particularly if one lives in a small village, a hamlet or an isolated house.

Since the deregulation of buses in 1986, there has been a marked decline in bus services after an initial expansion period when competition first came about. This is not surprising. New bus services were set up and companies tried to make money out of new routes, but often they found there was simply not enough demand to justify keeping large, expensive buses running. It is true to say that in suburban communities the same problem occurs, though the distances involved may be less and people who live in urban suburbs tend to be slightly better off and to be car owners. However, although it may be of a lesser magnitude, the same problem arises.

I took the liberty of looking at the Beeching Report, which I discovered was printed in the year of my birth. Beeching suggested that local transport systems should be integrated. He suggested all-encompassing bus services to fit in with the remaining train services. I was alarmed to discover the number of local train stations that have been scrapped although they stand on still existing lines. We now have a bus service which does not cover anywhere near the same number of stops as 26 years ago. We do not have the interconnected train services which used to exist which meant that one could always get to a main station in order to travel on somewhere else, and there are no bus services to take up the slack.

After deregulation there was a subsidy of 5p per mile of travel. This subsidy has decreased to 1p per mile for rural areas and will be phased out in April next year. There is also some talk of getting rid of the subsidy on fuel, as the National Audit Office claims that it is too unspecific. The subsidy is effectively worth £135 million. Private companies have found out that they cannot justify providing services to small rural communities, especially the more dispersed rural communities where there may be only one household or person in a village who needs the bus service as everyone else may be a car owner or may own two cars. Thus, the result is that everyone needs a car.

This is a circular situation which forces anyone who is on a low income out of such rural communities. But, once that has occurred, where shall we find a workforce for the less well paid jobs? If there is a growth in light industry, what will happen to those people who work on the shop floor? It is worth pointing out that even the most hi-tech office needs someone to clean it. Someone will have to look after the office furniture, for example. Unless one is prepared to pay a very high wage one must be dependent upon the local community.

Effectively, we are pricing out much of the local community. We are saying that people must have an income of x in order to live in the rural community, because with less one will be totally isolated. The village of Fakenham in Norfolk has only two buses each morning to Norwich, which is the nearest city, and two or three buses returning in the evening. In addition, there are a couple of buses in the middle of the day. The Education Act 1944 required local authorities to provide school buses and many people are dependent upon the school bus service.

Thus people are increasingly isolated. Old-age pensioners are increasingly hard hit. They may be too old to drive a car even if they can afford one. The young in our rural communities are often totally isolated. It must be a miserable existence for a 15 year-old living in a small farmworker's cottage who cannot even visit friends after school hours. People wonder why there are problems with vandalism and hooliganism in rural areas. I suggest that pure boredom may be a factor.

One can expand that and point to small villages which have only one bus every market day to take people into the local market town. One can build up the scenario, building up more circles, all leading to the fact that one has to be rich to live in the countryside; and if one is not rich one does not live in the countryside.

I should like to draw some conclusions. Unless the Government are prepared at least to encourage local authorities and property developers, and indeed the transport industry as a whole, to cater for the less well off we shall find that the yuppie idea that one is nobody if one does not have a salary of x thousand pounds a year, own one's home and have two cars will become a reality with very strong roots and a reality which we cannot possibly escape.

3.32 p.m.

The Lord Bishop of Worcester

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Parry, for initiating the debate. It raises important human issues about housing, work, the quality of life and the need to maintain valid communities. Having been brought up in the Danelaw I cannot emulate his Celtic eloquence, but I shall try to contribute from my experience of rural communities. I want to say how much I admire the patent sincerity of the noble Lord in telling us about the East of England.

The subject is of particular interest to bishops because we spend much time looking for the best way to serve rural communities in a time of rapid change and with a diminishing number of clergy. Indeed, we are always hopeful that noble Lords in this House will encourage their sons, grandsons, nephews and godsons to opt for ordination rather than going into banking or a similar career. We also find that the drift to the country tends to cream off those who would be natural leaders in urban communities. The problem arrises in that direction as well.

As some of your Lordships will know, there is at present an archbishop's commission, chaired by a Member of this House, looking into rural issues. The competition that will come from the European Community will undoubtedly intensify agriculture in the quality lands, thereby possibly leaving the uplands, the hill country and pastoral counties to deteriorate. I hope that the Government will monitor the situation so that there is no deterioration.

However, change is inevitable in any living entity. Rural and urban communites change because they are shaped by the people who live in them—from forest to arable and back to forest again for hunting parks; from strip fields and common land to enclosures and back to the near prairies that we have at present for large machinery. That will continue. The countryside is bound to change. We are now talking about setting aside land and extensification of land in order to avoid building up more and more surpluses.

Since agriculture has been and probably always will be the main rural industry it is bound to affect village communities. The challenge to achieve self-sufficiency in food has produced a slimmed down, highly mechanised industry. I am told that 300,000 people have left farming since 1946 and there are one-third fewer farms. In addition, 9,000 people—which works out at about 20 people a day—are leaving the industry every year. I am told that there will soon be a labour famine in agriculture. Agricultural colleges are not up to strength, and the county of Dorset is training more hairdressers than agriculturists. That is probably a digression, but I hope that that fact will not be overlooked.

Already noble Lords who have spoken have mentioned what derives from changed agricultural fortunes—redundant farm buildings, empty farm cottages, school rolls falling to the point of closure, village shops no longer able to pay their way, and family businesses such as those of blacksmith, joiner, wheelwright and even tailor disappearing. Into the vacuum have come those from over-large towns and cities seeking space and fresh air. As a result, villages are tending to become dormitories for commuters or settlements for the wealthy retired. The young and those who work on the land, as we have already heard, cannot afford property at present prices.

Yet I should add here that not all changes are bad. The villages of yesteryear were often much inbred. People tended to live imprisoned lives with no focus beyond the parish pump. The new influx into the villages has undoubtedly brought new life to rural communities. Furthermore, the new general awareness of rural needs and the value of balanced communities is itself an advance.

Of course change is permanent. There are various attitudes towards it that can be struck. One can try to succeed where Canute failed and reverse the tide. One can be an ostrich, an attitude which I am afraid is sometimes taken by Church people who say, "Change? I see no change", and take refuge in nostaligic dreams about the picture postcard village. One can think that any change is progress and be a futurist. There is nothing special about trying to live in the future. It is just as unrealistic as trying to live in the past. On the other hand, one can study the changes and influences and even harness them with an eye to preferred options. In some ways we ought to be glad that the countryside is changing because one can only steer a moving vehicle.

It may be that the old method of unveiling a master county structure plan was too cumbersome. From central government we look for strategic thinking, strategic planning and aid. We certainly need those. National countryside planning guidelines are preferable to the detailed monolith of a structure plan which can gather dust. The Country Landowners' Association has asked that such guidelines should be concerned with the protection of good land, provision for rural housing, transport, light industry, conservation and leisure. It is good that the recent government White Paper has called for frequently updated statements of country policies, even including district and parochial needs, for thus local people are able to take responsibility for the kind of community that they want.

However, there is a limit to the way in which central planners can shape the countryside. I have much sympathy. I realise how needed new village projects are. People need a place to live and, when they go there, they need services. Yet the danger of trying to build a village ab initio is that, in spite of intentions to the contrary, it becomes a rural housing estate without a soul. I should prefer to see selected bigger villages enlarged, given a secondary school, a doctor's surgery, a resident parson and a policeman, with revived local shops and some light industry. Such major villages could serve a series of satellite villages or hamlets. They would focus development and be an antidote to ribbon development and diffuse, sporadic housing.

When I was rector of a group of 12 rural parishes on the Lincolnshire Wolds and drove my own 35-seater parish bus, I was also on a government inquiry into rural transport. We were so often defeated by the scattered, very small settlements that we were trying to link. We were also hampered by inflexible rules for the operation of coach services. So it is good that a certain deregulation and flexibility now obtains. It may interest noble Lords to know that a rural transport adviser has been operating as an experiment in the Evesham and Leominster areas. The brief has been to investigate needs and to advise individuals and groups on all transport matters. It has proved successful, but sadly the post is now in jeopardy because of lack of permanent funding. We must face up to the fact that transport in the country requires subsidy. This is not luxury; it is necessity.

I mentioned the relationship between gathered communities and the proper provision of transport. That indicates a further urgent need; namely, to view the countryside as a whole. A single government department for agricultural and rural affairs is needed.

It has been argued before in your Lordships' House that low-cost housing is a primary need if villages are not to become mere dormitories where people who live in careers and not places sleep the night. In the county of Hereford and Worcester, 60 per cent. of the incomes outside cities and towns fall between £80 and £160 a week, including overtime. Such incomes are inadequate to buy the houses which are available locally. House prices in the county have risen by 30 per cent. over the last two years—the second highest rise in the whole country. Many of the council houses have been sold and local authorities can spend only 20 per cent. of their house income on replacement. They should have more money to spend on the replacement of stock.

Rural housing associations, which play such a key part in that, also require further resources. I understand that at present the Housing Corporation spends only 2 per cent. of its funds on rural schemes, although 20 per cent. of English people live in the country. I am glad that my own diocese, along with other rural dioceses, is seeking to release parcels of glebe land for Section 52 agreements. However, we need to be reassured that such low-cost housing will not be on the open market a second time round. If the properties are rented, we need assistance in making the rents approachable.

In this whole debate, I believe that it is important not to lose sight of why we want to retain mixed communities of human scale in the countryside and in the country towns. Why do we want them to be mixed as to age, work, income and experience? To begin with, we want to forfend rural deprivation, which is real though often hidden. It is far less well advertised than its urban counterpart. If one lives down a long lane, has five children, is perhaps a single parent family with no car, one lives in a rural slum.

Furthermore, surely we want communities in which a cross-section of the people can be known and valued. We want communities where people are aware of the past and ready to engage with the present and the future. We want people to be able to exercise that mutual care and neighbourliness which was so well known in those communities of old. We want communities which are deeply aware of their natural environment and which can keep the economy and the ecology together. But if we are to have those communities and if they are not to disappear from sight, there must be strategic thinking and resources from central government. Such communities are an antidote to trends which would divide and compartmentalise our nation. They enable us to see work and leisure—indeed, life—as a whole.

3.45 p.m.

Lord Broadbridge

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Parry, on this afternoon enabling us to discuss rural and suburban communities. We are importantly, but so often, invited to discuss inner cities—their decay, unemployment and transport problems—that it is refreshing to escape to the rural suburbs, although their position today is perhaps hardly pure sunshine either.

Increasingly, as this century has moved forward, planning and building design have been more and more on people's minds. This afternoon we are invited to call attention to post-war changes in rural and suburban communities. Since I believe that the way those areas are planned and what their buildings look like have been major impacts on their present shape, it is about those that I wish to speak. I believe that this takes up one of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Parry, in his opening speech: namely, that it is development which is on everyone's mind when they speak of the post-war situation in rural suburbs and in suburbia.

I suppose that the hey-day of suburbia was the Metroland portrayed so memorably by John Betjeman early in his life—a time when the Metropolitan Line had just been opened and suburbia was a leafy arcadian paradise. Since then, development and planning have arrived. Some cities, like Siena, have had effective planning control since about 1250, but, although we had building regulations in Queen Anne's reign, large-scale planning in both town and country is a 20th century development in Britain.

Because we have a growing population, an increasingly mobile population and, according to the Government, an increasingly wealthier population, planning control of post-war rural and suburban Britain is surely here to stay. We should all ask ourselves what policy, in either direct control or at least guidelines, Her Majesty's Government believe should be exercised in planning terms to influence what should be permissible on the grounds of land use and in the design of buildings or their aesthetics. This I see as, at one end of the spectrum, relationships with the general environment—one might say the landscape—and, at the other, with specific buildings, including everything in between and, as has already been mentioned, the increasing occurrence of villages which are soulless and have no central locus such as public houses, churches and other principal features of the past.

I should like to congratulate the Government on their constructive attitude to strategic and land use planning; for example, in the issuing of guidelines or more detailed, strict instructions in such crucial fields as the use of green belt land, the conversion of agricultural land to industrial or domestic use, the general allowability of the alteration of land use by afforestation or deforestation, and whether a new village or even a town may be constructed in a certain area. I note with satisfaction that the Secretary of State for the Environment, for the second time recently dismissed with costs against the developer—that is the important point—a development proposal appeal which went right against clearly expressed government policies.

This general land use planning is all to do with making a positive contribution to the local environment as it concerns, for example, design, scale, density and access—almost the view from one's window. Land use planning control is difficult because the British public are naturally conservative and, to exaggerate in order to illustrate the point, tend to take the view, "If it's new, I don't like it". This view is obviously unrealistic because we are both a growing and a shifting population, and alteration cannot be avoided. Indeed it would be a gross dereliction of duty to take a sentimental view of the landscape and to try and preserve it unaltered.

There are well-known safeguards such as planning inquiries and referrals to the Secretary of State. There is an analogy here between planning control and modern views on the proper role of medicine, which is that prevention is better than cure. It is better to know people's views on the multi-faceted aspects of good design and get the planning control guidelines right from the start than to be insensitive or uninformed about these and to have to resort to endless public inquiries. It is upon the aesthetics, or what it is going to look like, that so many of these inquiries and referrals are made.

Since art is in the eye of the beholder, there will never be a total consensus of opinion on good design. How often in Islington—not exactly a suburb or a rural area, admittedly—am I faced with the statement, "nobody consulted us", only to be told that the development proposals fall within the planning guidelines and that such consultation is not needed or would give rise to unacceptable delays.

I should like to move now more specifically to good design translated into good individual buildings. There are others more qualified than I to go into the more arcane aspects of the meaning of the word "aesthetics". My dictionary says of aesthetics, Belonging to the appreciation of beauty, having or showing such appreciation, artisitic, tasteful, the branch of philosophy dealing with the principles of beauty and tastefulness". "Good design translated into good buildings must be the aim of everyone involved in the development process. The end product should be buildings which are well designed for their purpose and their surroundings". Those words are not in fact mine, but those of a draft DoE circular of several years ago—it is undated—called "Draft Circular on Good Design and Development Control". It seems to hit the subject of this debate right on the nose, and was apparently generally welcomed by the RIBA; but it never saw the light of day by being rendered into the form of an official policy circular. I have today given the Minister who is to reply notice and a copy of the quote. Now I ask him formally what happened to it, and why was it shelved? Perhaps, in the well-worn phrase of this House, he will be kind enough to write to me.

Good design cannot be achieved by control and regulations only. Good design is essentially the responsibility of the developer and his designer. Too detailed control can restrict innovation and impede creativity. But surely the way to improve the standard of building design is to improve the standard of "the designer".

While I congratulate the Government on their attitude to strategic and land use planning, I should like to ask them why they have done little to improve the quality of building designers. I believe that in France, for example, a building design may not be proposed by anyone who has not had it prepared by someone qualified in design. This is not the case in the United Kingdom where, to be blunt, some proposals are put forward and accepted for alterations to, for example, buildings in conservation areas and villages by people who cannot even draw. Your Lordships would not seek medical advice from a quack; so why do we get so much building design from quacks? If there is a shortage of architects or otherwise qualified designers, what proposals do the Government have to remedy it and encourage more men and women to follow such a career?

While the constructive use of planning control can facilitate good design and prevent thoroughly bad proposals, there are other methods by which planning authorities can encourage better standards. They can set a good example themselves in their own undertakings by employing able staff or carefully selected consultants. Architectural competitions encourage the obtaining of high quality design on important sites, whether the developer is or is not an authority, and importantly foster public interest in good design—witness the National Gallery extension.

Authorities can establish awards for good design and mount exhibitions to illustrate environmental objectives and development opportunities—particularly in conversion or rehabilitation, which is important in rural communities—carefully considering representations from the interest and often considerable knowledge of national and local groups concerned for the environment and conservation. The Secretary of State, in the exercise of his planning functions, may seek to promote architectural competitions. It is by a somewhat analagous Victorian equivalent that we have the glorious building in which we are now sitting.

Recent circulars from the Government to planning authorities have advised them not to interfere too much in the aesthetics of individual buildings except in conservation areas. General planning control should be concerned with the relationship to all neighbouring development; the main criteria being scale, density and height, access, layout, landscaping where possible, materials, provision for car parking and service vehicles, traffic generation, noise and atmospheric pollution.

Planning authorities from the Government down should make it clear what their standards and criteria are, both generally and specifically; and help developers to see more clearly how better design can contribute to the success of their proposed development and the future of the area in which it will be built. A balance has to be struck between the essential elements of control and the conditions in which good design can flourish. It must flourish; after all, the public can largely avoid the work of other creative people such as artists and musicians if they do not look at their pictures and do not go to their concerts. But they cannot avoid buildings.

In conclusion, I believe that buildings should be warm and friendly, inviting, stimulating and uplifting. The designer cannot divorce himself from social concerns. This applies particularly to rural areas, although, perhaps the pith of what I have been saying is rather more suburban and high density than other speakers who have spoken particularly about the situation in rural communities. In the words of that eminent architectural internationalist, Walter Gropius, The satisfaction of the human soul should be the aim of good design whether rural or suburban.

To that I say, "Hear, hear!".

3.58 p.m.

Lord John-Mackie

My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships for coming in and extending this debate by a few minutes but there are a number of points I should like to make. Unfortunately, or fortunately, the right reverend Prelate made a point which I feel I must take up.

The first point concerns small industries in the countryside. I have two examples in our village where there are two industries. One is a small printer's business with six full-time and four part-time people. The owner wanted to retire. He sold the business to another printer who was to carry on, and he himself made arrangements to move elsewhere. He had actually moved when the other printer who had bought the business could not find the money or something happened and a developer jumped in, bought it and is now applying for permission to build houses.

The other example is at the other end of the village where there is a carpenter whose main business was making palettes. I know that palettes are not beautiful things stacked up 60 high in the countryside and near housing, but nevertheless he employed quite a few people. Pressure from the neighbours to have him moved was quite strong. So he said, "All right, if I can find a developer who will give me the money to develop land for housing then I will move". In fact that has just happened and he has moved. So there are two industries in the village of Nazeing where that has happened in the past year. That trend is happening quite a lot and it is serious. A village is dead if there is no work in it. When it is purely a commuter village it is a very bad thing indeed.

I must declare an interest at this point. There is one partial solution to the problem. It could help if there were to be a little more leniency in allowing redundant farm buildings to be let for small industries. However, in order to do that there is an appalling amount of bureaucracy to get through. Most county councils insist that one has a tenant, knows his occupation and has everthing arranged before one asks for planning permission. When that is done one asks for planning permission. I may say that I have done that twice and on both occasions that tenant that I had in mind could not wait. So as I had no tenant the proposal had to be dropped.

I believe that I saw the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, in his seat a few moments ago. His rural commission does a tremendous job in trying to get together councils, farmers and tenants in order to solve these difficulties. I know that they have been solved in many cases. But there is a considerable slowing down in making use of what are in many cases very good but redundant farm buildings. I should like to appeal to the Government on that score. I believe that they are now a little more lenient than they were two or three years ago. Nonetheless if one is in a green belt area it is quite difficult.

The right reverend Prelate mentioned extensive farming. I could spend a long time on this subject. I should however just like to say that during our debate on the Queen's Speech and the subject of the rural environment and the rural areas, the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, made a very strong point about how the Government planned to use extensive farming or set-aside or whatever to reduce food production. Shortly after that debate I went home and found my wife weeping in front of the television set. She was watching the terrible famine in Ethiopia. I believe that we must think very carefully about the reduction of food production in the world today and not only in regard to the areas which are given publicity. There are 800 million people on a starvation diet and 400 million of those people are in fact starving. I believe that we should be very careful about reducing food production.

Perhaps I may now broach the subject of housing in the countryside. The noble Lord is quite right. There is no doubt about it: there will be a shortage of farm workers because the increased efficiency and mechanisation, among other things, that have taken hold of farming in the past 40 years have been quite fantastic. The figures quoted are quite right. Large numbers of people have left and are still leaving the industry. That makes a tremendous difference to the villages.

What worries me is what is happening to the houses. On the farm in Scotland which I used to farm and which my son now works there were a couple of quite nice but redundant farm cottages. They were sold by the landlord to a developer who turned them into one house which was far beyond anything that a local person could afford. That is happening quite a lot in country areas particularly near big towns or if the property is near a station. I do not know how one solves that problem. It is very tempting for a farmer to achieve the prices that are possible but it reduces the number of ordinary houses for ordinary people. I should like to see something done to stop that happening.

I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, also made the point that he would like to see that stopped. I do not know what can be done but I should like just to make that point.

4.3 p.m.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Parry has done well to raise this very important subject in your Lordships' House this afternoon. It is particularly well that it should be done in this House, which is perhaps better known as the Westminster branch of the Country Landowners' Association rather than the Westminster branch of the agricultural section of the Transport and General Workers' Union. The noble Lord has done particularly well to draw attention in such a vivid speech to the advantages and disadvantages of decentralisation and their effect on suburban and rural communities. He has done well to draw such a high quality of speeches, though perhaps a small quantity, from other noble Lords. It is interesting to note that the question of suburban and rural communities attracts so many fewer speakers to a debate in your Lordships' House than does the subject of museums and works of art. I wonder whether there is any moral to be drawn from that.

In particular I valued the speech made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester who reminded us that the very real problems that we see in our countryside and suburban areas (though particularly in our countryside) are not new. They should not be contrasted with some golden age of agricultural communities in the past. We can look at both fictional and historical references for that. Selecting drastically, I recall in the early part of Flora Thompson's Lark Rise to Candleford the very grim description of appalling, subservient conditions endured by rural labourers in the mid-19th century under their landlords in north Oxfordshire. I recall of course even more vividly the biting history of J. L. and Barbara Hammond's description of the condition of life of the rural labourers in the early part of the 19th century. So if anyone believes that things have become worse in the 20th century and somehow we should be looking back to a golden age, he should certainly think again. Nevertheless, rural poverty and rural deprivation is still a very real question.

The Church of England's report on rural poverty notes that 25 per cent. of people in rural areas are living at or near the margin of poverty. Of course the great majority of those people are elderly. They suffer not only from lack of financial resources but from lack of many other resources necessary to a decent life, to which I propose to refer in a moment.

My role from these Benches is to consider the political implications of a Motion of this kind, what sort of policy changes are appropriate and what is wrong with the policy that we are adopting at the moment. It is quite clear that our policies to protect the rural economy and the quality of life in rural areas are not working. A number of noble Lords have made extremely valuable points about the policy implications of the situation as they see it. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, referred to the question of rural transport and its decline. Quite rightly, he pointed to the effect of the 1986 Transport Act which produced a temporary boom in more innovative and flexible transport but with a long-term decline in such a way that things are very much worse than they were previously. For the first but not the last time I say that that is the effect of allowing unbridled market forces into the provision of basic public services.

The right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, made very effective references to the whole question of planning and county structure plans. I know that at the moment planning is unpopular. People have the idea that planning means stopping people from doing things. I hope that the House will take the view that that is not the case, particularly when talking about county structure plans. It is in county structure plans, and it could be in regional structure plans if that were the appropriate tier of local government, that proper protection has to be given for the provision of housing for those in need, for the provision of transport, services and employment where necessary.

The previous Secretary of State for the Environment, Mr. Nicholas Ridley, indicated an intention to cut out county structure plans and to turn that responsibility over to the district councils. I should be delighted if, perhaps not by positive statement but by implication, the present Secretary of State has abandoned that intention. It would have been extremely damaging and I hope that that proposal will never be revived.

My noble friend Lord Parry referred to the whole question of communications—not just transport but other forms of communication. Again I make a political point; namely, that the privatisation of our basic public services has led to a threat to the supply at a fair price of water, electricity and gas to our rural communities. I make the point that it is only pressure, particularly from this House—and it does this House credit—that has prevented the Government from allowing market forces to be untrammelled and has deliberately protected rural areas from over-charging for those basic public services.

The point has been made about the necessity for affordable housing in rural areas. Noble Lords who took part in the debates on the two major housing Bills which were enacted during the past two years will recall that it was pressure on the Government from this House which went some way—in our view, nothing like far enough—towards protecting the need for rural communities to have rented housing at a price that they could afford. As the right reverend Prelate reminded us, it also went some way towards preventing the resale of existing rented housing stock. We have not gone anything like far enough. The situation is most unsatisfactory and the role of public housing, particularly in rural areas, will have to be restored and will be restored under the next Labour government. But at least it was your Lordships who saw the problems because of your knowledge of rural areas and because of the great and evident threat in the Government's proposals.

Reference has also been made to other forms of social services; for example, rural schools and the provision of sub-post offices, village shops and health centres and health facilities accessible to people living in rural areas. In all of those social services the trend towards the dominance of market forces, which is the characteristic of this Government, has over the past 10 years led to a diminution in the quality of services which are essential for a civilised life in rural areas.

There are areas as regards which the Government can congratulate themselves. I also wish that the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, were still in his seat. It is undoubtedly true that the Rural Development Commission, being the amalgamation of the Development Commission and CoSIRA, has shown the way for active and benevolent intervention in rural areas. The 27 rural development areas which have been declared since 1984 have produced in broad terms—although not in every single area—an increase in population and a decrease in unemployment during that period. That showns not only that the Rural Development Commission is doing a good job but that the principle of intervention through rural development areas is worthwhile and should be extended. That applies to the provision of workshops and small business grants as well as to the other activities of the commission.

My noble friend Lord John-Mackie and other noble Lords referred to the role of farming in rural communities. It must be accepted that, in employment terms, farming is no longer the dominant employer. I was shocked to learn that more hairdressers than agriculturalists are now being trained in Dorset. One way in which farming could provide a particularly benevolent influence in rural areas would be if it were thought of as part of the process of conservation. Training in farming should be combined with training in conservation. The major demands which will face this country in conserving our natural habitat and environment should be made part of the responsibilities of the farming community. Its members live there and know what it is about and they have an interest in preserving our countryside—at any rate, they frequently proclaim an interest in doing so. Therefore, let us ask the farming community to put its money where its mouth is and contribute towards the conservation of our countryside.

There are many areas in which Government policy could contribute to a better quality of life in our rural and suburban communities, if only they did not feel ideologically constrained from doing so. The contrast that we must make is between the Government's policies in general—which have a curious combination of reliance on market forces and reliance on direct regulation and rule from Whitehall—and the more liberal and democratic policies—and I beg pardon to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for using those two words in a non-partisan sense—

Baroness Seear

My Lords, it is interesting to note that when the noble Lord needs words to describe something which is really good, they are the words that he finds.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, it is not usual to use the word "socialism" from this Dispatch Box, although I have done so when I have felt particularly impassioned about a subject. However, I am delighted to know that on this occasion my words find favour with the noble Baroness.

The contrast that we must make is between the Government's reliance on market forces and Whitehall rule and a more flexible and democratic way of running things which I proclaim to be the policy of the Labour Party. In our recent policy statement we undertook a very substantial review of the relationship between central and local government. It resulted in proposals for regional policies and regional government which would largely bring back to people living in rural areas—because many of the regions would have larger rural components than the country as a whole—and would largely overcome the ideological difficulties, to put it at its mildest, which the Government now have in dealing with the problems of the rural economy.

We can look at the future at its worst in the recent words of the Town and Country Planning Association. It spoke of the prospects of our countryside becoming a sterile food factory; a noisy fun palace; a concrete jungle; the preserve of the affluent; and a decaying museum piece. We believe that the policies that this country should adopt towards rural areas should be dedicated to nullifying that prediction and those possibilities. They should be directed towards preserving and increasing a healthy and flourishing countryside.

4.17 p.m.

Lord Hesketh

My Lords, we do not often bracket together rural and suburban communities. Traditionally we think of rural communities as declining and suburban communities as expanding. But increasingly rural areas are now showing signs of prosperity and growth, despite the decline of employment in agriculture and other primary industries.

The closing remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, were filled with a prophetic view of the future which was one of gloom. As a countryman, it is not one that I recognise in the future that I see ahead.

It is important that full and effective use is made of available land in existing urban and suburban areas, and planning authorities have a responsibility to encourage this. But it should not be at the expense of often precious areas of open space, nor should it render these areas as a whole less pleasant places in which to live.

Essentially it is a matter of achieving the right balance between development in the suburbs, in the cities and in the countryside. There is a a lot of vacant and recycled land in urban areas whose use for housing would be beneficial. To take the South-East as an example, over half of all development there is on such land. But it would be self-defeating to allow residential areas to deteriorate.

Whenever extensive areas of new housing are built there will be the need to ensure that a full range of services is available. This, too, is dealt with through the planning system and by ensuring that the developers meet a fair share of the costs.

Our overall aim is to maintain a thriving countryside through a sensible balance between farming, conservation, recreation, employment creation and the needs of rural communities. Our twin objectives—to achieve a healthy rural economy and an attractive rural environment—reinforce each other. Our policies provide a framework for achieving these objectives.

The Government's main task is to guide and encourage others. We want to encourage the enterprise of all those who live and work in rural communities and to see increasing activity by the private and voluntary sectors. We are also anxious to see that the best posssible use is made of limited public funds, by making full use of opportunities to influence others and by concentrating activities in areas with the greatest needs. But we do not hesitate to take direct action where it is necessary.

In many rural areas the efforts of all concerned have been rewarded. The population of the rural areas of Britain increased by 10 per cent. between 1971 and 1981. Employment and economic activity have become more diversified and in many areas the unemployment rate is now well below the national average. But there are still many rural communities with problems, often related to their remoteness from the main areas of economic activity or to a rapid decline in employment in traditional industries, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, pointed out to your Lordships' House. Other rural communities suffer from the problems of success, with shortages of low-cost housing and strong pressures for extensive new development.

We have taken many steps to help deal with these problems. The farming and rural enterprise package that my department, with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and other colleagues launched two years ago set out the steps that we were taking to encourage a flourishing rural economy sensitive to the wider needs of rural areas. We have achieved a great deal since then.

The Government sponsor specialist agencies to do much of the work in implementing their policies for rural communities. In England, the Rural Development Commission, which is sponsored by my department, is the Government's main agency for diversifying rural enterprise. In Wales, similar tasks are undertaken primarily by the Development Board for Rural Wales and the Welsh Development Agency. In Scotland, the Scottish Development Agency and the Highlands and Islands Development Board fulfil broadly similar functions.

These agencies have a star-studded list of achievements to their credit. Most importantly, they get people and organisations in the private voluntary and public sectors to work together to deal effectively with rural problems. Increasingly the agencies are making more efficient use of their resources by targeting their activities on areas of the greatest need. For example, in October the chairman of the Development Board for Rural Wales launched a special rural action programme which targets resources on the less prosperous areas.

It is important that development in rural areas respects the environment. We also have important specialist agencies to protect landscape and wildlife. We shall be bringing legislation forward to your Lordships' House in the new year to recognise them and make them more effective.

The private sector has the most important role in ensuring that rural communities do well in the long term. Private sector involvement in rural areas helps them to thrive and to sustain essential rural services. The Government are keen to encourage that.

As the noble Lord, Lord Parry, said, the development of tourism provides a good example of that. Tourism is already a significant and well-established industry in a number of rural areas. Visitors to the countryside spent around £3.2 billion in 1986. If trends established over the last 15 years continue, tourist expenditure in the countryside could increase by around 60 per cent. in real terms by the end of the century. The Government are playing their part and assistance is available for tourism in areas of special need. In Wales, I know that the national tourist board, of which the noble Lord was formerly chairman, is presently running a rural tourism drive aimed at improving the quality and range of tourist facilities and services in the Principality. With regard to the noble Lord's remark, I say only that to review a quango is not to deny its excellence.

Some government agencies have also developed partnership schemes to stimulate other types of private sector activity. The Scottish Development Agency, for example, has a scheme called PRIDE. A revised version of similar schemes in Wales, known as DRIVE, was launched on 1st September.

Voluntary organisations also play a vital role in encouraging rural economic and social development, and the Government are anxious to work closely with them. Central government funding of the voluntary sector has risen by about 92 per cent. in real terms over the last decade and in 1988–89 it was some £2.1 billion. Voluntary organisations such as the rural community councils frequently help rural communities to analyse problems and find a way forward. They help to deliver services, provide advice, encourage enterprise and provide a link between authorities and the rural community.

We are today issuing a new edition of Planning Policy Guidance Note 7: Rural Enterprise and Development. It will remind local authorities of the need for a balanced approach to proposals that may help the rural economy but may also affect the rural environment. It will re-emphasise the importance of sensitive planning in special areas, such as national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, which the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, drew to the attention of your Lordships' House.

Our efforts to develop a thriving rural economy sometimes need to be supported by special action to maintain or enhance the provision of particular services. I should like to take this opportunity to summarise briefly for your Lordships what we are doing in this matter already. In July 1988 we announced our rural housing initiative which, for the first time, set out a specific policy on low-cost housing in smaller villages. The right reverend Prelate drew your Lordships' attention to the question of whether or not the Government monitored change. This policy is based on the fact that the Government have monitored change and thus changed policy.

We have greatly increased the public funds available to the Housing Corporation, so enabling it to establish a special rural programme aimed at expanding the role of housing associations in villages with a population of under 1,000. By 1992–93, this will be providing some 1,500 houses a year for rent and 350 for low-cost sale. Also, following the extensive debate in your Lordships' House on last Session's Local Government and Housing Bill, to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, drew the attention of noble Lords, we are introducing a scheme in some rural areas whereby housing associations can repurchase former shared ownership dwellings when the occupier moves on.

We are also taking steps to help and encourage landowners and developers to provide new houses at prices or rents that local people can afford. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, drew this point most succinctly to your Lordships' attention this afternoon.

In February 1989 we announced changes to planning rules whereby local planning authorities may exceptionally release small pockets of land for low-cost schemes to meet local needs. Rural areas will also benefit from the encouragement we have given to investment in the private rented sector.

The right reverend Prelate drew your Lordships' attention to the possibility of the development of new village communities and gave his own preference as the expansion of small villages into larger and better serviced villages. The only thing of which I can assure the right reverend Prelate is that whichever route is chosen the amount of protest, I suspect, will be similar. The right reverend Prelate also drew attention to the Archbishop's commission on rural areas. We welcome the setting up of the Archbiship's commission and the work which it has undertaken. The department will be most interested to hear the result of the commission's work when it reports to Synod in November 1990.

The noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, drew attention to the different system in France, and I have to say—because it is with regard to the design and the quality of design—that if I was standing in any other part of your Lordships' House than the Dispatch Box, speaking on behalf of the Government, I, too, might have some rather stronger views on this subject. But I would draw to the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, the fact, with the basis of a stronger concept to the view of design in France, that Mr. I. M. Pei's little pyramid in the Tuileries has not resulted exactly in consensus and happiness by the consumers of that great country, in terms of the pleasure it has provided.

The Government recognise that small schools in rural areas do an excellent job. However, they may reach a point where even disproportionate resources cannot compensate for their size. Where alternative schools are readily accessible and there are surplus places in the area, rationalisation may be the answer. But we realise that many small village schools have to be retained, because of the geographical isolation of the communities they serve, especially where the alternative schools available would necessitate unacceptably long journeys to schools for young children.

Deregulation under the Transport Act 1985, to which the noble Lord, Lord Addington, referred, has opened up the way for operators to provide bus services in rural areas on a commercial basis, and local authorities have powers to subsidise the running of services not provided by operators commercially. As a result of this, new rural services have been provided in many areas. The Transport Act 1985 also introduced the Rural Transport Development Fund to assist the provision of rural bus services in England. The Rural Transport Development Fund is run by the Rural Development Commission, with up to £1 million a year available from Department of Transport grants for up to 50 per cent. of each innovative rural transport scheme, and these are available to a maxim um of some £25,000. Seventy-five grants totalling £693,000 were offered in 1987–88.

I was pleased to see that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred glowingly to the Rural Development Commission funds towards innovative information and advice projects in rural areas. I know that sometimes the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, insinuates that this Government operate like a libertarian party in the western part of America. However, I assure him that they do not believe in that concept as he sometimes insinuates they may do.

The Rural Development Commission has achieved a great deal in a vast range of activities to improve rural services but we are not complacent. Government departments and their agencies monitor the position to identify problems and to see what action can be taken. The Rural Development Commission expects to publish no less than three new research reports on rural services early in the new year. A report on the provision of basic utilities will review the availability of mains electricity, water and sewerage in rural England. It will assess the deficiencies in provision and comment on how they might be overcome. A study on rural sub-post offices will review the impact of the Post Office's part-time community post office contract for smaller sub-post offices. A report on village services will assess the overall position on the availability of rural services and take a look at the future.

The Government are optimistic but not complacent about the future of rural communities. However, we believe that there are enthusiastic and enterprising people living within the rural community and the Government are committed to their future. They are taking care to see that they develop their full potential for the benefit of the whole community.

4.31 p.m.

Lord Parry

My Lords, we have had a good little debate. I am grateful to the Minister for his last sentence and, indeed, for much of what he said. He did not push what he had to say, despite his natural partisan pride, into complacency, and I am very grateful for that. I am also grateful to other noble Lords who have taken part in the debate.

On the issue of unemployment in rural areas, since I mentioned the improvements which have taken place within the golden triangle, I should have said that in the latest list of unemployment statistics there are 10 places where unemployment is over 9 per cent. in the rural areas, and there are several places where it is very much higher than that.

As I accepted the discipline of the Chief Whip to within 60 seconds, I did not have the opportunity to pay my tribute to the development board for rural Wales and its predecessor for the work which they have done or to mention the strategy for the future which is called "Strategy for the 1990s" launched by that development board. I was grateful to the Minister for mentioning that. Some of us remember the effect on Wales of the Labour Party's document Wales—The Way Ahead and some of this latest strategy is based on that. I see a former Secretary of State for Wales joining in with a smile late in the debate. I thank all noble Lords and beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.