Sitting of 15 June 1977

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Middle East
    Mr. Luceasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest developments in the Middle East.
    Mr. Waltersasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made to achieve a peaceful settlement in the Middle East; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Moonmanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest developments in the Middle East.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Dr. David Owen): It is too early to make a statement. Intensive efforts are being made to establish an agreed basis for a peaceful settlement and now that the Israeli election is over I would expect a further round of discussions. In particular, I welcome the high priority that the new United States Administration are giving to this issue.
    Mr. Luce: In view of the very urgent need for progress towards the Geneva Conference, will the right hon. Gentleman seek a fresh Community initiative to this whole issue that is designed to persuade the Israelis to desist from constructing settlements in Arab-occupied territories, and equally to persuade the Palestinians at the very least to recognise Israel's right to exist?
    Dr. Owen: The details of a peace agreement are for negotiation, but we have made it clear that we regret anything, including the Israeli policy of establishing settlements in the occupied territories, that might impede the beginning of negotiations. We hope that it will be possible to reconvene the Geneva Conference in the autumn, as the United States Government have proposed.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Would it not now be a commendable gesture for Her Majesty's Government to invite Mr. Yasser Arafat to London for negotiations so that we might be able to find out at first hand what are the legitimate objectives of the Palestinians? After all, this gentleman has far more credibility than the present leader of Israel.
    Dr. Owen: I find it difficult to agree to meet Mr. Arafat until the PLO has recognised the State of Israel, or has gone rather further than it has done to recognise—[Interruption.] I agree with my hon. Friend that it is necessary for moves to be made on both sides. I do not deny in any way that one must be ready to speak to many differing people. However, there is no hiding the fact that a greater acceptance of the right of Israel to exist would make matters easier. That is a fact of life that all of us recognise. I also recognise that that poses problems for the PLO, but there is no doubt that it is one of the barriers to having the sort of discussions that my hon. Friend has suggested.
    Mr. Marten: The Secretary of State did not exactly answer the supplementary question of my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce)—namely, what initiative is the Community going to take? Does it speak with one voice on this issue?
    Dr. Owen: The hon. Gentleman's zealous regard for a Community statement is touching. I shall take it into full account. The fact is that the Community has spoken with one voice on this issue on many occasions in the past. It is a matter of concern and it is discussed among the Foreign Ministers of the Nine at every political co-operation meeting.
    Mr. Hooley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the situation has recently become much more dangerous in

    361
    the Middle East and that time is running out? Does he recognise that time is not on our side, and that much more urgency should be shown by the Western world in moving towards a solution of this problem?
    Dr. Owen: I agree. I think that the situation is urgent. It has been given a very high priority by the United States Government and by many other Governments. I have visited some of the major countries involved and I hope to visit others in the next few months. We should not automatically assume that the result of the Israeli election will necessarily mean a setback to peace negotiations, although it is clearly an unexpected result in some people's minds. I hope that the new Government, once they have been fully formed, will show a readiness to negotiate and a flexibility rather in advance of what they have said hitherto on the subject.

    United States of America (Nuclear Bases)
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is aware that President Carter is willing to co-operate in the closure of United States nuclear bases in the United Kingdom; and what is holding up this policy.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Frank Judd): I am not aware that President Carter has expressed himself in the sense suggested by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Jenkins: Is my hon. Friend aware that the policy advocated here is in accordance with the Labour Party's programme and, furthermore, in accordance with the general philosophy expounded by President Carter? If the Foreign Secretary points out to President Carter that it is part of the Labour Party's election programme and in accordance with the President's policy, is he aware that the President's response is likely to be to agree to a negotiated agreement? Will my hon. Friend press this matter?
    Mr. Judd: We welcome President Carter's initiative. As our manifesto stated, starting from the basis of multilateral disarmament we shall seek the removal of the United States bases. It is our intention to establish conditions in
    362
    which we can all have permanent confidence in our security. We are pursuing several practical measures on arms control and disarmament, but we are still some way from establishing such conditions.
    Mrs. Bain: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that all those of us who are members of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament find it strange that the Government are taking so long to strike up a new initiative in this area? If talks are initiated with President Carter, will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this is already party policy for the Scottish National Party, and that we intend to carry out this commitment much more quickly than does the Labour Party?
    Mr. Judd: It is not for me to comment on the policy of the Scottish National Party. I assure the hon. Lady that we have positively welcomed the President's initiative and that we are determined, together with our other allies, to do everything possible to support what he seeks.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Is it not correct that the President has concurred with the recent surprising Soviet proposal that Britain should join the super-Powers in talks to end all nuclear test explosions? Will we join those talks, and in any case should not Britain therefore cancel its tests in Nevada?
    Mr. Judd: Of course, if we can achieve international agreement on the cessation of nuclear tests, so long as we can be sure that peaceful tests are not disguised for military purposes, we shall do everything possible to co-operate. We are determined to do that.
    Mr. John Davies: Will the Minister, however, confirm clearly that his understanding is as mine—that is, that President Carter has in no way suggested that there should be a unilateral state of disarmament of any kind, in the face of the existing state of Soviet armament?
    Mr. Judd: What the President is clearly committed to and what we are committed to support to the hilt is a genuine and full commitment to effective and genuine multilateral disarmament. However, as I have said before, succeeding generations will not thank us for cosmetics in this sphere.

    Concorde
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek a meeting with Mr. Vance to discuss the implementation by the United States of America Government of the treaty signed by Her Majesty's Government and the Federal Government allowing Concorde to land in New York.
    Mr. Judd: As I told the hon. Member on 4th May, the United States Government are well aware of our views. We and the French are urgently and carefully considering yesterday's decision by the United States Court of Appeals, but until these considerations are complete and the airlines have been consulted it is too soon to say what steps will be taken.
    Mr. Adley: But is it not clear that, unless and until Mr. Carter accepts his presidential responsibility for implementing federal treaty obligations, the courts will continue to uphold the discriminatory ban by the Port of New York Authority? What are the Government doing to remove the feeling in many quarters that, in the case of Concorde, the signature of the United States Government on a treaty is rather less valuable than the signature of the Soviet Government on the Helsinki agreement?
    Mr. Judd: I am sure that with his specialised knowledge the hon. Gentleman will recognise that this is a complicated issue, which raises fundamental points about the principles of the rule of law, to which I know he is deeply committed. I can assure him that the Prime Minister has spoken to President Carter himself several times, and we have raised the matter with Mr. Vance. The Secretary of State for Trade also spoke to Mr. Brock Adams expressing concern when he was in the United States recently.
    Mr. Russell Kerr: Is my hon. Friend aware that the continued frustration currently being experienced by British Airways and Air France in regard to Concorde is doing nothing but build up a heavy anti-American groundswell of public opinion in this country? Will he therefore use his best ministerial endeavours to put pressure on President Carter to drop his Nelson-like approach and to come down firmly on the side of
    364
    a co-operative gesture, which could only help Anglo-American relations?
    Mr. Judd: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. It would be wrong to underestimate the feeling in this country about the issue. So far as I am aware, that is well recognised in the United States, and, as I have said, senior British Ministers have been at pains to make sure that the President and the United States Secretary of State are well aware of how we see the issue on this side of the Atlantic.

    Cambodia
    Sir John Hallasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is now in a position to say what further action Her Majesty's Government propose to take to initiate international action to persuade the Cambodian Government to change their present policy of mass murder.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Evan Luard): I have at present nothing to add to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member on 4th May.
    Sir J. Hall: Does the Minister agree that to suggest deferring raising this matter until the next meeting of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in February 1978 is to abrogate the responsibility of this Government? Is it not deplorable that we should be prepared to allow a Government like the Cambodian Government to continue their policy of genocide, resulting in the loss of many hundreds of thousands of innocent lives, without apparently being willing to take any action to rouse public opinion against that Government?
    Mr. Luard: First of all, we have expressed our own views about this matter in no uncertain terms. Second, it is not the case that it is a special responsibility of this Government to raise this question with the United Nations. However, as I have told the hon. Gentleman before, we should like to raise the question in the appropriate body of the United Nations. The appropriate body is the UN Commission on Human Rights, which unfortunately does not meet until February of next year. None the less, we are considering whether there is any other way in which we might raise it.
    Mr. MacFarquhar: In view of the special connection of France with that part of South-East Asia in the past, has my hon. Friend had any consultations with the French about a joint initiative?
    Mr. Luard: We are considering whether there is any action that we could take in conjunction with other Governments, and the French Government might certainly be one. There is one possibility. The UN Commission on Human Rights has a Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, and it is just possible that we may find a way of raising it there.

    Diplomatic Service (CPRS Report)
    Sir Anthony Royleasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the CPRS Report on the Diplomatic Service.
    Dr. Owen: I hope to have a printed copy of the Report shortly. After discussions with my colleagues I hope to be able to publish the Report to allow for public discussion.
    Sir A. Royle: But what action will the right hon. Gentleman take to restore the morale of the Diplomatic Service, which has been affected by the strange attitude of some members of the CPRS team as they have gone round our missions abroad? Is he aware that we on the Opposition Benches trust that he will support the Diplomatic Service against those who seek to undermine this important British interest through either envy or malice?
    Dr. Owen: This country has been extremely well served by its Diplomatic Service over many generations and we owe it to the service to ensure that any examination of what are only recommendations to the Government should be carried out seriously. That is what its members want. When I go around talking to diplomats in many parts of the world I find that they are not reluctant to see the service examined. They realise that it must change with changing circumstances, but they want an unprejudiced look at their service, and a recognition that they have played an important rôle in the past and will continue to do so in future.
    Mr. Grocott: But is it not a fact that the Diplomatic Service is overmanned and overprivileged? Can my right hon. Friend explain why it is necessary, for example, to keep the same level of representation at European capitals, when, so far as one can discover, planeloads of Ministers and civil servants make constant trips to and from European capitals—Brussels in particular?
    Dr. Owen: I do not want to prejudge the discussions that will take place on the CPRS Report, but on the question whether the service is overmanned I must tell the House frankly that I think that there are some places in the world where one needs to consider whether there could not be some judicious slimming of the service.
    Mr. Russell Kerr: Washington, for example.
    Dr. Owen: I do not object at all to what my hon. Friend says. However, there are also places where the Diplomatic Service is understaffed and is doing a difficult job in adverse circumstances. In such places I should like to increase the representation to support our trade efforts.
    Mr. Paul Dean: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that remarks like that made by the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Grocott) damage the morale of the Diplomatic Service? Does he agree that Britain still has an important rôle to play in the Commonwealth, in Europe and in the world, and that to achieve that effectively we must be effectively represented abroad by those who feel confident in the service which they serve?
    Dr. Owen: Yes, I agree with that. We need to be effectively represented throughout the world. I am not a believer in sectoral withdrawal in any aspect of our life. I think that we need to draw the lesson that, in our obsession, naturally, with the arguments about our entry into Europe, we may have got too orientated towards Europe. At the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, I was struck by the number of people who asked us to remember that we still had major trading interests all over the world. We need to look after those trading interests and ensure that our representation still covers all aspects of our trading and diplomatic activity world-wide.

    Republic of Ireland (Foreign Minister)
    Mr. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to meet the Irish Foreign Minister.
    Mr. Judd: My right hon. Friend hopes to do so at the next meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council on 21st June.
    Mr. Henderson: When the Foreign Secretary meets the Irish Foreign Minister, will he assure him of his full support for the Irish Government's stand on a 50-mile conservation limit round the Irish coast? Will he take a leaf out of Ireland's very courageous stand on the matter and do the same himself?
    Mr. Judd: The Irish Government have not declared a 50-mile limit. What they have done is to ban certain large vessels, including their own, for conservation reasons. But I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are determined to fight vigorously for the interests of the British fishing industry in all negotiations with the Community.
    Mr. Marten: On behalf of some of the members of my party, may I support the hon. Gentleman in what he said about a 50-mile limit?
    Mr. Judd: I repeat that we shall fight with all the vigour necessary to protect the interests of the British fishing industry.

    Israel
    Mr. McCrindleasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to visit Israel.
    Dr. Owen: I hope to visit Israel as soon as it is convenient.
    Mr. McCrindle: In the meantime, and while recognising that ultimately concessions will no doubt have to come from both sides if peace in the Middle East is to be maintained, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to resist undue pressure on the new Israeli Administration in regard to the evacuation of territory, and to use the time between now and his expected visit to press the Palestinian interests to recognise the existence of the State of Israel?
    Dr. Owen: I have already indicated that I think that a movement in this area
    368
    of recognition would certainly help, although I realise the complexity of the problem. The Government's attitude to settlements in the occupied territory has been made absolutely clear. I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about the new Government. They are a new Government, democratically elected, and they must be given the benefit of any doubt or anxieties that people may have about the future position over a negotiated peace settlement. I hope that when they look at the issues they will enter into the negotiations for a settlement with a readiness to reach an agreement that will bring stability to the area. It is certainly in that spirit that I approach the new Government.
    Mr. Rifkind: Remembering that the British Government officially condemned the Arab boycott against Israel, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to follow the example of the United States, Canada and the Netherlands by instructing officials of his own Department to stop authenticating signatures of discriminatory certificates of origin, as this is the one way in which the British Government actively enable the boycott against Israel to be continued?
    Dr. Owen: I cannot accept that the certification of documents by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in any way implies that we condone or endorse the boycott. We do not. I have made the position clear on that. All that is certified is the signature of the public official.
    Mr. Tapsell: Has the right hon. Gentleman noted that since the Israeli election Mr. Begin has publicly stated that he will go to Washington on the basis of Resolutions 242 and 338? Is not this a rather encouraging sign?
    Dr. Owen: Yes, Sir. I think that it reflects the fact that the Israeli Government are ready to negotiate. I hope that that is the position. It is very important that we do not judge a Government by statements during the election period. I think that most of us would recognise that the best way of judging Governments is by what they actually do in office.

    Washington, DC
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth

    369
    Affairs when he next expects to visit Washington.
    Dr. Owen: I shall visit the United Nations General Assembly in New York at the end of September and may well visit Washington then.
    Mr. Canavan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the autumn thousands of people from Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom will be marching in protest against the presence of American nuclear bases in the Holy Loch and elsewhere in the United Kingdom? Will he pay more attention to the Labour Party manifesto commitment in this respect, and will he pass on appropriate information to the American President, Jimmy Carter, and to our whizz-kid ambassador?
    Dr. Owen: I can assure my hon. Friend that the whole issue of disarmament is one in which I have taken a great deal of interest when sitting on both sides of the House, and I shall continue to do so. The question is one of achieving genuine measures of disarmament. We can look at the whole question of a comprehensive test ban treaty. We can encourage greater progress in the SALT negotiations. We can contribute to the mutual and balanced force reduction negotiations, which are continuing. In all three areas we are extremely active at present.
    Mr. Blaker: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the American Administration that he welcomes President Carter's confirmation that he proposes to continue his campaign on the subject of human rights? Will he assure the House that, in co-operation with the United States Government and our other partners, we shall do our best to ensure that at Belgrade there is a serious and thorough examination of the record of the parties to the Helsinki agreement on all aspects of the agreement, including human rights?
    Dr. Owen: My position on human rights is well known. I support the stand of the United States Administration. I recognise that it is a very important aspect, but only one of many aspects that will be discussed in Belgrade. We recently had a debate on this matter in the House, when I think that there was a broad measure of agreement that we need to see all parts of the Helsinki
    370
    Final Act implemented. We shall approach Belgrade in a spirit of trying to ensure that there is full implementation. It will take time, but we are determined to achieve it. The fact that there is a human dimension to détente is one that I fully support.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: When my right hon. Friend sees President Carter will he encourage him to think of the human rights of Arabs in Israeli-occupied territory as being equally as important as the human rights of Jews in the Soviet Union?
    Dr. Owen: I know from conversations with President Carter that he is concerned about human rights everywhere in the world and judges the matter on its merits. As his actions have shown, he by no means sees the issue of human rights as being confined to the Soviet and Communist countries. He will look at the matter in the Middle East, the Far East and even in his own country.

    Secretary of State (Engagements)
    Mr. Greville Jannerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will list his official engagements for 15th June.
    Dr. Owen: This morning I attended a meeting of the Commonwealth Heads of Government. I had meetings with the Prime Ministers of Malaysia and Fiji, and with Mr. Joshua Nkomo. I expect to attend a further meeting of Commonwealth Heads of Government this afternoon and the Prime Minister's reception this evening.
    Mr. Janner: When my right hon. Friend meets the Commonwealth Heads of Government later today, will he express to them this House's appreciation of their unanimous and forthright condemnation of the Amin régime in Uganda? Will he accept the appreciation of the House for the part that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and he took in encouraging the Heads of Government to reach that decision? Does he not feel that now is the appropriate time for us to cease trading with Uganda, both in respect of the Stansted whisky run and all other trade with this thoroughly racist and atrocious régime?
    Dr. Owen: The world can be in no doubt about our view of President Amin's régime. It is a source of great satisfaction to us all that many Commonwealth leaders have taken such a firm stand on this issue. I am glad that my hon. and learned Friend accepts that the Government's decision to do everything possible to make sure that the Commonwealth came together in London and was able to discuss this has been justified. However, we have no quarrel with the people of Uganda, and it would be a very serious step to attempt to embark on a policy of trade sanctions. [Interruption.] I can assure hon. Members that the situation in Uganda is such that it is worth considering measures, even if we may find them of a very serious nature. I recognise the concern of the House on the question of the Stansted flights, and I am examining the matter.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: In view of the recognition of the new régime in the Seychelles, do the British Government now have a high commissioner in the Seychelles? Has anybody from the Seychelles played a part in the Commonwealth Conference, other than Mr. Mancham, who is deposed?
    Dr. Owen: We have had a High Commission in the Seychelles and have had one throughout this period. No one from the Seychelles has taken part in the Heads of Government meeting. It would have been open to the new President to nominate somebody. When the matter was discussed in the opening stages of the conference, when the issue was not clear and President Mancham asked to speak to the conference, it was decided that the matter was best dealt with by discussions outside the conference. The Seychelles has not been formally represented, although the position has been kept for it and its name-plate has been left open.
    Mr. Ron Thomas: Will my right hon. Friend spare a little time today to take some effective measures against the sanction-busting by the major oil companies in supplying oil to the illegal régime in Rhodesia, especially in regard to British Petroleum and Shell and British companies which are supplying oil through their intermediaries and subsidiaries in Southern Africa?
    Dr. Owen: As my hon. Friend knows, I established an inquiry, under the powers and provisions provided for this purpose, to look into the allegations that have been made and to see whether there is any evidence on which the Director of Public Prosecutions would then have to decide whether the evidence was such that action could be taken.
    There is no doubt that oil has entered Rhodesia despite the United Nations resolutions, and it is coming through South Africa. The problem is whether it is coming from the subsidiaries of major international companies and whether, under our own national law, we can enforce a control of the subsidiaries of such companies. But these are issues that Mr. Bingham will be looking into in his inquiry.

    Turkey
    Mr. Viggersasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any current plans to visit Turkey.
    Mr. Judd: My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to do so.
    Mr. Viggers: Is the Minister aware of some disenchantment in Turkey resulting from both the British withdrawal of troop commitment to the southern flank of NATO and lack of progress in the European context? What special steps have the Government in mind to take with the new Turkish Government to improve the situation?
    Mr. Judd: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will know that following the 1974 defence review the Government decided to concentrate the United Kingdom's defence effort in those areas where it could make the most significant contribution. This included the central region, the Eastern Atlantic and the Channel areas. We have, however, offered to carry out—I think this is what the hon. Gentleman has in mind—various compensatory measures of special value to the southern flank. These measures were detailed in the 1975 and 1976 defence White Papers.
    Mr. Townsend: Has the Minister seen a report in The Times today that exports from the northern part of Cyprus to Britain have played a large part in boosting the weak economy of that part of

    373
    Cyprus? In the light of the recent court case, of which he is aware, concerning Kyrenia hotels, what fresh action will the British Government take over this matter, bearing in mind that we are a guarantor Power for a free and independent Cyprus?
    Mr. Judd: If the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question on that specific issue I shall answer it.
    Mr. Atkinson: Returning to the Minister's original answer, will he offer the House his thoughts about meeting the new Prime Minister, Mr. Ecevit, and perhaps joining with Cyrus Vance of the United States in a series of propositions that should now be put to the new Administration in Turkey concerning the future of Cyprus?
    Will the Minister now welcome the election of the new Government and the coming of Mr. Ecevit? Will he also persuade his right hon. Friend to take some initiatives in arranging an early meeting, so that these discussions can take place?
    Mr. Judd: I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government have high in their priorities effective relations with Turkey, whatever Turkish Government are in power, and we shall welcome Turkish Ministers at any time on visits to the United Kingdom.
    As for Cyprus, we are very glad that the inter-communal talks started in Vienna are continuing in Nicosia, and anything that we can do, with the Nine or with the United States, to bring them to a fruitful conclusion we shall do.

    Namibia
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will propose in the Security Council that a firm date be fixed by the Security Council for the termination of South Africa's illegal occupation of Namibia, and that Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter be invoked if South Africa does not comply.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Edward Rowlands): The five Western members of the Security Council are engaged in an initiative to secure the earliest possible independence for Namibia. We believe considerable progress has been made. The
    374
    timing of South Africa's withdrawal is naturally one of the topics under con-sideration.
    Mr. Hooley: It is useful that the South African Government have abandoned the Turnhalle proposals, and this is a step in the right direction, but does my hon. Friend accept that the patience of the African countries is not infinite? Does he further agree that unless the Western world shows a greater sense of urgency in this matter we shall have a situation as dangerous in Namibia as we have in Central Africa?
    Mr. Rowlands: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's comment on the patience of the African countries—and the patience of the international community as a whole is not infinite. We are moving with urgency and speed towards trying to find the best possible solution to the situation in Namibia and the earliest possible independence for the country.
    Mr. Rifkind: To what extent are there suggestions from the South African Government that they are willing that any elections in Namibia may be supervised by the five Western Powers instead of by the United Nations?
    Mr. Rowlands: There has been considerable agreement about the United Nations involvement in the elections for a constituent assembly. That is one of the most important steps forward, as it accords very much with the intrinsic criteria laid down in Security Council Resolution No. 385, on which the Western Powers have been making their demands to South Africa.
    Mr. MacFarquhar: What is my hon. Friend's reaction to Dr. Kaunda's proposal that, rather than take the problems of Southern Africa separately, we should take an attitude that views the whole of the Southern African problems, in South Africa, Namibia and Rhodesia?
    Mr. Rowlands: We accept that there is a great inter-relationship between all three problems, but there are special features of each of the problems, as anyone who studies the situation that we face in Rhodesia, or the efforts that we are now making in Namibia, will know. There is an inter-relationship, but every problem relating to Southern Africa has to be the subject of individual efforts.
    Mr. Wall: Will the Minister bear in mind that South Africa subsidises this territory to the tune of 200 million rand a year, and that if South Africa removed its military forces the MPLA and the Cubans would walk in tomorrow?
    Mr. Rowlands: The security of independent and free Namibia is a major issue that is concerning us. I am sure that the South African Government will bring to attention their support to Namibia, and that the international community can also do a lot to help Namibia when it achieves independence.

    Humanitarian Law (Geneva Conference)
    Mr. Robin F. Cookasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's attitude to the Diplomatic Conference on Humanitarian Law currently meeting in Geneva.
    Mr. Luard: The Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflict has just completed its fourth and final session in Geneva with the adoption by consensus of two protocols additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949.
    The United Kingdom delegation has played an active and positive rôle throughout the conference and has attempted to ensure that the texts which emerged were sensible, enforceable and widely acceptable.
    The texts adopted raise many complex issues, not only legal but also political and military. Her Majesty's Government will be giving them careful study, in conjunction with our allies, with a view to reaching a fully informed decision on the question of signature and eventual ratification of the protocols.
    Mr. Cook: I welcome the agreement on the two protocols, but will my hon. Friend say what is the Government's attitude towards the resumption of the work of the ad hoc committee on conventional weapons which was unable to reach agreement before the close of the conference? Do the Government accept that the work of the committee in updating the Geneva and The Hague Conventions is long overdue?
    Mr. Luard: The Government see great value in the work of the ad hoc committee on weaponry. As my hon. Friend knows —we have had discussions about the matter—the committee was discussing a number of very important topics. The question of the resumption of the meetings has not yet been decided.
    Mr. Kershaw: Does the Minister agree that the conclusions of the conference were in some way unsatisfactory? When will another opportunity arise for them to be reconsidered by Her Majesty's Government?
    Mr. Luard: I do not accept that the results of the conference were altogether unsatisfactory. Her Majesty's Government have voted in favour of the two new protocols, and I understand the concern that has been expressed in some quarters about certain aspects of the protocols, but in many cases this concern is based on a misunderstanding of the exact meaning of these protocols.

    Rhodesia
    Mr. Blakerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest situation about Rhodesia.
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Rhodesia.
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement about Rhodesia.
    Mr. Brocklebank-Fowlerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on Rhodesia.
    Dr. Owen: Following my visit to African capitals in April, an Anglo-United States consultative group has held bilateral discussions with the parties in Southern Africa on possible elements in an independence constitution. Its report is being assessed by both Governments, and further consultations are likely soon. I have put in the Library a copy of a statement which I issued at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting describing the latest situation.
    Mr. Blaker: Is it not clear that until there is a greater willingness to agree on the part of the Rhodesian nationalist leaders, the chances of securing a peaceful solution to the constitutional problems of Rhodesia will be much reduced and the possibility that, even if there were a peaceful solution, there may thereafter be continued fighting will be much increased? Can the Foreign Secretary report any progress in securing agreement between the Rhodesian nationalist leaders?
    Dr. Owen: I think that on the constitution it is not too difficult to see a way of getting agreement among the Rhodesian nationalist leaders. The problems there may well be with the Rhodesian Front, but of course the constitution is only one part of the problem. There is the problem of the transitional arrangements for elections, and there is the whole question also of law and order. In addition, we are all trying to ensure the economy of an independent Zimbabwe. All these elements come together in any negotiated settlement, and I am afraid that we shall have to try to reach some agreement with all the parties on all aspects if we are to reach a negotiated settlement.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I must ask for brief questions and answers, since it is nearly time to turn to EEC matters, but I shall allow the House to finish this Question.
    Mr. Wall: Does the Foreign Secretary not agree that any settlement will need the good will of both black and white in Rhodesia? How will this good will be helped by the Government's unworthy decision to ban the visit to this country of five black and five white crippled children?
    Dr. Owen: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that matter is dealt with under the legislation that was passed in this House, which prohibits all people coming here from the illegal régime. The hon. Gentleman knows the law of the land on this issue. I quite agree with him that the settlement will be achieved if we can reach an understanding between both black and white people who are to live under an independent constitution in Zimbabwe, but I have constantly stressed that there must be consent on both sides in this issue.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: When the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was Secretary of State for Defence, did he not authorise the pursuit of hostile forces across the Indonesian frontier at the time of the Malaysian confrontation? Why, then, does the right hon. Gentleman condemn the Rhodesian forces for using this means of defending British subjects whom the Government are powerless to help against brutal terrorism?
    Dr. Owen: The hon. Gentleman knows that "hot pursuit" has an international legal meaning and that it is not compatible with an announcement by a general that he intends to stay 50 miles inside another country and to keep his forces there for a matter of some days. This outraged world opinion, quite rightly, and was something that threatened the whole territorial integrity of countries. In no sense is that hot pursuit, and the hon. Gentleman knows that well.
    Mr. Clemitson: May I refer to the inquiry into alleged sanction-breaking by British oil companies? Does my right hon. Friend not think that there has been a long delay in this inquiry starting work? Will the inquiry or any parts of it be held in public?
    Dr. Owen: Under the legislation it is not held in public. In some respects the inquiry is on a narrow point of law. It is not an overall inquiry into the whole question of oil sanctions and the breaking of them. This is one of the issues that have been discussed in the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. Without prejudging the communiqué, I think that they will all address themselves to the opportunity that there may be for a wider look at the whole question of sanction-busting that has gone on for many years.
    Mr. John Davies: Does the Foreign Secretary not agree that with the almost daily reports of murder and escalation of atrocities in Rhodesia the rate and momentum of activity seems to us mani-festly inadequate to bring about the solution that is needed in that country. Will the Government now please take account of our repeated advice to them to consult the people of Rhodesia, in whose hands the decision should rest?
    Hon. Members: How?
    Dr. Owen: The House asks "How?" That is one of the most difficult questions to answer. We have been consulting a very wide cross-section of opinion. I held consultations myself and they have been held recently in the Anglo-United States consultative group. That group will be going again into Rhodesia at the end of this month.
    I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that time is running out in this issue. The violence is escalating and there is a real risk of a serious breakdown of law and order and of a violent solution. Time is not on our side. I can promise the House that I am pushing ahead as fast as is humanly possible, but it is not easy when there are so many disagreements.

    Uganda
    Mr. loan Evansasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise in the United Nations Commission for Human Rights the International Commission of Jurists' reports on the situation in Uganda.
    Mr. Rowlands: The reports of the International Commission of Jurists formed part of the evidence considered by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights at its recent session.
    Mr. Evans: Does my hon. Friend realise that while we on the Government Benches condemn racialism in South Africa, Namibia and Rhodesia, we also condemn events in Uganda? In view of the fact that Idi Amin is now setting himself up as a black Vorster and a black Hitler, what action are the Government proposing to take to end his régime?
    Mr. Rowlands: As my hon. Friend knows, we take a vigorous view in the Human Rights Commission, and an equally vigorous view has been taken in the Commonwealth Conference among many African leaders themselves. Many Commonwealth leaders have stood up to be counted and have spoken bravely and firmly on the question of Amin's behaviour.
    Mr. Ford: Is not the least we can do to cut off President Amin's supplies of whisky?
    Mr. Rowlands: My right hon. Friend has already commented on that. We are looking at the matter.

    Dominica
    Mr. John Huntasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, in the light of the recent Dominica constitutional conference, Her Majesty's Government will agree to the request for a referendum to be held before the island becomes an independent sovereign State.
    Mr. Luard: The conference resulted in substantial agreement on an independence constitution for Dominica. The report will be published in due course.
    We must now allow time for a public debate in Dominica, which I hope will result in agreement on the method of timing of a move to independence.
    Mr. Hunt: May we be told where Her Majesty's Government stand on the specific issue of the referendum? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be helpful to have an up-to-date assessment of public opinion in Dominica on the subject of independence prior to that event? Will he give the House an indication of the Government's feelings and reaction to the request that has been made to this effect by substantial sections of opinion on the island?
    Mr. Luard: The position is that if Her Majesty's Government were to recommend to Parliament that Dominica should proceed to independence, as we are able to do under Section 10 (2) of the West Indies Act, we would need to be assured that the demand for independence was widely shared amongst the population of Dominica. The principle of independence was not really at issue in the independence conference over which I presided only two or three weeks ago. Both the Government party and the Opposition party want independence. The difference between them is only one of timing. We are to have further consultations about this matter. But it seems to us at present that there is very little doubt that the view of most people in Dominica is that they should enjoy independence.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

    Foreign Affairs Council
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet

    381
    other EEC leaders; and if he will make a statement.
    Dr. Owen: The next meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council, which will be the last one under the current United Kingdom Presidency, will be held in Luxembourg on 21st June.
    Mr. Skinner: When my right hon. Friend meets this motley crew, will he tell them that there is a massive majority among the British people who are against Britain's continuing in the Common Market, especially now that it has been revealed that the EEC is to lay its hands, in an emergency, on at least 10 per cent. of British oil? Will he point out to them that on the question of direct elections we find that Common Market democracy is at such a low ebb that in Britain Ministers are gagged on a supposedly free vote and in France they are not even to be allowed to vote?
    Dr. Owen: When I speak to my colleagues in the Foreign Affairs Council—eight of them are elected Members of their own Parliaments and are far from being the motley crew that my hon. Friend describes—I shall be prepared to tell them that this country decided by an overwhelming vote in a referendum that Britain would remain a member of the European Community. I shall tell them that although we may be having disagreements on some issues, such as the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy, we shall pursue our disagreements within the framework of the European Community, that we shall uphold our national interests as we have every right to do, but that we shall play a full part in the European Community for many years ahead.
    Mr. Reid: When the right hon. Gentleman next attends a meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council, will he initiate discussions on Scotland's future links with the Communities? In particular, will he tell his European colleagues that when Scotland regains her independence there can be no question of England's carrying on as the United Kingdom's successor State and that both partners in the present Union will have to renegotiate?
    Dr. Owen: Like the majority of Members in this House, I believe in the
    382
    United Kingdom and I shall continue to speak for it in Brussels or anywhere else.
    Mr. Loyden: Will my right hon. Friend accept from me that describing the CAP as a difference that can be ironed out is to make the understatement of the year? Is he aware that the CAP has been the cause—not exclusively, I agree—of the price increases that housewives in this country must pay, and that it is a situation such as that that has developed a strong anti-Market feeling throughout the country?
    Dr. Owen: I do not deny that one of the reasons for the dissatisfaction with the EEC that is reflected in the opinion polls relates to the effect on food prices. However, I was grateful to my hon. Friend for putting the issue fairly. Not all the food price rises are the result of the CAP, although some of them are. This was always one of the liabilities that we accepted on entry, although we did not accept them as a permanent fact but accepted that we would try to reduce that liability. Most of us always felt that we would prefer a policy other than the CAP. We would have preferred the traditional system introduced in this country in 1947, but we accepted that we would work within the framework of the CAP to try to reform it.
    Mr. Blaker: How will the Foreign Secretary explain to the other Foreign Ministers of the EEC that it is consistent with the British Government's promise to use their best endeavours to secure direct elections for the European Assembly next year that Government Ministers should be allowed to vote against such elections?
    Dr. Owen: It is my view that this will give us a better chance of getting the legislation through the House of Commons. [Interruption.] I mean that quite seriously. This is a constitutional issue for which I suspect there is a majority in this House. That has obviously yet to be proven. I believe that by allowing Members of Parliament to exercise their own independent, free judgment on this issue there is more chance of this legislation being carried through to the statute book. I have no objection to that. I argued within my own party for a free vote on this issue in 1972. I regret that there was not one then, and I am happy that there should be one now.
    Mr. Raphael Tuck: What plans has my right hon. Friend for pressing the EEC leaders to make vital changes in the CAP, which so far has been a disaster for this country, as President de Gaulle forecast it would be?
    Dr. Owen: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, who is also responsible for food, has vigorously pursued a policy of trying to get a reform of the CAP. He has done so with my full support. I think that has had some success, but my right hon. Friend would be the first to say that this success is only limited. What we need is a three-to-four-year structural plan for reform, particularly as it affects surplus commodities—milk products, wine, and a number of other things.
    Mr. Hurd: Will the Foreign Secretary elaborate on his extraordinary, obscure and tormenting answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker)? How can he expect his own efforts, which I acknowledge, to be taken at all seriously inside the Community if Government Ministers are allowed to speak, and now, we understand, vote, against Government policy?
    Dr. Owen: The hon. Gentleman talks as if a free vote on this issue is a constitutional innovation. I remind him that when his party was in Government it used a free vote on this issue. I do not know whether it was a genuine free vote or a disguised free vote. I was under the belief that it was a free vote. [Interruption.] If we are now told that it was a free vote for everyone other than Ministers, we can now understand the true status of that vote.

    Audit Court
    Mr. Spearingasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs under what auspices and to which body the new EEC Audit Court will be accountable.
    Mr. Judd: My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary explained the position in answer to my hon. Friend's Question on 19th May. The treaty of 22nd July 1975 provides that in the performance of their duties members of the court shall be completely independent and shall neither seek nor take instructions
    384
    from any Government or from any other body.
    Mr. Spearing: Does my hon. Friend remember that on 19th July, in c. 1413 of Hansard, it became apparent that the existing Audit Board heavily qualified the Community's agricultural accounts and said it had not been able to look at the previous year's accounts and could give no opinion on the management of that fund? If the Audit Court is able to go into the accounts of intervention boards of other countries, as well as the central fund, will it be authorised to do that so that for the first time the agricultural accounts of the Community can be properly looked at and properly audited?
    Mr. Judd: I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that I have not got to hand the precise Hansard reference to which he refers, but I can assure him that the Audit Court will have considerably extended powers over those under which the Audit Board had to operate. This should help in achieving the kind of objective that he has in mind.
    Mr. Marten: Will the Audit Board as reconstituted be as good as our Public Accounts Committee?
    Mr. Judd: Having served for three years on the Public Accounts Committee, I think it would be difficult to find a more effective body anywhere in the world doing that kind of work than our own Public Accounts Committee.

    Council of Ministers (Presidency)
    Sir A. Meyerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what he considers to be his principal achievement during his tenure of his Presidency of the Council of Ministers of the EEC.
    Dr. Owen: I hope to publish in July a White Paper on community affairs during the period of our Presidency of the Council. I would also refer the hon. Gentleman to the speech that I gave in Brussels on 24th May, a copy of which is in the Library.
    Sir A. Meyer: With his outstanding record in this area, is not the right hon. Gentleman dismayed at the way in which so many of his ministerial colleagues, in pursuit of the shortest-term popularity,

    385
    have thrown away long-term British interests in Europe, have damaged the prospects for European co-operation, and diminished this country's reputation?
    Dr. Owen: I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I come to a completely different conclusion. What has dismayed me more than anything else is that when Ministers have legitimately stood up for national interests, and constantly argued their case as they have every right to do and ought to do in Brussels, this has been attacked by the Opposition Benches as in some way being an illegitimate use of ministerial powers in the Brussels dialogue. I urge the hon. Gentleman to recognise that were we not to argue our case and put it vigorously and firmly in Brussels we would be undermining the whole essence of the European Community.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Is it not time for the Government to face the reality of membership of the Common Market, which has been an unmitigated disaster? Is it not now legitimate for the Labour Party to go into the next General Election with a specific promise in its manifesto that a future Labour Government will negotiate our withdrawal?
    Dr. Owen: It is perfectly possible for the Labour Government to enter into an election on any manifesto that is agreed between the Cabinet and the National Executive. That is the normal way of drafting a manifesto. It is open to argument whether that would be a recipe for electoral success. In my view it would be a recipe for electoral disaster. I believe—this is a legitimate view, although hon. Members may not agree with it—that the British people do not like a Government or a party to change course only two years after having put the issue to them in a referendum. It may well be that the British people and this Parliament, as they have every right constitutionally to do, may wish to reassess the question of British membership. That is open to them at any time, but I believe that to do so after such a short period would be little short of disastrous.
    Mr. John Davies: I return to the answer that the right hon. Gentleman gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer). Does the Foreign Secretary not recognise the difference between defending the national interest within the normal framework of
    386
    discussion which exists in the Council and developing a situation in which the reaction to the behaviour of this country and the Presidency of the Council is little short of disruptive to our future comportment in the Community?
    Dr. Owen: I recognise that I am as close as anyone in this House to the feeling in the European capitals. I do not believe they hold that view of the British Presidency. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman on that. He would have done the standing of the British Presidency better had he not started to say this after only a couple of months of that Presidency.

    Passports
    Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is now his estimate of the date when he will introduce the Euro-passport.
    Mr. Judd: It would be premature to make any forecast about the date of introduction of the British passport in the uniform European Community design.
    Mr. Marten: Presumably that would be so, because we have been promised a debate about it. Can the Minister say what are the outstanding areas of difference between his partners in the Community over the provision of this Euro-passport? Why are the Government so obstinate in refusing this House the right to decide the issue? I recognise that we have been offered a debate on the subject, but we have not been offered the right to decide it. That has to be done by the Foreign Minister using his Royal Prerogative. May we not have an agreement from the Government that the House should decide the matter?
    Mr. Judd: On the second part of the question, I recognise the strength of feeling that exists in the House but I have nothing to add to what I said on this at a previous Question Time. On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, to be candid, a great deal remains to be agreed. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not be altogether discouraged by that. There is a great deal of argument about cover design and the languages to be used inside the passport, and I imagine that it will be some time before we are able to come to a decision.
    Mr. Spearing: If the House is not to decide, and the Government take the decision and advise Her Majesty to exercise or withhold her Prerogative, as would be the constitutional position, are not the Government flouting the control of the House in saying that the executive in Brussels is superior not only to Her Majesty but to this House?
    Mr. Judd: I can assure my hon. Friend that the reason why we give so much priority to having a debate before a decision is made is to enable us to take the views of the House fully into account.

    QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE
    Mr. Speaker: I have given careful consideration to the complaint made yesterday by the hon. Member for Thur-rock (Dr. McDonald) about the terms of a news-letter issued by the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children. I have concluded that the publication does not raise issues such as would justify me in giving precedence over the Orders of the Day to a motion relating to it.
    BILL PRESENTED
      RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES
      Mr. Secretary Hattersley, supported by Mr. Michael Foot, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Varley, Mr. John Fraser, and Mr. Robert Maclennan, presented a Bill to provide for the disregard of certain matters in determining whether an agreement is one to which the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 applies; and for connected purposes; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 133].
BILL PRESENTED
  RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES
  Mr. Secretary Hattersley, supported by Mr. Michael Foot, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Varley, Mr. John Fraser, and Mr. Robert Maclennan, presented a Bill to provide for the disregard of certain matters in determining whether an agreement is one to which the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 applies; and for connected purposes; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 133].

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, Mr. Speaker shall put any Question necessary to dispose of Proceedings on the Second Reading of the New Towns Bill not later than Seven o'clock.—[Mr. Tinn.]

EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION (HOLIDAYS)
3.32 p.m.
Mr. Greville Janner: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to increase the holiday entitlement of employees and otherwise to amend the law relating to holidays.
The Bill has three separate objects. The first is to provide for a minimum four-week holiday entitlement. The second is to ensure that employees who are dismissed during the course of a year have a pro rata entitlement so that they get a proportion of their holiday pay. Many at present get none. The third is to ban the sort of incredible behaviour such as that exhibited by the Leicestershire County Council in insisting that State schools remain open during the industrial holiday fortnight, thereby forcing parents either to keep children away from school during that fortnight or not to take their children with them when they go on their annual holidays.
It is a surprise to most people to learn that there is no legal right in this country in most cases to any holiday other than the eight statutory days. Only where such a right is secured by contract or where employees are covered by wages council regulations or agricultural wages council regulations are they entitled to certain minimum periods. In all other cases, rights depend totally upon agreement. Although in most cases where unions represent employees agreements have been arrived at which are fair and reasonable, in many cases, even for union members, there is no such agreement in existence. Although the Council of European Communities recommended on 22nd July 1975 that four calendar weeks should be the minimum standard for annual paid holidays by the end of 1978, we have no minimum standard whatsoever.
There have been previous efforts in this House to obtain such minimum rights, and I pay special tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), the present Minister responsible for sport, who introduced the Employment (Holiday Extension and Early Retirement) Bill, which, alas, did not reach the statute book.

389
I ask, at the start of this annual holiday period for our entire nation, that we should recognise that there are many thousands of workers who will get no money unless they are at work, who take their holidays entirely at their own expense, who very often have entered into employment believing that they were entitled to normal holidays and in fact find that they have none, and who are entitled to rest as well as to work. We in this House have recognised the right to work. We fought for it. There is also a right not to work and to have reasonable holidays with our families.
Secondly, where an employee is dismissed within 26 weeks of the start of his employment, normally he is unprotected against unfair dismissal, and his rights to holiday entitlement depend entirely upon his contract. Probably the majority of contracts of employment, other than those negotiated by large unions, provide that an employee must work for a full year before he acquires his first holiday entitlement. This is wrong and unfair. An employee who has worked so as to earn a holiday entitlement should acquire a pro rata or proportional entitlement for the period that he has worked. An employer may dismiss a person after 24 or 25 weeks and not only remove the employee's rights under the Employment Protection Act in most respects—and certainly the right to unfair dismissal remedies—but also the right to accumulated holiday pay. That, too, is wrong.
In these two respects, I pay tribute to the efforts of a number of unions. I have in mind especially the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers whose Leicester District Secretary, Bridget Paton, has told me that
"unless a company is federated to the Employers' Association or recognises the Collective Trade Union National Agreement, they are not required by law to pay other than statutory days of holiday pay."
Although there is provision in the Contracts of Employment Act 1972 that employees should be given written particulars of their terms of service, there are hundreds of thousands of employees who either have none or who do not read them or understand them, or who do not realise that their holiday rights are mutilated and miserable. As Bridget Paton says, there are many small employers
390
who try to evade their duties in respect of contracts of employment, and that
"in smaller unorganised firms people go along and take a job thinking that they are entitled to holiday pay as a matter of course and, when they do not get it, they just leave."
Finally, in certain areas all Over the country there are traditional holiday weeks or fortnights, or wakes weeks or industrial holidays. By tradition, schools in those areas stay closed so that, for the period concerned, employees are able to take their children away on holiday with them. It is surely a basic, sensible and reasonable request to employers not merely that they should close at that time but that they should apply pressure on educational authorities to ensure that the schools in those areas are closed.
By tradition, schools have always closed for the wakes week or the industrial holiday fortnight in every area that I have known. In Leicestershire, since time immemorial, people have taken their children away for the first two weeks of July. Now, with that traditional county Tory lack of understanding of the needs of the cities, the county education authority has decreed that schools in Leicestershire and, in particular, in the city of Leicester must remain open for the first week of the industrial fortnight.
Mr. Terry Walker: Stupid.
Mr. Janner: It is not only stupid, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kings-wood (Mr. Walker) says. It is callous, It is also very bad administration. It forces parents into a disastrous choice. Either they teach their children that school does not matter very much— "Never mind; miss a week and come on holiday with us"—or they give up one of the two weeks of the holiday that they are entitled to enjoy with their children. Either way, it is the kind of decision that we have come to accept is likely to be made by a Tory-dominated county education authority which has not a scrap of under standing of the needs of city schools.
This Bill would require schools to be closed during the traditional fortnight's industrial holiday to enable parents to take their children away with them. This would ban the sort of behaviour that is making a mockery of the Leicestershire Education Authority and that shows why

391
education should be brought back within the purview of district councils.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Greville Janner, Mr. Tom Bradley, Mr. Dennis Canavan, Mr. Robin F. Cook, Mr. Bruce Grocott, Mr. Doug Hoyle, Mr. James Lamond, Mr. Austin Mitchell, Mr. Nigel Spearing, Mr. Leslie Spriggs, Mr. Edwin Wainwright, and Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth.

EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION (HOLIDAYS)
Mr. Greville Janner accordingly presented a Bill to increase the holiday entitlement of employees and otherwise to amend the law relating to holidays: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 15th July and to be printed. [Bill 134.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  NEW TOWNS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.42 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Shore): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill seeks the approval of the House to an increase in the current limit on borrowing by development corporations and the Commission for the New Towns. The last such Bill was in 1975 and a further increase is now needed in order that the work of the new towns can continue.
  The practice of setting borrowing limits on new towns allows the House to review from time to time the progress of the new towns and the value which they give in return for the substantial public investment in them. For this reason it is the practice for money Bills to cover the foreseeable need for borrowing for only a fairly short period, say two years or so ahead, thus providing the House with the opportunity for a wide-ranging debate on new town matters. This Bill thus provides a timely and welcome opportunity for such a debate, for which many hon. Members have pressed, following my reappraisal of the new towns programme, which I announced in my statement in the House on 5th April.
  First of all, however, I shall deal with the need for and provisions of the Bill itself. In May last year, when the limit was last raised by order, we estimated that the existing limit of £2,250 million would not be reached until towards the end of this year and that a Bill further to raise the limit would not need to be presented until the autumn. Our present estimate here is that the limit will be exhausted in about September or October.
  This is only a little earlier than we had estimated previously, but it has meant that we have had to come to the House with a new Bill late in this Session rather than very early in the next. Forecasting the rate at which borrowing approvals will be taken up is not easy, but inflation and the recent exceptionally high interest rates have combined

  393
  to increase expenditure in new towns, as elsewhere, and to bring forward the date at which a new borrowing limit is required.
  These two factors explain why we are seeking the approval of the House in this Bill for an increase of £500 million to £2,750 million in the existing borrowing limit. Following the pattern of the previous New Towns Act of 1975, this Bill also provides for a further increase of £500 million in the limit to be made by order. Such an order will require approval by affirmative resolution of the House.
  In my statement to the House of 5th April I outlined my proposals for the reshaping of the programmes for the third generation of new towns. In the longer term this can be expected to produce substantial savings in capital expenditure by development corporations. This is being assessed in detail as part of my present consultations about their revised targets. However, these savings will not begin to accrue for some years, and for many reasons we need to keep up the present momentum in the development of these towns even though the ultimate targets for new town growth have been substantially reduced. I do, however, expect that it will be possible to make some savings in the earlier years providing an opportunity for redeployment of about £10 million in 1978–79 and £20 million per year thereafter.
  Clearly, the spending of money on the scale implied by the proposed borrowing limits must be justified by the value which new towns represent to the country as a whole. An investment programme of this size cannot expect to produce its financial returns in the short term, but some of the earlier towns have already produced surpluses, which have accrued to the Exchequer, and thus make a return on the money and faith which have been put into them.
  But, just as the investment in new towns is not only in bricks and mortar, roads and factories, but in the people who make them working communities, so the return to society at large is not simply a matter of financial surpluses. It is also to be seen in the improved living conditions for their residents, the jobs which have been provided, and the
  394
  contribution which the commercial and industrial activity in new towns makes to the economy of the country as a whole. But I think that the whole House will agree that the record of our new towns is one of solid and lasting achievement for the pioneering role in which they have won international respect.
  The measure of their achievement is in the 280,000 houses they have built or assisted others to build and in the 200,000 industrial jobs they helped to create, often in the new and expanding high technology industries of the future. The measure, too, is in the social infrastructure of shops and schools, recreational and community amenities, provided because they are necessary to weld the many people of widely different backgrounds into working communities which can continue to develop and respond to their changing needs.
  The new towns have an important role in catering for the elderly and the disadvantaged members of the community. Their record in the provision of housing for old people is creditable, perhaps less so for the disabled, although it is improving. In my discussions with development corporations I have made it clear that I am looking to the new towns to reinforce their efforts in this direction.
  I also hope to see an increase in the number of people in new towns owning their own homes. Development corporations are free to make land available to private builders building houses for sale, and in 1976 land was made available in 19 out of the 28 new towns in Great Britain.
  I expect to see more private house building, especially in the six third-generation towns that will go on building well into the 1980s. I hope that private firms will take the opportunities that are available to them in these towns.
  Mr. Stanley Newens: Will the Secretary of State place on record that at the same time the priority in new towns must be in the provision of homes for those who are most in need? It is not desirable to sell off homes while there are long waiting lists of people who have no means of getting a mortgage. It is important, accordingly, to give priority to those in need—those who are only able to get into rented accommodation.
  Mr. Shore: I understand that point very well. I am just coming to the part of my speech that touches on that. The Government's attitude to the sale of new town houses was set out in May of last year by my right hon. Friend who is now Minister of Agriculture. Under this we agreed to receive applications for general permission to sell whenever the waiting period for houses to rent for the main categories of tenant was three months or less. This is a carefully considered approach of balancing the need for rented houses with the desire of many to become owner-occupiers.
  Fourteen corporations in Great Britain have recently applied for permission to sell rented houses and permission has been given in each case. An application from the Commission for the New Towns in respect of its four towns is currently before the Department. In the remaining 10 towns the view has so far been taken that the demand for rented houses is such that sales cannot be resumed. This balance precisely reflects the assessment by the new towns, in conjunction with the Department, of the actual need in each individual new town.
  Mr. Peter Hordern: I thought that the Minister said that he had received an application from the Commission for the New Towns covering Crawley, Hatfield, Hemel Hempstead and Welwyn. But those are first-generation towns with long waiting lists. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that the Commission, in the knowledge of the Minister's remarks last year about the length of waiting lists, should still feel it right to sell houses to existing tenants?
  Mr. Shore: We have had an application in that respect, although the detailed proposals for each of the new towns will differ. We are considering the matter. Obviously the case as advanced will reflect the situation in the new towns.
  In some of the earlier towns the work of the development corporation is now substantially completed. They are moving towards a more normal situation with the impending transfer of their rented housing and certain other assets to the local authorities for their area. The second and particularly the third-generation towns still have much to do, and it is for this further development that the money which
  396
  new towns will be authorised by this Bill to borrow will principally be spent.
  But problems and priorities inevitably change with time. During most of the post-war period the problems of the cities have been overcrowding, inefficient and substandard housing, and poor quality environment. The new towns, by making accessible public rented housing and readily available jobs amidst pleasant surroundings beyond the green belts, have enabled people to move away from the congested cities. This requirement still remains, particularly in certain areas of London. In recent years, however, the problems of many of our cities have become those associated not primarily with overcrowding but with the loss of population and employment.
  I know that there are some hon. Members who would like to use the opportunity afforded by this debate to probe the relationship between the problems of inner cities and the growth of our new towns, and indeed I have today published a White Paper giving further details of the Government's policy on the inner cities.
  Mr. Eric Moonman: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will take the opportunity to emphasise that there is no inherent conflict between the new towns and inner city areas; nor is it the case that new towns have created the decay of the inner cities, as I am sure he will agree. No doubt my right hon. Friend will also confirm that only 10 per cent. of the population from inner city areas have moved to the new towns.
  Mr. Shore: I shall be commenting on one or two of those points in my speech, but I should like to take this opportunity of thanking my hon. Friends who represent new town constituencies for their persistent refusal to regard the interests of the new towns as being in conflict with those of the inner cities, but rather to see the essence of the relationship as complementary—a relationship in which the new towns and the problems of the inner cities can be seen together so that the one can assist the other. I am grateful to them for their understanding of that relationship.
  Our policies for inner cities and for new towns must be co-ordinated and what we do in the new towns must take into account our plans and policies for the

  397
  inner cities. We must, as I have stressed, ensure that those who go to the new towns include a fair share of the unskilled and disadvantaged. We have made a start on this and we intend to do more. We must also take care that the continued growth and prosperity of the new towns is not at the expense of the inner cities.
  The connection between recent changes in the two policies should not be exaggerated. It was a voluntary and unplanned exodus from our cities and not planned decanting to the new towns that accounted for more than 90 per cent. of those leaving the conurbations. Furthermore, my reappraisal of the towns programme was made necessary primarily by radical changes in the forecasts of population growth. A consequence of the review is that the resources released can be put to good use—for example, in the inner city areas—but it would be wrong to suppose that the provision of these resources was a main purpose of the review.
  The third generation of English new towns was launched in the mid-1960s against a background of a projected growth of population in England and Wales to 60 million in 1991 and 66·5 million by the year 2000. On this basis the new towns as originally conceived would have taken about 5 per cent. of the increase. But. as the House knows, there has been a continued decline in the birth rate in recent years. Last year, for the first time, the population of Britain actually went down, and recent projections are that the population will rise by only 2 million—not 11 million— by 1991—to 51 million, and only by another 1 million—to 52 million by the end of the century.
  Population projections are notoriously difficult, but the latest projections are more likely to be correct at least for 1991. Certainly, even if there were now a dramatic upturn in the birth rate, attainment of the mid-60s projection for 1991 is almost—and I choose my words with care—unconceivable.
  Mr. Arthur Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman see any conflict in the vast resources proposed under the Bill, amounting to £1,000 million, and his announcement that £100 million should be made available for the inner cities and the vast problems in those
  398
  areas, problems that require solution rather than that there should be expansion of the new towns movement? Will he refer in the remainder of his speech to the use and rolling over of the assets created in the new towns—in other words, the use of existing assets rather than additional resources?
  Mr. Shore: I promised to consider that point and I shall do so. Any question of comparison is vitiated, because we are not comparing like with like. The expenditure figures in the Bill cover the total expenditure on new towns, namely, all the capital programmes, housing programmes, roads and other services. When we talk of a figure of £125 million a year in terms of a programme for the inner cities beginning in 1979–80, we assume that that will continue for a substantial period, because it is a longish-term problem.
  In other words, I am referring to a programme that is additional to the main spending programme by Government Departments, in addition to their housing programmes and to all the expenditure that they undertake, principally with the help of rate support grant and their own local resources. Therefore, it is not a fair comparison. It would be useful to try to obtain a fair basis of comparison in terms of the expenditure on the two separate projects—the new towns on the one hand and the inner cities on the other.
  Offsetting these lower population projections which I have rehearsed is the rate at which households are formed. It will be some 10 years before the household formation rate reflects the lower birth rate since the late 1960s. On top of this overall national situation it has been necessary to take into account demographic changes region by region and the changing needs of the conurbations with which the new towns have traditionally been linked. In the light of their own population decline, some of the major conurbations—London, the West Midlands, Merseyside and Greater Manchester—have revised their own dispersal programmes. Another important factor bearing upon the new towns programme has been the reduction in the amount of mobile industry available to shift to new locations.
  My broad conclusions from all these considerations was that in aggregate

  399
  there was substantial over-provision in the existing planned programmes of the new towns. Significant extensions of the first- and second-generation new towns would in national terms have been inconsistent with this conclusion—even thought, in the local context, the case seemed strong. Indeed, it was clear that the time had arrived to examine the way in which these new towns could be completed and the development corporations wound up within the next five year, with the responsibility for providing for local needs being transferred to the local authorities.
  The main scope for making reductions in the new towns programme as a whole lay with the third-generation new towns, all of which had the major parts of their programmes still ahead of them. With the exception of Telford, there had been no review of the long-term population targets of these new towns since they were designated. In the case of Telford, the interim target population set in 1975 was, in any event, subject to further review in the context of a review of the regional strategy in the area. At my request, the chairmen of the five new towns in question—I could not talk to Central Lancashire New Town because I had a decision to make about its future at that time—provided detailed information about possible development options and the likely consequences of pursuing them.
  The towns involved were Milton Keynes, Northampton, Peterborough, Telford and Warrington. The evaluation of this information took into account the needs of the area which each new town is serving, the stage and nature of its present development, the best use of expenditure already incurred, the value for money of future expenditure, the extent of commitment to private investors, the view of local authorities as far as they were known and the need to finish up with viable communities.
  I also visited each of the five new towns in order to see at first hand the extent of their development. My aim has been to produce sensible proposals for revised target populations for the five towns in order to provide a basis for public consultation with the development corporations and local authorities and others concerned.
  400
  These consultations are now well under way. The consultations are thorough and will involve not only the development corporations themselves but all the local authorities involved, host authorities and exporting authorities and those concerned with regional strategic planning. I hope that, on the basis of the results of these consultations, I shall be able to announce to the House new, firm, population targets for the six towns before the Summer Recess.
  Reactions to my statement on 5th April were generally favourable. Most commentators have acknowledged that the dramatic fall in the population forecasts made inevitable some cut-back in the new towns programme. Equally, however, it was recognised that if we had abruptly halted a capital building programme of the size of the new towns, more harm than good could have been caused. Indeed, it seems to be well understood that the new towns have a continuing and valuable role to play for a number of years to come in providing an environment in which people and industry thrive. Particularly well received was the proposal that the new towns should do more to help the inner cities by taking their disadvantaged on a greater scale than hitherto, and the firm intention is to translate this proposal into action. This should go some way to meet criticism that the new towns sap the vitality of the inner cities.
  Mr. Mark Carlisle: The Secretary of State has said that he hopes that by the end of July he will be able to give a clear population target for the other towns, including Warrington. Does that mean also that there will be a reduced population figure and will the Secretary of State look at the existing size of the designated areas and see whether some of those areas should be redefined?
  Mr. Shore: The size of the designated areas must follow the determination of the size of the new towns concerned, I shall have something to say about that, I hope, at the same time as I make the final statement, but we need a little longer to consider the full physical implications of the new population target.
  I should like to say a special word, however, about the reasons for my decision to continue with the development of

  401
  CLNT. These in many ways reflect views expressed in 1965 by the late Richard Crossman when first announcing the Government's intention to designate a major new town in the area. As well as providing for population overspill from Manchester, he said that the new town
  "'should contribute to the industrial revival of the whole region, and form a new focus for urban renewal"—[Official Report, 24th February 1965; Vol. 707, c. 399.]
  There was a second reason as well as the overspill reason that Crossman emphasised. CLNT is well located geographically for growth and, although the changed demographic picture means there will no longer be any major overspill from either of the region's two conurbations, Manchester and Merseyside, it is still in the interests of the regional economy that industrial investment should be stimulated in the three towns of Chorley, Leyland and Preston, which lie within the new town boundary, and for there to be renewal of the older parts of their urban fabric. These are tasks in which the development corporation can play a substantial and important rôle.
  Nevertheless, changing circumstances made a re-examination necessary of the growth rate originally set for the new town. A major factor is that the population growth in the North-West has been about the smallest of all the regions in England. The best available information on demographic trends, housing need and supply and the likely availability of mobile industry were all carefully considered. It was also necessary to take into account the new infrastructure provided by the corporation, the need to round-off developments it had already started, and the need to facilitate British Leyland's important expansion in the area.
  The House will know that I decided to approve the outline plan in a modified form to provide for a greatly reduced intake of 23,000 people, with the new town's future beyond that subject to consultations with the local authorities concerned and the development corporation. That 23,000 figure compares with an original target figure of 100,000. These consultations are currently in hand and I intend to visit the area on 1st July.
  402
  I should also like to refer to the Com mission for the New Towns, which since the early 1960s has managed four of the earlier new towns—Crawley, Hatfield, Hemel Hempstead and Welwyn Garden City. I well understand that, with the transfer of the housing to the district councils in all four towns next April, Commission staff are concerned about their future position and prospects. So too, are the staff of those corporations that are expected to be wound up in the next five years who might have expected to secure continued employment with the Commission.
  But over two years ago when we were debating the last New Towns (Money) Bill my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) looked forward to the transfer of housing to local authorities and stated that the new rôle of the Commission would lie in the management of the commercial and industrial assets, a statement he reaffirmed in various other debates last year on the New Towns (Amendment) Act 1976 and one that I also confirmed on 6th April in reply to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Rodgers).
  I see the Commission for the New Towns continuing to have a vital rôle for the foreseeable future in managing the non-housing assets both of the four towns that are already its responsibility and of further towns as the development corporations are wound up. I forecast in my statement on 5th April that this was likely in at least eight towns within the next five years. Consultations on this have also been put in hand since my statement.
  The Commission will thus have a major task ahead of it. But the task will be different from its present one and will become more specialised. As the local authorities take over the housing in the elder new towns I should like to see them lake over on appropriate terms what I term "community related property"— parks and woodlands and some community centres—property which ought essentially to be a local responsibility and which in old established towns is normally a local responsibility.
  Similarly, I have promised to consider whether, where local authorities wish to acquire commercial and industrial property from the Commission—and have

  403
  the necessary resources—they should be able to do so. I want to see—and I think many hon. Members on both sides of the House will want to see—local authorities playing an increasing rôle in the older new towns—some of which are already over 30 years old.
  But this will still leave the Commission for the New Towns with an extensive and vital rôle to play for many years ahead—a rôle in managing the great bulk of the industrial and commercial assets of the new towns which have been financed at very considerable Exchequer expense and in respect of which it is right that the Exchequer should get back a proper return on its investment. The Commission has built up valuable expertise in this field and it is our firm intention that it should continue to deploy it in the national interest, performing a complementary task to the increasing rôle of the local authorities in the older new towns.
  I hope that the debate will provide the House with the opportunity to discuss the Government's latest thinking about the rôle of the new towns. Changes in our social and economic circumstances and increasing awareness of new problems have led to a reassessment of the future rôle for our new towns, but I have already made clear that changes would take place gradually and in an orderly way and that there would be no abrupt reversal of strategies. Although the longer-term population targets for the newer new towns will need to be revised considerably, we still see the need for a steady flow of investment in them over the next few years. This Bill will enable that to happen and I commend it to the House accordingly.
  4.12 p.m.
  Mr. Keith Speed: The Bill gives us an opportunity to debate new towns generally and the Government's strategy and it enables those who have new towns in their constituencies to air detailed knowledge and ideas. It is a pity that it is only on such Bills that we get these opportunities, and I shall have more to say about the parliamentary aspect of our relationship with the new towns.
  I thank the Secretary of State for sharing his thoughts about the strategy, but what he said about the expenditure
  404
  of £1,000 million was rather fleeting and we shall wish to go into the whole question of the funding of new town expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman glossed over this point and it was only a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Jones), who apologises that he has had to leave the Chamber to chair a Select Committee, that prompted the Secretary of State to touch on any alternative.
  New towns and their development are now in a period of considerable change. It is not their fault and it is due not to any failure or shortcoming on their part but rather to population and social changes. I am glad that planners, whether family or demographic, are proved wrong from time to time and that we get these changes that show that human spirit can emerge triumphant over planners.
  This has meant that many grandiose plans of Governments of all political persuasions in the past 10 or 15 years have had to be cut back, and this coincides with our facing severe economic problems and a severe constraint on public expenditure.
  There has already been much talk, and I suspect that there will be a great deal more, about the problems of inner cities and the London docklands. I hope that it will not go by default that there are substantial problems of urban decay—perhaps on a smaller scale, but just as important to the people involved—in our smaller towns and cities that are not in large urban areas. I am thinking particularly of North-East Lancashire, parts of the Midlands, the Potteries and elsewhere. When talking about resources, which must inevitably be limited, and applying those resources, whether money or expertise, to the inner cities, we must remember that there are other parts of England with similar problems that must not be neglected.
  We broadly accepted and welcomed the Secretary of State's announcement two years ago of a substantial downward revision of the population targets for new towns. It was realistic and took account of the true facts of life. We also accept that it would be a nonsense for new towns such as Milton Keynes and Telford that have a substantial existing intrastructure investment to have it suddenly cut off, leaving roads and sewers all over the North Buckinghamshire countryside with

  405
  no jobs or people to take advantage of them. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) has been assiduous in making representations to us that this would be a nonsense, and he is right.
  Clearly we must consider what the Secretary of State has said about the Central Lancashire New Town. I was in the area at the end of March, and the local authorities there have mixed views. I listened to the Secretary of State with interest, and I appreciate the problems of British Leyland and the industrial regeneration of that part of Lancashire, but I wonder —and I put it no higher than that— whether the revised population target of 23,000 is the best decision. I am not entirely convinced that it is and I shall listen with interest to the views of hon. Members on this matter.
  Mr. Moonman: I understand the hon. Gentleman's reluctance to accept some of the Secretary of State's proposals, but this is a viable project involving a considerable number of people. The hon. Gentleman represents the Opposition and if he is unhappy about the proposed solution, what would be his alternative?
  Mr. Speed: I am not sure that it is a viable project. I have yet to see figures to show that it is. The original project envisaged a population of well over 100,000 and was very much bigger altogether. I have not seen figures to show whether the new proposal is viable. Looking at the problems of Liverpool and the enormous area there that has infrastructure—the whole site looks like the scene of a blitz—the south docks in Liverpool, certain parts of Manchester and the Warrington and Runcorn new towns, that are expanding at a much slower rate under the new plans, I wonder whether we are not making over-provision. If I were to be brutally frank, I should have to say that the top priority from the social point of view must be Liverpool.
  Mr. George Rodgers: I represent the area concerned, and although I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's arguments, the local authorities in the designated areas—Chorley, South Ribble, Preston and the Lancashire County Council—all of which are Torycontrolled, are in favour of the revised project.
  Mr. Speed: I know that there are mixed views among the local authorities in the area because they have been put to me. I am not being dogmatic. I merely wish to pose a number of questions about whether the substantial downward revision is the right solution. My view—and this must be a subjective judgment—is that the top priority in this area must be Liverpool and what has to be done there.
  Turning to the detailed provisions of the Bill, it appears to increase the borrowing powers by about 44 per cent. In a debate of three hours and 10 minutes, we have to discuss a public expenditure increase of £1,000 million by way of two tranches of £500 million. This is a great deal of money. It is not Government money; it is the money of our constituents and the taxpayers generally. My hon. Friend the Member for Horsham and Crawley (Mr. Hordern), who is to wind up the debate for the Opposition, will have more to say about the public expenditure aspects.
  We are critical of the Bill, and I shall invite the House to reject it because we believe that the Government are seeking the easy way out in financing their future new town expenditure. I hope that my hon. Friends and I have said enough to show that we are not anti-new towns, but we believe that by bringing the Bill forward in this form the Government are not helping new towns to make the best use of resources or to have money at the most advantageous rates.
  First, the increase in the borrowing power is massive, and the borrowing will come from the National Loans Fund. The Government seem to have set their face firmly against other forms of financing, certainly at present. The right hon. Gentleman, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry, said that he was looking at this matter, but the fact is that in August 1975, the Expenditure Committee, in paragraph 68 and 70 of its Thirteenth Report, said specifically that there should be much greater flexibility in regard to new town borrowings. This could save the new towns, as it saves local authorities, considerable sums of money.
  I should like to know why the Government have apparently set their face against that greater flexibility. It may be

  407
  a Treasury argument. It may be an argument from the right hon. Gentleman's own Department. I do not know which. But, certainly, the Select Committee advanced a strong argument, and the local authorities accept that great sums of money can be saved by borrowing in a flexible way, choosing the appropriate moment and using the various means of the money market. In my view, this should be extended to new town borrowings.
  But there is another way, and that involves the assets and funding of the new towns themselves at the moment. We all know that the amount of money which will be available for new towns, for inner cities, for urban renewal, for dereliction and all the other purposes will be limited. I am sure that the Secretary of State could have put in much greater bids than the money which he will get. That being so, it seems to me that we must look carefully at the way we raise this money.
  Why should we not do what companies have to do when faced with a situation of this kind? They look at their assets to see whether some can be released and to see whether money can be rolled over in order to provide finance for future expansion plans. We believe that free enterprise, both in the individual sense of the householder, shopkeeper or whatever it may be and in the larger sense of companies and pension funds, could and should now play a much more dynamic ô in financing the new towns.
  I am told—I shall be grateful if the Minister will correct me if I am wrong— that Telford New Town, for example, had businesses which wished to set up there and wished to buy industrial sites on a freehold basis but were not allowed to do so. This seems unfortunate because it denies businesses the sites they wanted in the area and it denies Telford money which, presumably, could help it. That is a small example, but it highlights what seems to be a general problem.
  Mr. Gerry Fowler: I suspect that what the hon. Gentleman is discussing is not a small but a tiny example. Can he tell us about the example to which he refers?
  Mr. Speed: I cannot give specific details, but I have it on firm authority
  408
  that there were several businesses which wanted to buy freeholds. They are prevented from doing so, not by the development corporation but by the Department of the Environment. If the Department says that it is possible for businesses to purchase freehold sites in all these new towns, I shall be the first to say that that is fine, but I believe it not to be so.
  However, the matter goes further than that, and I should not for a moment argue that such a move would by itself solve the new towns' problems. On the other hand, I certainly argue that by having a much more dramatic policy for making use of new town assets, releasing or selling assets and rolling over their finance, we should not need to have a Bill of this type before the House asking for a further £1,000 million from public funds over the next few years to fund the new towns. On both questions—on the question of existing methods of borrowing and on the question of new methods of financing and releasing assets—there have been criticisms of the Government, and the Government have not met those criticisms.
  On the other aspect of the matter, the right hon. Gentleman said, if I understood him correctly, that the reduced programme that he announced two months ago will mean savings of about £10 million in the first year and £20 million in the next. I presume that the £20 million will eventually grow over the programme which had been expected, because the reductions are quite substantial and these seem to me to be rather small sums of money. Perhaps the Minister could expand on that in winding up the debate.
  On the question of expenditure priorities as between inner city areas and urban renewal and the new towns, the Secretary of State has already said that he would like to look at the matter to see whether he can produce some figures so that the House and the country may have a fairer and more realistic view of what is being done. I know about all the problems of rate support grant, housing subsidies and the many other things which must be taken into account, but I think that that would be extremely helpful.
  However, the reason for our disappointment—indeed, more than disappointment, since we intend to vote against the Bill to night—was the attitude expressed by the Under-Secretary of State, who, I

  409
  believe, will be winding up the debate for the Government, when he replied to Questions on 18th May. I have to refer here to one of the mammoth tomes of photocopied pages which we have to use because we do not yet have the printed Hansard, and I quote from page 28. The point was put very fairly to the hon. Gentleman by my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury), who referred to the very considerable assets now involved in the new towns, running to many millions of square feet of industrial space, office space and shop space.
  When asked whether there was to be an early valuation of these assets, the Under-Secretary of State replied:
  "It would be an expensive job to undertake a full revaluation of assets. The purpose of revaluing them presumably is to sell them. That is not the Government's present intention. Therefore, I do not see the purpose in proposing it."
  Then, in reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett), he said:
  "I can only repeat that this"—
  this being the new towns' assets—
  "is a sound investment of public money. In that respect I would be totally opposed to the sale of such sound investments."
  Two points arise there. First, it appears to us that the Government have totally set their mind against disposing of assets in any way which could help the funding. Second, and more important, how does the Minister know that it is a sound investment unless he has an up-to-date revaluation? If a revaluation showed that the return was extremely low, it might not be a sound investment. Indeed, there might be a great deal of sense in selling the assets anyway, irrespective of the funding arguments in relation to the new towns.
  I come now to a number of questions which I hope the Minister will answer, because they are germane to this whole issue. First, for how long does he expect the two tranches of £500 million covered by the Bill to last? In other words, what are the present expenditure trends?
  Second, if the Bill were not to be enacted—this is always possible; there could be a General Election or something else which stopped it—the present limits would be reached in two or three months, so what would be the situation
  410
  then? Presumably, there is some contingency provision.
  Third, notwithstanding his rather negative attitude on 18th May, I think that it would be helpful if the Minister told us what he regards, or what his Department and his advisers regard, as a realistic estimate of the current value of the new town assets.
  Mr. Leo Abse: As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman is seeking a revaluation in order that this publicly owned property should be sold. If the revaluation shows that it was a poor investment or an inadequate investment, what does he propose? Is it intended that the assets should be sold at heavy losses to speculators outside? Is that the programme which he is proposing?
  Mr. Speed: The hon. Gentleman gave the game away when he used the emotive term "speculators". I am not proposing that at all. What I am proposing is that the assets would be divided into a number of different types. First, there would be the easily realisable assets, even down to such an individual asset as a house which an owner-occupier could buy. My hon. Friend the Member for Horsham and Crawley put an interesting question to the Secretary of State about that, but there was no adequate reply.
  Second, there are those assets which could be sold on a longer-term properly organised marketable basis. I shall be honest with the hon. Gentleman here, and I think that the Minister will agree: I believe that the assets now have a very high value, and it would probably make a great deal of sense if some of them were sold off. That would go a long way towards funding the £1,000 million which we are discussing.
  Third, there are the very long-term assets in regard to which there would be no question of sale, for one reason or another. But until we embark on this exercise no one really knows, and I am asking the Minister to give us a view about that. If there is still to be no revaluation, we must, with respect, have a better reply from the Minister than the one he gave at Question Time a month ago.
  Next, I hope that the Minister will be good enough to tell us what meaningful steps the Government have taken now—

  411
  it is no good the Secretary of State merely saying that he is still considering it—to change the method of finance. He should be looking at the alternatives and at what the Expenditure Committee said. We should be given some idea about that.
  There is also the question of demographic changes. I must ask the Secretary of State about a matter that must be at the back of the Government's thinking in view of the down-grading of the population targets. We read in today's national newspapers that in eight years' time 2½ million fewer children will be in our primary and secondary schools. It has also been reported from time to time that by mid-1980 there will be a substantial surplus of houses.
  These two facts—if they are facts— must have been borne in mind by the Government. Does the Secretary of State envisage that there will be a further downturn in the population targets to match a static, if not falling, population? I appreciate the difficulties of anticipating these matters, but a reply from the Minister would be helpful.
  My last question has not yet been mentioned but it is germane to the debate. How do the Government see the overspill agreements with the expanding towns, particularly around London? They have played a significant part in helping London and Birmingham, for instance, to deal with the population problem. The trouble is that although the letter of the law may still be the law, the spirit has largely evaporated and neither of the main political parties in London is prepared to export populations. I represent an expanding town and I have therefore an interest in the problem. It would be helpful if the Minister could say how he sees the problem in the context of the new towns.
  I turn to the question of parliamentary control. We face a problem in that respect. The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead has raised this subject at Question Time on several occasions. The problem of democratic control must concern the House. Locally, democratic control is exercised in local elections. In the House we have debates every year or so when we may briefly discuss new towns. We cannot go much further than that. Each new town development corporation has to lay with the Secretary of State its
  412
  account and report. I should like to see at least in the regional committees of the House and better still in the Chamber, a full day's debate on those reports. Hon. Members could then express their views and they could be read by those who run the corporations. It would result in a more open debate than we have had in the past. We could do more about transport and new towns, which are controversial subjects in a non-party political sense.
  Large sums of money are spent on the new towns and many thousands of people are involved. Yet the House has not played a full part in the development of the new towns. I hope that the Minister will accept the principle of my suggestion. The idea should commend itself to the House.
  Mr. Newens: I regard the hon. Member's idea as desirable. He has made a number of critical comments about certain powers. Before he sits down will he make clear what is the Opposition's policy towards the financing of new towns? If the House opposed the Bill today would that not cut off all finance to the new towns, for a period of time at least, and result in redundancies and abandoning of plans?
  Would the hon. Member also make clear what he intends to do about selling off new town houses? Does he object to my right hon. Friend's policy? Does he wish to sell off new town houses regardless of the waiting list of people who are desperate for accommodation?
  Mr. Speed: We have made our policy on the thon. Member's last question quite clear. My hon. Friend will deal with all those matters later.
  We resist the Bill not because we are anti-new towns or because we do not understand that they have ongoing commitments for which money is needed. I am critical of the overall strategic parliamentary control of the new towns. We believe that an opportunity is provided by the Select Committee Report for the Government to be more flexible in dealing with borrowing. The Government have spurned the suggestion in the report, which has been with the Secretary of State for nearly two years.
  Another aspect of the borrowing problem is that we believe that there are commercial and industrial assets for which

  413
  people would be prepared to pay a reasonable price. We are talking about the money in pension funds, some of which will belong to trade unions. Let us not use emotive terms such as "speculators". This would produce a fresh injection of new, free enterprise money into the system and the Government would not have to come back for more money at a time when public expenditure constraints are upon us all.
  We are not saying that there should be no money or that there should be massive redundancies. We are saying that the Government have again taken the easy way out. They have been shown the way forward by the Select Committee, but they have set their faces firmly against those ideas. That is why we shall show our displeasure by voting against the Bill.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): I should tell the House that Mr. Speaker has asked me to make an appeal for brevity. The debate is to be concluded at 7 pm. I hope that hon. Members will bear in mind that if those who are called to speak fail to exercise self-discipline on the length of their speeches, it will not be possible to accommodate all those who are anxious to participate in the debate.
  4.38 p.m.
  Mr. Leo Abse: I shall endeavour to conform with your direction, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The people in the new town of Cwmbran will have noticed with interest the curious speech made by the Tory spokesman who approved of the goal lucidly expressed by the Secretary of State but at the same time sought to deny the means by which that goal might be reached. The people of Cwmbran will realise that if, alas, we ever have a Conservative Government it will be their intention to put on sale all the publicly owned assets that have been carefully husbanded over so many years. They will recognise that because those assets are showing an increased value—as the Conservative spokesman acknowledged—the Tories will start selling them off. They will sell factories, shopping and commercial centres, all of which are owned by the community.
  We must be grateful to the Opposition spokesman for spelling out so clearly and explicitly that he would put Cwmbran
  414
  and other new towns on the market to be purchased by whatever speculators come along.
  I am particularly concerned about the situation in Wales. The Secretary of State patiently explained that the belief that the main purpose of his statement lay in his concern for the inner town areas was to no small degree mistaken and that what was weighing fundamentally in his mind in his recent policy statements was the demographic factor. Nevertheless, we are all aware that he rightly has in mind the urgent needs of the inner town areas.
  Those of us who have had the benefits of the new towns all recognise how clamorous are those needs, and how dangerous it would be to ignore the needs of the inner town areas. But, of course, as has been intimated already in the debate, it is not enough to talk in broad generalisations. It is important that we examine, case by case, each individual town, and within the Principality we have a very special and very real problem.
  The Secretary of State is too well aware of the condition of the housing stock of Wales, particularly of South Wales and its valleys, to have any illusions about the position. At present in Wales we have a housing stock half of which was built before 1919. The Under-Secretary of State for Wales who is at present on the Front Bench—my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones)—will know, as he pointed out not so very long ago, that within his constituency, if the improvement work in old stock were to continue at the rate that it has been continuing during recent years, it would take 50 years before those older houses had the intended improvements completed.
  The fact is that my hon. Friend's constituency in the Rhondda is a microcosm of whole valley communities, such as the community of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Thomas), my own and all those inside Gwent. Therefore, having, as we have, so high a rate of increase in the number of unfit houses in Wales—probably about 150,000—the one new town that we have has made a particular and very special contribution to the needs of the Principality.
  The truth is that Cwmbran New Town is a veritable oasis amidst a wilderness of old and often unfit houses in the valleys of Gwent. Therefore, if there

  415
  were any suggestion that even the modest proposals that are now being considered by the Minister concerning an expansion of the designated area—modest proposals realistically presented by the development corporation, recognising the realities, economic and otherwise, and recognising the demographic factors —were to be in any way rebuffed, it would be grievously interpreted inside the Principality. It would mean that Wales would be put at a very serious disadvantage as compared with England and Scotland in relation to new town funds, as England would still have second-generation new towns and Scotland too, and have new towns completed as originally planned, whereas Wales would have only a very small project at Newtown.
  Therefore, I am putting a special plea that there should be an avoidance of any action that would affect the small increase in the designated area that is now being considered and the comparatively small number of houses and new factory sites which it is intended to place upon that area. I urge the Minister to bear in mind the reverberations that would go right throughout the Principality if it were felt that Wales was being ignored and that inner town areas in England were getting a special preference that was being denied to those who are so keenly aware of the wide extent of obsolescent housing inside our old valleys.
  I acknowledge the demographic factors nationally, but, of course, one has to examine the particular and individual situation. Inside Cwmbran new town we have housed young married couples with children from the beginning. The age profile of the town is far younger than the national average. Children are leaving school and will for some years continue to leave school in greater numbers than the natural wastage of population through retirement and death. As a consequence, the population, in particular the labour force, will continue to increase materially in the next decade, and unless for the whole of that period the development at Cwmbran continues there will be a shortage of jobs and homes to meet the needs of the increased population.
  I am concerned that in an area such as Gwent there must be mobility of
  416
  labour, because of the very fact that in the tops of our valleys great industries are inevitably known now to have to need considerable unloading of existing labour. Whether desirable or not, there has to be mobility into other areas in the southern parts of our valleys, in areas such as the new town. It is important that we have inside the new town at least this modest contribution, to make certain that those people who are at present travelling and will in the future travel a great deal into the new town should have the opportunity of having homes in the new town.
  But, no less important, there should be no betrayal of the second generation of those in Cwmbran New Town, in comparison with what is taking place in Scotland and England.
  What has been requested is a very modest demand indeed. It is something that can largely be encompassed or serviced by the existing amenities, and it would indeed be a considerable waste if the designated area as proposed and as originally canvassed by the Secretary of State for Wales did not in fact come about.
  I hope that the decision will be taken speedily now. We have waited for a very long time. There is inevitably restiveness amongst the staff, who do not know their own future. They are a dedicated staff, who have done considerable work there, often splendid work. I trust that the indecision that was necessary while consideration was being given will now come to an end and that there can be a certainty about what is likely to take place.
  I add one further comment. I ask the Secretary of State to consider this matter in relation not only to Cwmbran but to other new towns. I ask him to consider the state of housing in Wales and the lack of capacity of so many of the local authorities to be able to match up to the demands placed upon them, to deal with the acute problems in Wales.
  Mr. Jeffrey Thomas: Does my hon. Friend also agree—I do not for a moment underestimate the problem—that the position would be immeasurably better throughout the whole of Wales if local authorities in Wales spent all the money that has been made available for housing?
  Mr. Abse: My hon. and learned Friend has pinpointed part of the problem, and it helps me to move into the point that I was making. The very size of the problem and the lack of capacity—which my hon. and learned Friend is indicating —on the part of the local authorities means, in my view, that it would be tragic if a development corporation were wound up and all its considerable sophistication and expertise in Wales were totally dissipated, as a result of the existing statutory limitations upon the functions of development corporations preventing its operating outside designated areas. The whole of Gwent, as I am sure my hon. and learned Friend would agree, and many parts of South Wales, would benefit considerably if assistance by the development corporation could be given to local authorities which are not able to do the tasks that we would like them to do. All that expertise of the development corporation should be placed at their disposal.
  It will be highly unfortunate if a time comes when a development corporation that has shown its excellence in its standards of housing and design, and has got together a good team, is completely dissipated, with the consequence that all the work that is needed to be done in Abertillery, Pontypool, the Rhondda and many other areas does not have the assistance that could be given.
  Surely we should allow sophisticated development corporations to tackle problems outside designated areas. We should not be so hidebound by our existing statute that corporations are inhibited from doing something that would be welcomed by most sensitive local authorities. I am sure that that would be welcomed by those who represent constituencies in the Principality.
  Having borne in mind your injunction, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I trust that the briefness of my plea for Cwmbran New Town will not mean in any way that the anxieties that exist there and within the Principality—anxieties that Wales might be disadvantaged—will be thought to be unreal. There are considerable anxieties, but in view of the realism of the demand to expand the designated area that is being made they could be removed and a full understanding achieved. Even if the more grandiose schemes cannot be met—for example, we
  418
  hoped that Cwmbran could grow to 75,000 people and not 45,000—at least the modest target that is presented should be met, so that the second generation of Cwmbran will know that it has not been let down by our Government.
  4.52 p.m.
  Mr. W. Benyon: I should like to use the opportunity of this short debate to indicate the disquiet that I and many others feel about one particular view of the new towns.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) for what he has said about Milton Keynes and new towns in general. To some extent I was also reassured by what the Secretary of State for the Environment said about the issue that I wish to raise—namely the relationship between new towns and the inner city areas.
  There is a danger that we are facing a typical British sequence of events. At the very moment that we have achieved a major success, a situation which is not widespread in our economy at present, and just as we have produced something which is the envy of the rest of the world —in any other country of the Western world our new towns would be lauded abroad as a great success both economically and socially—we are turning on this achievement and using it as a whipping boy for the deficiencies in the centres of our large conurbations.
  Obviously, we all support the idea of city-centre regeneration. The decay has gone far too far. However, it is not true to say that new towns are depriving the city centres of finance on the one hand and jobs on the other. The last study carried out in relation to London showed that 70 per cent. of the loss of jobs in London were jobs that vanished and did not reappear anywhere else. It indicated that 20 per cent. of them moved to areas which were unplanned. They were not new towns or expanded towns. Only 10 per cent. of them moved to new and expanded towns. The number of jobs that the new towns have taken from London is very small.
  If we want to attract investment from home sources and overseas sources, the new towns, with their planned environments, modern housing and low-cost industrial sites, have a vital rôle to play.

  419
  Only yesterday I was talking to an industrialist in Milton Keynes. Incidentally, he had to wait five years before he obtained his industrial development certificate to allow him to move to the area. He told me that when he and his fellow directors had to decide where they were going to go, they were not moved by investment grants or the cost of the site but were influenced entirely by financial and commercial considerations as to where they should put their new plant.
  This is relevant in relation to dockland. The regeneration of the inner city areas, especially dockland, will take a considerable time. I see this regeneration as being a very gradual process. That is borne out by what the Secretary of State said about the financial assistance that is being given to these areas in the coming year. I emphasise that new towns are not in competition with the city centre areas. Both are necessary and both have their part to play.
  I ask the Under-Secretary of State to answer two specific questions that are worrying local authorities in my area concerning the handover procedure, when it comes, for the third generation of new towns. Obviously, the first and second-generation towns have grown up since the war. Their rent and salary levels are roughly the same as the levels of the local authority that will receive them. That will not be the case for the third generation.
  In my area, the existing local authority has housing that it has controlled for a long time. It has produced a rent policy and a rent level that is below the level that exists in the new town. That discrepancy will widen and not close as time passes, especially if inflation continues. When the takeover takes place, will the receiving authority be allowed to make the case that in respect of salary and rent levels no burden should fall on the existing ratepayers of the receiving authority? Is this taken into account by the Secretary of State in arranging the financial formula at the time of handover?
  I entirely agree that the method of financing new towns needs changing. At present, all the borrowing for new towns is at high rates of interest over 60 years. The net result is that the new towns are subsidising the Treasury, which does not borrow on the same time scale. There is a pressing need for the flexibility to which
  420
  my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford referred. There is a need to borrow short and to roll over the assets. My hon. Friend need have no worry about the strictures that came from the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse). It is understood that enormous assets are available that can be used more productively. Clearly, BP has shown us the way. We want to encourage investment by the private sector in all its forms. In my new town, for example, an investment of £25 million has already been made by the Post Office Pension Fund. That is something that should be encouraged.
  There is a growing need for a new method of controlling the day-to-day finances of new towns. There should be more emphasis on a block grant without the restrictions of the yardstick. There is no need for organisations with the expertise of the corporations to be going backwards and forwards to the Department of the Environment to discuss small aspects of contracts. Such matters could be conducted much more efficiently.
  The more that I see of new towns— this goes for many other aspects of our economic life—the more I see the rôle of the State as priming the pump, to get things started and then to allow private enterprise and initiative in housing, commerce and industry to take over and make new towns a success in their own right.
  5.0 p.m.
  Mr. Gerry Fowler: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), I have been horrified to learn today of the Opposition's attitude to new towns. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) referred to "priming the pump". It was a Conservative Government who established the precursor to my new town of Telford, namely, Dawley New Town, in 1963. They did so deliberately on an area of derelict land where there was considerable social deprivation and with full recognition of the fact that, but for the establishment of a new town, with the long-term provision of public funds, there was not the slightest chance of new industry or people moving into the area. That new town is now making a substantial contribution to the industrial and population needs of the West Midlands—partly, I freely confess, because of the foresight of a previous Conservative Government as

  421
  well as of my right hon. Friends when this party was last in government.
  How sad has been the decline of the Conservative Party to its present nadir of arguing that what we want to do with new towns is put in money, make a quick profit and sell them off to the private sector, so that there is no more private development, and no more opportunity to attract industry to areas where we want it to go rather than where the speculators would willingly take it.
  I want to talk primarily about the statistical base of the projections which have been made, leading to the statements before Easter about new town policy by my right hon. Friend and his statement about inner city policy. In his White Paper, "Policy for the Inner Cities", my right hon. Friend says:
  "The further development of the English new towns has been determined in the light of lower demographic forecasts".
  He says that this has led to a reduction of the targets for the third generation new towns, adding:
  "but over the next seven or eight years, the momentum of new town development will be substantially maintained".
  I question the precision of the forecast which has led to that reassessment. The passage refers to the substantial maintenance of momentum over the next seven or eight years, yet my right hon. Friend has told us today that, whatever happens to the national population, the number of households will continue to rise for at least the next 10 years.
  That was a very conservative estimate We all know that not only has average household size been falling, for a variety of reasons, but that the birth rate peaked in 1964 and remained at an historically high level throughout the mid-sixties and that new households are generally formed 18 to 30 years after children are born. Those are the peak years for marriage. On that basis alone, it is apparent that what my hon. Friend has said today is the most conservative statement that one can make.
  Certainly the total number of households nationally will not decline over the next 10 years, but it is arguable that even if the total number formed per annum thereafter begins to decline, there may still be for some years thereafter an increase in the total number of house-
  422
  holds each year, because one is looking there at a net effect, not simply at the rate of household formation. That is likely, but I do not want to argue that it will happen. I merely want to put a question mark against the matter and ask whether my right hon. Friend has sound statistics upon which to base his new policy. There are reasons for doubting it.
  I should like to quote from another recent Government publication by the Central Policy Review Staff, "Population and the Social Services":
  "Forecasts of housing demand and needs cover 10–15 years ahead only, and the crucial factor is the projected number of households rather than simple population projections."
  The report goes on to talk about the projections reflecting
  "a long-term trend towards more people forming separate households".
  In an annex, the report discusses that matter at some length, saying that more important than demographic factors are
  "changes in the proportion of people in each age/sex/marital group who head separate households. For the last 20 years, 'headship' rates have been rising. More married couples head their own household. More single young people live alone or with other young people. More middle-aged single women are living alone. Widowers and widows are much less likely to go to live with relatives. As a result the number of households has been rising much faster than population and the average size of household has been falling, with a large increase in one-person households. This trend, which has been under-estimated in the past, is expected to continue. The causes are not well understood".
  Again, in the main text, the report says:
  "Further work now in this area and on the methodology of forecasting housing demand could avoid further timelags in policy reflecting new trends".
  To that, I can only say, "Hear, hear".
  I strongly suspect that in the announcement of the policy changes that we have witnessed in recent months, not only this House but the Department of the Environment still lack adequate statistical projections upon which to justify the firm policies which it is its tradition and our tradition to devise.
  I draw two conclusions from that. First, it would be highly desirable if these detailed and complex projections, and alternative projections—I do not expect my right hon. Friend to have any firmer knowledge of the future than I do— could be laid before the House, so that we could judge their value. Second, we

  423
  should try to get away from the notion of fixed long-term target populations for new towns and look rather at forecasting for the next five or six years what the population growth of a given new town should be, but not going firm more than that far ahead or saying whether growth should continue thereafter or what that rate of growth should be, because every time we do that, we are bound either to under-estimate or over-estimate need and either way we cause great difficulties. If we over-estimate demand, we exacerbate the trend which exists in any event —and which has little in origin to do with new towns—for people to leave inner cities and the conurbations generally. If we under-estimate demand, we ensure that, in the long run, people will continue to leave the inner cities, not for new towns and planned development but at the cost of the erosion of the green belt.
  I suspect that the cost of that erosion is a high one to public funds—although this cannot be quantified—in terms of the infrastructure which must be provided for substantial private development within and just beyond the green belt in small towns and large villages. The cost has never been quantified and we have never debated it. I therefore hope for a more flexible approach in future.
  The trouble with lurches in policy can be well seen in the fear of many members of the staff of new town development corporations, not least among the third generation new towns, about their future —justifiably and understandably. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool said, they have built up a considerable expertise. I hope that we can begin to consider how to use that expertise in the redevelopment of the inner cities and in dealing with other urban problems if it is necessary to run down the staff of the corporations. However, what we must avoid at all costs is making policy by lurch, which simply leaves these people not only out of work or uncertain of their job prospects but with their expertise wasted and lost to the nation.
  Is there a genuine connection between new town policy and inner city policy? I accept everything that has been said about there being no obvious and direct connection in terms of the policies themselves. I accept every word that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool said
  424
  about the desire on the Labour Benches to see the inner cities redeveloped. Incidentally, I believe that our problem has been not that we have spent too little public funds on the inner cities but that we have spent the money incoherently, with housing, welfare, employment and education policies all pulling against each other or at least not in unison. We could obtain much better value for the same amount of money as we have spent in the past, but neither I nor any of my hon. Friends has any hostility towards the inner city policy.
  What worries me is that although there is a connection between the policies it is not a policy connection but a financial connection. It is only fair to spell that out. We all know that by far the largest single element in the Department of Environment's budget is the rate support grant, over the detailed expenditure of which it has no control. From my own ministerial career, I am familiar with the same problem in the Department of Education and Science, where we had very little direct control over the vast bulk of our own expenditure. The result of what I have described is that there are relatively few areas where the Department of the Environment has direct control over the sums it spends.
  One of those areas now, since the changes of last autumn, is the urban aid programme, since the Department inherited it from the Home Office. Another is new town policy. That is where I suspect there is a connection. If one increases the amount of money spent on one of those areas, under present economic constraints one necessarily reduces it in another. That explains why momentum in the new town programme will be maintained over the next seven or eight years, whereas my right hon. Friend said today that the number of households nationally would not decline for at least the next 10 years. That is a financial connection, not a policy connection. I regret it but have every sympathy, because I have operated under similar constraints. At least we should get this out into the open.
  A further point that I wish to make concerns what my right hon. Friend said today, and said again in his White Paper, about the rôle of the new towns in catering for the elderly, the disadvantaged and the like. That is splendid. My own new

  425
  town has a good record in respect of the elderly, as do many new towns. But the disadvantaged are a separate problem. In Telford New Town we have taken a high proportion of disadvantaged. We started with an area that was highly disadvantaged in any event.
  Earlier this year, when new town policy was under scrutiny, I sought to obtain social indicators from a series of Government Departments to compare the area of my new town with the nearest inner city area, which is Birmingham. So many of my right hon. and hon. Friends told me that they regretted that the information was not available that I began to regret that the Government could take decisions on such an inadequate factual base. Of course the information is not available—although where it is available, it indicates that my new town is an area of substantial deprivation. Its unemployment rate has always been higher than the average for the West Midlands and it has normally been well above the national average, Today the female unemployment there is much higher than in Birmingham or the Black Country.
  Derelict land is dealt with in a separate section of the new White Paper. I have done my homework, reading it very quickly. We are told that greater priority will be given in future to clearing derelict land in inner city areas. I am all in favour of that. Before the development corporation came, my new town contained the largest continuous stretch of derelict land in the whole of Britain. No assisted area aid was given for clearance.
  I am not making a constituency speech. I am not arguing a special case for Telford. I am making the simple point that when we make blanket statements that there should be clearance of derelict land in one part of the country, that it should have priority over clearance elsewhere by category and not by specific area, and when we say that the new towns as a whole must take more disadvantaged people, we are making a profound error. We should say that overall this will be a policy objective but that each case must be examined carefully on its merits, that assistance must be given where it is deemed necessary after hard examination of the local situation, and that we should ensure that there is a
  426
  balanced examination of need, so far as possible, not only in the inner cities but in the new towns.
  I already have a startlingly unbalanced population in Telford New Town, and I am sure that this is so in some other new towns. I very much hope that instead of imposing a blanket policy my right hon. Friend, when he comes to turn his intentions into reality, will carefully examine the needs of each new town, and ensure that they are met in terms of the allocation of resources given to them and of the targets in respect of particular social groups which those new towns are asked to house.
  5.15 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Morris: The contribution of the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler) deserves detailed consideration, with the exception of his earlier remarks, which were unworthy of him. I think he knows in his heart that what he said at the beginning was untrue. We on the Conservative Benches have said that we welcome the whole concept of the new town. I support it, and I believe that it has the support of my hon. Friends as well.
  I should like to take up four or five points arising from the Secretary of State's draft proposals and his speech this afternoon. First, I very much welcome the fact that we are to have a firm policy before the Summer Recess. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to urge upon the Lord President that we should have time for a debate on those firm proposals when they are submitted. It would be a great tragedy if we were not able to comment on them, for the record, until late in the winter.
  I should like to spend a few moments on the problems of the disadvantaged. I do not think that the policy has been thought through. That is why I listened with care to what the hon. Gentleman said. I understand that nobody has yet defined exactly who are the disadvantaged who are to come to the new towns. It seemed initially as if we were talking about those who were physically or mentally handicapped, single-parent families, and the like. Then it appeared from a number of submissions that the category included the elderly, who are obviously a charge on society.

  427
  I think that there is common ground that the elderly should be very much welcomed to the new towns, because they provide the community with an age balance and stability. My experience in Northampton—and, I believe, the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) in Milton Keynes—is that in the past few years, when the numbers have been building up, they have provided a valuable part of life in our new towns. But the Secretary of State needs to recognise that, welcome as they are, the elderly are a more expensive part of the community. Their demands on the medical and social services— demands that are well documented—are fairly extensive.
  The Secretary of State, as a Member for an inner urban area, will probably recognise that the health and social services facilities available in inner London and the other inner city areas are considerably more advanced than they are in the county council areas outside. That is a historical fact. When I hear the right hon. Gentleman talk about the rate support grant, as he does at every Department of the Environment Question Time, I worry very much when he indicates that there will be a further transfer of resources from the county councils to the the inner urban areas. He will have to think very hard to find a means of ensuring that adequate resources are made available to the new towns in the county areas, which are taking on the increased burden of disadvantaged people.
  I think that the right hon. Gentleman knows that in recent weeks I have had to spend a little time in Northampton dealing with the Department of Health and Social Security. I find it amazing that under the new proposal for the distribution of resources there is the bland statement that no allowance will be made for the pressures of new towns on the health services.
  I find that an extraordinary statement, because whereas at one end of the spectrum there are young married people with lots of young children, and the new towns are among the few places in which the birth rate is still increasing, at the other end of the spectrum we have the right hon. Gentleman's statement that we should take more old people. We welcome this, but they are putting extremely
  428
  heavy pressure on the geriatric side of the service, and the DHSS blandly ignores this and says that it will make no financial allowance.
  I urge the right hon. Gentleman, before he comes back to the House, to have consultations with the DHSS and with his right hon. colleague in order to knock some sense into this policy. I say quite sincerely that unless some financial provision is made, good and proper services cannot be provided to these new communities.
  There are proposals to close a major geriatric unit in Northampton simply because of a cut-back in resources. This will give the right hon. Gentleman some indication of the problems that we face on the ground at this time.
  With regard to the roll-over of assets, I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) has departed from the Chamber, because it has always seemed to me that, far from flogging off the assets to the speculators, we are returning the assets to the community. It is, after all, the community that provides them in the form of taxation, and it is right that we should turn over those assets and turn them back to the people.
  I say to the right hon. Gentleman that if it sticks in the gullet a bit to liquidate the assets in toto, serious consideration could be given to the liquidation of the assets of the first-generation new towns, to provide the assets and resources for the development of the third-generation new towns and the inner city areas. The money would thereby be kept within the public sector, and there would be one further advantage. There is little doubt in my mind—I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman will have to admit this when he makes a statement in July—that the rate of expansion of the third-generation new towns will have to slow down, because the resources are not now available to the extent that they were hitherto.
  If that is the case, I believe that the right hon. Gentleman needs to think very hard whether it would not be a better solution to consider rolling over the assets of the first-generation new towns and making the resources available for a quicker, and in the end cheaper, development of the third-generation new towns

  429
  I turn now to the question of job opportunities. We have already had an explanation of the situation in Telford I have noted some worrying statistics in my own area of Northampton, which is traditionally an area of below average unemployment. It is interesting that over the last six to eight months, whereas nationally unemployment figures have begun to decline, in Northampton and other East Midlands towns they are remaining constant, or are marginally rising. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman has had a submission from the East Midlands Economic Planning Council indicating its great concern about job opportunities for the future.
  I should like to quote very briefly from a combined submission from the general managers of Milton Keynes, Peterborough and Northampton New Town Development Corporation on the Lambeth Inner Area Study. It gives their reactions to the consultants' report. There is one paragraph that sums up the situation. Talking about new town jobs and where they will come from, the managers say:
  "For the future, we see much the greater part of employment growth in all three towns coming from the expansion of established firms and services and from firms attracted from the South East outside London. In so far as firms do move from London, we expect them to be mainly in offices rather than the manufacturing sector."
  I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman will quarrel with that conclusion. The implications are that we should be careful about the increased rate of acceptance of unskilled labour.
  I am sorry to burden the right hon. Gentleman with yet further consultations with colleagues, but he needs to consult very closely with the Department of Industry. We have an extraordinary situation concerning one company in Northampton. We take advertisements in the Financial Times, The Times and other newspapers urging industrialists to come to Northampton, yet the Department of Industry is telling one of our medium-sized manufacturers who wishes to expand that it is terribly sorry but he cannot do this in Northampton and must go north.
  In the rephasing and reassessing of the new towns there needs to be close consultation with the Department of Industry concerning the industrial development certificate policy. Certainly for the next
  430
  few years the principal growth in the five third-generation new towns will come from local manufacturers who are already there. They may be people who have come in in the early stages. They may be traditional firms who, for one reason or another, have wanted to expand before but are only now able to do so. It would cause enormous disruption to the whole concept if we were to invite industry to come to the new towns and at the same time have to tell those who happen to be there already that they must go elsewhere. That would be nonsense. Therefore, I hope there will be some consultations in this respect.
  I believe that it is absolutely essential that the policy of selling new town houses should be extended. There are, however, two problems concerning the implementation of such a policy. One is the problem of mortgage availability and the slowness of building societies to move in and support, by way of mortgages, the purchase of some new town properties. There should be consultation with the nominated building societies which are already helping local authorities, and we should urge them to act generously in regard to the sale of new town houses.
  I wonder whether the time has come to move outside the top 10 to some of the regional building societies. In Northampton we have the headquarters of the thirteenth, fourteenth or fifteenth largest building society, but it is outside the scheme. Particularly in regard to new town houses, some of the large and medium-sized building societies could be encouraged to give assistance.
  There will be a problem in the not-too-distant future as to the price at which some properties can be sold. This is not necessarily the fault of anybody at this time, but it is a hard fact of life that in the third-generation towns we are dealing with some houses that were built earlier on and may be selling now for £7,000 or £8,000, whereas those built in the last year or two, at a cost price of £15,000 to £17,000, have a market valuation of only about £11,000 or £12,000.
  I urge the Department to give consideration possibly to allowing development corporations to average their costs across the totality of their stock. This would be a more realistic approach, and one, I believe, that the general managers themselves would very much welcome.

  431
  Very little has been said today about dockland, probably rightly so, because we have not had a chance to see the White Paper that the right hon. Gentleman announced today. At least two years ago hon. Members on both sides were suggesting to the Government that the expertise in the new towns should not be confined to the green field developments, that there was an expertise, a drive, an enthusiasm and a competence there which was badly needed in inner city areas. I say that as one who has been deeply involved in an inner city area.
  We would be less than realistic if we did not tell the Secretary of State—or his successor, if one of my right hon. Friends takes over—that it cannot be left to the inner London boroughs and the GLC to solve the problems of London's dockland. I do not believe they will ever solve it, and all of us need to be sufficiently strong minded on this issue. I know that I shall not be too popular with some of my hon. Friends for saying that, but this problem need to be taken hold of, and the expertise in the new towns is available for that purpose.
  On the whole, the right hon. Gentleman's White Paper is sound and I welcome it very much. I welcome the speed with which we are to get a response and I hope that we shall have an opportunity of a good debate before the Summer Recess, so that we may continue the good work that has been done to date.
  5.52 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Moonman: This is probably the most worrying of all the debates on new towns that I have listened to or taken part in the last 10 years. It is not that the Government's case is so crystal clear that I can necessarily embrace everything that my right hon. Friend said, although I appreciate his earnestness and determination to reassure some of us about how new town strategy will be developed.
  I am, however, concerned about the way in which the Opposition are now treating the whole question of new towns. It is not good enough to suggest that certain of my right hon. Friend's remarks were not particularly worthy. He, too, senses his feeling and mood. If we study Hansard tomorrow we shall see that the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) indicated that he thought
  432
  that a Division at the end of the debate was somewhat irrelevant. He was complimentary to many of the things associated with new towns.
  The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) said nothing to suggest that this was a matter on which the House should divide. If there is a Division it will not be understood in the new towns, and in that event I hope that the Conservatives will realise the absurdity of the position.
  The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed), however, declared war with the Government Benches on the question of new towns. He made much of the fact that a Select Committee report dealt with the question of financing. I was a member of that Select Committee. When I was re-elected to the House I was responsible for getting published the evidence that accumulated while I was away from the House.
  In that report we said, in looking at the whole question of financing, that there should be other ways of financing new towns. We did not suggest that this was a matter to be implemented within a couple of years, nor was it right to take the issue through the Division Lobbies. The only argument that the hon. Member for Ashford has advanced for having the Division is based on references to the Select Committee. This is humbug and hypocrisy and I am afraid that the good people of the new towns in Britain will not understand his intentions.
  I wish to endorse what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens), who pointed out that many people's jobs could be threatened if the Opposition managed to defeat the Government tonight. There is another consideration. Because of the finely balanced nature of the House these days I do not believe that the Opposition can act as they might act in other circumstances and force a Division, knowing that they could not succeed—tonight they might do so. I do not know what arrangements the Whips have made, but I am certain that this is not a frivolous matter. We cannot engage now in the parliamentary gamesmanship that goes on when the Government party has a more substantial majority than is the case today.
  I am the chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party's new towns committee.

  433
  Many of my hon. Friends on that committee will not be here to speak in the debate, but they feel as strongly on the issue as I do. I believe that it is widely accepted that I do not attempt to create political issues out of the new town movement. We are on a serious course this evening, and in view of what the Opposition intend to do I draw attention to what was said by their housing spokesman— the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) —three weeks ago. He said:
  "We are realising almost too late that the success of our new towns has been bought at the expense of our inner cities."
  That declaration is an attempt to polarise feelings in the two areas between the inner city areas and the new towns, and it is very different from what was said by the hon. Member for Buckingham. The tone of that declaration was not in the spirit of the new towns debates of the last 10 years. It was not even in the spirit of the new towns movement. Conservative Members who have some interest in new towns will have to do a great deal of explaining at the next General Election to justify the type of behaviour that we have seen this evening.
  Mr. Hordern: I do not know how the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Moon-man) works out his comments or whether he thinks carefully about them beforehand. Is he not aware that Members on the Conservative Benches have at least as much experience as he has of new towns, and at least as much regard for them? However, we also have regard for the inner cities, and if we think that the Government's policy is inappropriate we shall say so and vote accordingly.
  Mr. Moonman: The hon. Gentleman probably did not listen closely enough to what was said by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman is saying that there is no contradiction here. Surely the critical issue is the way in which the new towns have developed, and not at the expense of the inner city areas. These areas have their own peculiar problems. If the hon. Member for Horsham and Crawley (Mr. Horden) doubts that, let him visit Liverpool or London. Let him go along to the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
  Underlying some of the pressure on new towns in the last six months is the feeling that somehow they have been
  434
  rather more favourably treated than the inner city areas. Some of us have been trying to erase this impression. I do not think that anyone gains by such distortions. If the hon. Member for Horsham and Crawley is now saying that the needs of the two areas are complementary, we are not in dispute. However, I do not want the people in the new towns to feel that they have achieved their better standards at the detriment of the inner city areas. We should avoid polarising the different communities in this country.
  Mr. Timothy Raison: No one wants a conflict between the inner cities and the new towns, but there is a problem of resource allocation. Either one can put the money into the inner cities or one can put it into the new towns. One can put some of it into both, but one must make up one's mind about the priorities, and that is the problem.
  Mr. Moonman: That has been the basis of my right hon. Friend's statements before the Easter Recess and now. He has decided to cut back. This is an active Government response to the argument that the hon. Gentleman has put forward in suggesting that we cannot go ahead with development in certain towns.
  More positively, we must put on record the fact that Britain's new towns are unique. Their reputation is worldwide. They are admired not only by industrialised nations such as the United States and Japan but by the underdeveloped countries of Asia and Africa. One of the difficulties is that we tend to take them for granted, and we have forgotten how widely respected are the principles underlying them.
  Reference was made to the competence and expertise shown in the way in which the new towns have been developed. This is one aspect that should be applied to the inner city areas. If there is something successful in the new towns, why not try to use that competence as specialised skills in the inner city areas?
  However successful the first 30 years of the new towns, we must look to the future. I welcome the Minister's consultation document for the assessment it makes of new town achievements, problems and possible solutions. One of the main aims of the new towns is to keep housing and employment growth in

  435
  balance. This has not been achieved over the last decade, largely because there has not been any incentive to get manu facturing industry into new towns unless they were in development areas. New town development must be part of a total strategy in which the rôle of the new towns must be considered in any national employment planning, for houses without jobs is one kind of planning nonsense.
  One point is that after 25 years the housing responsibility of the new town is twofold—to accommodate newcomers from the inner city areas and to acommodate the second generation. One of the interesting comments mentioned earlier was the importance of having a series of reports on the various activities of new towns so that we can look at some of the specific problems, such as the second generation, which in the Essex new towns is causing quite a dilemma.
  The other point is how far the new towns succeeded in creating real communities. Between 1946 and 1977 more than 2 million people have come to live in the designated new towns. It is big business, in terms of the number of houses, shops, schools, factories and offices. Governments arc constantly having to look to the development corporation and the agencies to see how successful that has been.
  I now turn specifically to the Minister's statement with regard to the cutback. The cutback as outlined before Easter affects mainly the third-generation developments—Milton Keynes, Northampton, Peterborough, Telford, War-rington and Central Lancashire. Central Lancashire was planned for a population of 500,000 but is now scheduled to end up with only 23,000. As envisaged in the 1960s, these developments between them were ultimately targetted to provide homes and jobs for about 1,172,000 people. This has now been scaled down by about one-third in the light of the radically changed population forecasts for the country as a whole.
  Personally I believe that the serious trimming will also start taking effect in other ways. Although one may wish to make this trimming and cutback, I am concerned that it may affect the attitude of industrialists who will see that a particular project will not be completed and that they will not have the range of
  436
  employees and skills. That could be quite serious.
  There is also the problem of the £100 million set aside in the Budget to finance construction work in certain inner cities. Incidentally, it will provide work for some of the 250,000 building workers currently unemployed. But that, as some of my colleagues have been quick to point out, has to be offset against other moves, like the £57 million taken away from the housing associations, which do much work in run-down city areas and the £20 million which has been lopped off Liverpool's home improvement plans.
  The latest surgery is based on the premise that the United Kingdom population, once anticipated to reach 60 million people by 1999, now looks like attaining only 51 million people. As a result, some Whitehall forecasts now look forward to a substantial housing surplus in the mid-1980s. But my main fear is that the ambiguity of the Government's intentions will frighten off industralists whose manufacturing and marketing plans were based on the assumption that Telford and the rest would attain their full original size.
  I conclude with a reference to my own constituency. In talks that I have had with the development corporation it appears that there are some items which ought to be given close attention by the Government. The first is that the handling of the announcement of any alteration in the new town structure can cause considerable anxiety to the staff.
  In Basildon we are faced with an intensive programme over the next five years at least but already many of our best young professionals are thinking seriously of leaving us. Some have already done so. What I am arguing is that confidence in the future must be restored. The staff are not unreasonable and they clearly see that there is a job to do in finishing the town properly, and they believe it is a task which they should be allowed to complete.
  The other point is that in a town like Basildon there is an intensive programme of housing, industrial and commercial development. But the failure to finish the town in a sensible manner could bring with it the real possibility of creating a depressed area for the future.
  Mr. Shore: I can assure my hon. Friend that there is every intention of completing the town of Basildon. All that has been said is that when a town is completed a terminal date must be set and there must be a transfer of housing assets. I hope that that allays my hon. Friend's anxieties.
  Mr. Moonman: The point that I was making was that the announcements prior to my right hon. Friend's statement in April needed some clarification. This goes back to my right hon. Friend's first statement in October last year. I am only offering my right hon. Friend the views of those who could be affected. We have lost professional staff in the new town development corporation because there was a feeling that their work was coming to an end. That may have been a mistaken impression, but that is exactly what happened. The feeling among people I have spoken to is that if the corporation is not allowed to plan and execute the completion of Basildon there is every reason to believe that it will never be done.
  I believe that there is a whole series of areas that will cause concern, not only from the point of view of the way this is done but also to people in the new town, if one of the techniques for the future is to establish the Commission for the New Towns and run-down of the development corporation. If that is the case, I hope that my right hon. Friend will take into account the fact that one would like to see the democratisation of the Commission for the New Towns, because the development corporations, perhaps in some cases more than others, have been criticised for the way in which they have taken decisions. In some cases there has been a much closer relationship than others, but if we are to see the ending of that relationship with the individual Member of Parliament, the Commission for the New Towns could become rather more authoritarian and remote than what we have experienced up to now. That is another case for looking rather more into the future about how this can be done.
  These are some of the problems which I believe are worthy of attention, rather than some of the suggestions made earlier in the debate, which could polarise the two sides.
  5.47 p.m.
  Mr. Hal Miller: If I were a betting man I would not have been laying money on a horse at Ascot this afternoon but rather on the fact that a new towns debate would be taking place during Ascot week.
  I should like to deal with the anxieties expressed by the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Moonman), although I am not privy to the thoughts of my colleagues on the Front Bench on this matter. The hon. Gentleman suggested that somehow the Conservative Party has declared war on the new towns on the basis of political bias, and he was concerned—I share his concern—that a dichotomy has been made between the new towns and the inner-city areas. I believe that Conservative Members are concerned with the management of assets that have been created. Up to now the whole concentration has been on the creation of the assets of the new towns. We are saying that it is right that the public authorities should pursue a policy of active management of those assets in order to provide the resources needed to continue the programme of development in the new towns. They should complete these new towns and carry on the development of the third-generation towns.
  If those resources are not available out of taxation because of competing demands from inner cities—I shall shortly make a plea for rural deprived areas, for do not let us imagine that deprivation is unique to the inner cities—the Government have a duty to see whether the assets and the resources can be found to enable new town development to be continued and completed in accordance with all our hopes.
  It is not a question, as the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) suggested, of these assets being made available to speculators, to do what they like without planning control and all the other horrors that his fertile Celtic imagination raised. It is a question of selling freeholds to pension funds and the like in order to raise more funds to continue the development of infrastructure and other public uses. It is not a question of building Centre Points or whatever—
  Mr. Abse Mr. Abse rose—
  Mr. Miller: I am sorry not to give way, but I should like to continue. It is a question of enabling public development to be continued. It strikes me as perfectly proper that public assets should be actively managed, just as we would wish to see the real estate assets of British Rail actively managed in order to provide for continuing investment in the railways. I hope that that is a ground on which we can all meet. There is no point in creating an asset and leaving it idle, whether it is in the public or the private domain. The problem is to manage it and to produce what the main object is. In the new towns, our common object is to proceed with their development and completion.
  Mr. Abse: Taking only one of these examples, does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that in many cases the reason why the freehold should not be sold in any circumstances is that, once the freehold is disposed of, it is impossible sufficiently to embrace control of the property? Therefore, to suggest that it is possible, even after disposing of assets, still to maintain the level and quality of planning which is now possible is to fly in the face of the facts.
  Mr. Miller: The hon. Gentleman's understanding goes a great deal deeper than he tries to pretend. If he is suggesting that developments cannot be controlled if they are not in the public domain in the new towns, that is a proposition which even on his own second examination will not stand up for a moment.
  In discussing the management of new town assets I wish to move on to refer especially to a matter which has been raised by several hon. Members with new town constituencies—the failure of any Government so far in their capital expenditure to provide for health facilities to match the growing populations. In my own case, it is exceedingly serious that there is no hospital in Redditch. A hospital has been in the public programme since 1962, but there is still no realistic prospect of its being built. In the meantime, in the cottage hospital, which is available, there is no casualty service after hours or over weekends in a manufacturing centre.
  This is a matter which I raised with the Department of Health and Social Security when I first came to the House,
  440
  and I have been trying ever since to impress it upon the Department of the Environment in various debates. I understand that there was a joint official working party set up to examine whether something could be done about this, but still nothing seems to have transpired. I hope that the Minister will be able to make some reference to this very serious matter before the conclusion of today's debate. Although other capital facilities, amenities, infrastructure, roads and schools are provided, there is still no apparent means of dovetailing in the necessary medical provision.
  I want also to echo the fears expressed already on behalf of the receiving authorities of the assets to be transferred on the winding up of the development corporations, about the assistance to be made available to them to meet disparities in rents and, in particular, the burden of interest charges. This was a matter discussed when we debated the New Towns (Amendment) Bill. With the creation of continuing higher-valued assets, the increase in the loan charge and interest burden is very considerable, and there is a real apprehension amongst receiving authorities that they will be in difficulty in meeting them.
  This problem is emphasised and accentuated in new towns in rural constituencies—the shire counties—by the reduction in the rate support grant. We have the ludicrous situation where our population is expanding and schools especially are very hard pressed but where the rate support grant has been cut. The education provision in the county as a whole has had to be cut, although the school population is expanding. The only way that it has been possible to meet even the bare statutory commitment is to deprive the more rural areas of the county. This is becoming a real problem.
  I hope that the Minister will not go away with the thought that there is only urban deprivation. There is real rural deprivation in terms of transport, schooling and other social facilities. This problem is accentuated in our case by the the cuts in the rate support grant, despite the presence of an expanding new town and an expanding population, with its call on facilities. Those facilities can be stretched severely in the case of the elderly and the deprived. I should not like the Minister to imagine—it seems to

  441
  be a sort of blanket concept in his Department—that new towns do not have elderly or disabled persons or single-parent families.
  I wish that he had been with me at some of the Jubilee celebrations in my new town. He would have met a great many elderly and disabled people and a considerable number of one-parent families, and he might have been told of the real difficulties new town communities experience in providing services. For example, only recently has it been possible to extend the meals-on-wheels service into the new town area. Many elderly people lead very lonely and deprived lives, with inadequate, expensive transport, and very few community facilities of which they can take advantage.
  New town blues is a real phenomenon. The community health council recently has been studying the problem of alcoholism, which is one of the unfortunate consequences of new town deprivation. I share the view of the hon. Member for Basildon that new towns should not be regarded as fortunate and blessed in all respects. They suffer from real social problems.
  I shall be joining my right hon. and hon. Friends in voting against this Bill because—apart from the need to maintain public assets actively—of the continuing failure to do anything about the necessary co-provision of medical facilities; the continued failure to appoint members to the board of the Redditch Development Corporation to fill posts which, apparently, have been kept vacant for political reasons for an excessively long time, despite the need to provide guidance and experience in the handover of the assets to the local authorities in what is now a very short-time scale; the uncertainty about the relief which will be available to the local authorities on the handover of the housing assets; and the uncertainties in the minds of the staff about their future—all of which are far from being resolved.
  5.59 p.m.
  Mr. George Rodgers: The New Towns Bill enables us to discuss afresh the situation that has arisen from the changed position facing new towns in the light of the observations made today by my hon. Friends and the recent
  442
  decision by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to restrict the immediate advance of the new towns programme.
  I say at once that in the Central Lancashire New Town, which is a development of enormous interest to people in my constituency, there is great relief that the long period of waiting and uncertainty is ended, and a general welcome has been given to the revised scheme.
  The Central Lancashire New Town— it is a very cumbersome title, and I hope that the Department will come up with another name for the project—remains the focus for industrial and economic growth and a spearhead for urban renewal. The process of revitalisation is essential for Lancashire and the whole of the North-West Region. Therefore, the project continues to have the support of all the local authorities in the immediate vicinity. Chorley, South Ribble, Preston and the Lancashire County Council are all anxious to see the development corporation press ahead by building on the foundations that have already been laid.
  A document issued very recently after consultation with the development corporation and with the agreement of all parties gave full approval to the revised scheme. This intends that there should be an induced intake of 23,000 on the present population of 247,000, and, together with natural growth in the area, this will give a population of 285,000 in the mid-1980s. There is considerable satisfaction that the capacity of the land use allocation endorsed by the Secretary of State can well accommodate the needs of the area, reflecting this revised population.
  Somehow the fallacy lingers that the Central Lancashire New Town is based on a requirement for overspill. This is simply not the case, although it is widely believed both in Merseyside and Manchester. In fact, the new town attracts a greater number from the South-East than it does from Merseyside and the development is performing its acknowledged role in attracting people from all parts of the country.
  We must accept that people who are seeking a new environment and job opportunities cannot be caged or contained in desolate areas. If the new towns offer an opportunity for prosperity

  443
  and brighter horizons we should accept that people have the entitlement to move into these new areas. It is folly to deny them the opportunitiy for a better life.
  The changed pattern of the Central Lancashire New Town enables variations to be introduced and despite the reduced scale of the programme the concept remains vast, in that it embraces three boroughs—those of Chorley, South Ribble and Preston.
  I sound a note of warning. Unless some of the saving envisaged by the diminished nature of the development is directed towards the renewal and strengthening of the old inner cores within the existing boroughs, the whole exercise will be placed in jeopardy. It is essential, too, that the development corporation should concentrate to a much greater extent than previously on the relocation of existing industries rather than devote its attention to attracting new industries.
  There is a positive welcome for the Secretary of State's decision on the corporation's involvement in urban refurbishing. With the support of a little of the financial saving made possible by the curtailment of the original programme, a real impact can be made on the problem of decaying areas on the fringe of the new town development. The changed circumstances will allow a partnership between the local authorities and the development corporation to be brought about with considerable speed. There is room for much greater co-operation on housing construction and allocation, land planning and usage, and transportation.
  Since the early days of the new towns there has been a great improvement in the relationship between the local authorities and the towns already existing in the designated areas. For too long the new town corporations appeared to be aloof and almost isolated from the locally elected bodies. Happily, this situation has been largely remedied, and the better the co-operation the more successful the new town enterprise. Indeed, it would be absolute folly to neglect or ignore the knowledge and know-how available in the existing community.
  I conclude by declaring my faith and optimism in the Central Lancashire New Town and in the overall concept of new towns generally. This concept has proved
  444
  a post-war success story in the United Kingdom. With a few exceptions the new towns have created good living conditions and prosperity. They have proved a sound and splendid investment. I accept that there is room for improvement, but I am uneasy about the attitude of Conservative Members. Apparently they intend to vote against the Bill tonight— there is no confusion about that. The confusion arises over their motives and their purpose. I do not find the reasons that have been put forward very satisfactory.
  Of course there is room for improvement in the scheme of things, but it is essential that the vision and boldness on which the programme was founded should not be allowed to wither because of current economic difficulties. Much can be accomplished, at little cost, if the democratic principle is encouraged and those who serve the existing community are invited to participate in the development of the new town rather than merely witness its progress.
  Central Lancashire New Town will make a substantial contribution to the economic well-being of a deprived region and it will enhance the quality of the lives of people who have long been at a disadvantage when their lot is compared with that of those living in more fortunate regions. The Bill before us will assist in securing these worthy aims, and I support it.
  6.7 p.m.
  Mr. Timothy Raison: I was interested to hear the comments by the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Rodgers) about the Central Lancashire New Town. I spent a day there last year, and I came away with the feeling that the Government have to face a very difficult problem over this new town. In surrounding parts of Lancashire there is a good deal of opposition to the continuance of the new town. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) talked about the case for putting the investment into areas such as Liverpool, and North-East Lancashire where people in the old cotton towns have lost their traditional livelihood and have pretty crummy surroundings, and can do with the money that is going to Central Lancashire. I believe that some hon. Members on both sides of the House are not all that

  445
  enthusiastic about this new town development at the end of the day.
  However, I am inclined to think that the Secretary of State is right. Obviously the Central Lancashire New Town has economic potential which does not attach to other contenders for the money in that part of the world. Also, if Central Lancashire does not get the money there is no guarantee that it will go to North-East Lancashire or Merseyside instead. I have no doubt that the Treasury would find ways of disposing of it very satisfactorily.
  I do not advocate spending money for the sake of it, but it has always been inherent in the Central Lancashire case that it is good to put money into areas where it will pay off. The whole essence of this is that Central Lancashire is a potential growth area. I am more worried about the espousement of various projects in inner city areas and I wonder whether we are now using money spread across the country to prop up decaying areas at the expense of those areas that have a capacity to grow.
  Central Lancashire is sited very well in terms of communication and transport— much better than other places in Lancashire.
  Mr. Eddie Loyden: When the hon. Member for Ayles-bury (Mr. Raison) refers to decaying parts of the region I take it from his previous comments that he means Merseyside. Is he aware that Merseyside has lost a quarter of a million of its population? The city of Liverpool had to establish the wherewithal to provide education, health and other essential services for a major conurbation, and now these services are becoming under-used. This is having a direct effect on the people in the area. While we do not want to throw out the baby with the bath water in relation to new towns, the Government must recognises the balance in remedying the problem of places like Merseyside and continuing with the programme of new towns.
  Mr. Raison: I am aware of all those facts and I do not think that I would dispute any of them, but one has to make difficult judgments: is it best to prop up areas which have declined for profound and hard-to-dispose-of economic
  446
  reasons, or to pick out those areas with growth potential and put money into them? There is a risk in pouring money into Merseyside because, although one may produce some kind of temporary alleviation, a certain number of jobs and better conditions of life for people whose conditions are bad, one will weaken the structure of the economy overall.
  One could put more resources into Merseyside and the London docklands by having a strong economy instead of diverting limited resources to areas where the return on investment, in harsh economic terms, will not be satisfactory. A vast problem underlies this argument, and I shall not seek to develop it now. I believe that the Minister is right to see the potential of the Central Lancashire New Town, and I am glad to see that it has not been chopped off.
  In other respects I very much agree with what has been said by my hon. Friends. I believe that we are right to vote against the Government on this matter. I hope that the Government will consider the points made about hospital provision in new town areas, although I appreciate that this involves a different Department. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) represents Milton Keynes and knows the enormous problems of hospital provision caused by the creation of new towns. It is almost immoral of the Government suddenly to decide that it does not matter too much if there is over-provision of hospital facilities in London—as unquestionably there is—because that involves inner city areas, and because it is Government policy to support inner cities, when there is true hardship and under-provision of a grave nature in counties such as Buckinghamshire and Northamptonshire. I hope that the Minister will underline to his colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Security that there is great concern about these problems.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ash-ford and others were right to criticise the Secretary of State for his complete failure to say where the money is going. We are talking about a great deal of money—£500 million which, following a subsequent order, can rise to £1,000 million. I repeat that it is a vast amount of money. It is interesting to note that the money employed in the new town programme from 1947 to the present time

  447
  amounted to £2,250 million. The Government are now asking the House to vote a further 1,000 million. Only two years ago the House passed legislation allowing the Government to have in their hands a similar large sum of money in this context. It is intolerable that the Government now come to the House asking for this enormous sum without explaining the purposes for which the money is needed. The Minister should tell the House how this money will be used. He should say why a reduction in the new town development programme has not produced anything resembling a comparable reduction in the amount of money that needs to be spent.
  Several of my hon. Friends have made a powerful case about the effective use of new town assets. The Secretary of State said that he would think about the matter. It is much too late in the day for him to take that view. About a year ago, a number of my hon. Friends and I were engaged in the legislation involving the transfer of new town assets. We seized all opportunities to make the point that the transfer of assets should apply to commercial assets, and that they should be capable of being transferred or sold of to the private sector. The Secretary of State should not adopt the attitude, as he appeared to do, that this is a new idea that nobody has thought of before and that he would have to think about it. The idea has been floating around for a long time and was raised by many of my hon. Friends a year ago.
  Mr. Hal Miller: The Secretary of State said that he was contemplating allowing the sale of such assets to local authorities. Will my hon. Friend comment on that aspect?
  Mr. Raison: The right hon. Gentleman said that it might be reasonable to sell these assets to local authorities, just as housing assets are being sold. It is a bizarre argument to advance at a time when there is a desperate shortage of money in the hands of local government to finance anything. To encourage them to think that they might buy up town centres is ludicrous, especially in present economic circumstances. I can see no objection to allowing the Commission for the New Towns to sell off these town centres to would-be commercial buyers. I should qualify that my saying that I
  448
  believe the right policy is not to say that the Commission has an absolute duty to sell off these properties, but that it has a duty to manage them commercially in the most effective possible way. It should be in a position to make a commercial judgment whether it is best to sell freeholds or to issue very long leaseholds. There are a number of arguments in the property and new town worlds as to the most appropriate use to be made of these assets. I do not wish them to do other than act in the most effective and business-like manner.
  It makes no sense for the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) to talk about the planning considerations. As I understand it, he is probably happy to see leases that may run for 99 years or so and that inhibit planning changes, but the hon. Gentleman then wishes to put his foot down on the sale of freeholds. The truth is that this is a piece of outmoded dogma, which is part and parcel of the same philosophy that produced the ludicrous and disastrous Community Land Act, which has now become the object of so much ridicule. I should have thought that the Secretary of State for the Environment—who possesses less dogma than his right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin), who was responsible for these matters at an earlier period and who was addicted to public ownership of land—may have the sense to see that there is a strong case for making the best use of these huge assets.
  There is no doubt that the value of the commercial element in the new towns is enormous, so that we may get that money back and use it to alleviate the desperate problems that exist in London's docklands or anywhere else, or to reduce public expenditure. I hope that the Minister, in reply, will explain what the money is needed for, and will produce solid reasons why these assets should not be sold off— or, preferably, will give a positive indication that the Government will have a change of heart on this matter.
  6.18 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Hordern: We have had a very interesting debate, as are all our debates on new towns. This debate is unusual, because on this occasion the Opposition intend to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill.

  449
  The reason is plain and important— namely, that the sums of money involved are very large indeed by any standards, even judged by the standards of this profligate Government. The fact that £1,000 million is to be added to the public sector borrowing requirement is very significant indeed. It would have been totally irresponsible for the Opposition to let the Bill go through without showing that we are consistent in our view that Government expenditure and borrowing should not rise by this amount unless very good reasons are adduced. So far, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) said, not a single reason has been advanced.
  It is as though these sums of money are to be voted for reasons which the Government will be pleased to bring forward at their convenience instead of at the convenience of the House. This will not do. The sums of money are so large that we could not possibly pass the Bill without a vote unless and until we obtain a clear explanation of why the money is required.
  The hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Moonman) was not right to suggest that the Opposition have any antipathy towards the new towns. I do not think that any such charge should be levied at my hon. Friends or at me. The hon. Member for Basildon has no monopoly of knowledge about new towns.
  The progress of new towns is a matter of wide interest. As far as I am aware, no Conservative Government have ever suggested contracting the programme for new towns. The present Government have done that. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury was correct in saying that the programme and the Secretary of State's announcement on new towns must be looked at carefully and and in the context of inner cities. We are now at an important phase—although it has been going on for years—because it is only recently, possibly only in the debate today, that the problem of inner cities in all its horror has been recognised by the Government. The two must be linked together. I do not mean by that that we are any less fervent in our appreciation of the rôle of new towns or their achievements in past years.
  I am a representative of one of the older new towns, and possibly one of the most successful of all—Crawley New
  450
  Town—because it has a high employment record and a good record of industrial and social achievement. It is worth looking at the problems of the new towns in the context of the problems of the inner cities and inner centres. The two must be looked at together, and those of us who represent new towns are perhaps best fitted to look at the problems of the inner cities because we know about our own successes.
  I have said that we see no reason for the extraordinary sums of money included in the Bill and that we intend to vote against it on Second Reading because we have received no proper explanation. We are seeing the end of an era. This is the first time that the new towns programme has been cut by any Government, and it is being done by a Labour Government. It is no longer possible to build new towns as a solution to overcrowded conditions in large cities. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) talked about his own constituency and about Milton Keynes in particular. He said that it would be quite wrong to stunt one of the few success stories that the country has had—new towns—just because of the problems of inner cities.
  I must put this point in passing. I have observed in my constituency in Crawley New Town that the firms that came there originally moved from London, and I am sure that any hon. Member representing a new town constituency could say the same. I doubt that those firms would have prospered as well in London as they have done in Crawley. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), who intervened, also made this point. I shall come to further evidence later. There has been a loss to the inner city areas when not only the population has moved out but industry has moved out too. That cannot be ignored.
  It is right to look at the new towns in the context of the inner cities and all their problems—and those problems are formidable. They are not solved by encouraging people to move to new towns or by refusing to allow a firm to expand unless it moves to a development area. The problems certainly are not solved by the work of the Location of Offices Bureau. I hope that the Minister will say something about this state of affairs.

  451
  What is the Location of Offices Bureau doing now? Is it inviting firms to leave London or to come back to it? The House has not been told of its present function and would be relieved to know about it. I dare say that the Location of Offices Bureau itself would be relieved to know.
  What is the Government's strategy for both new towns and inner cities? I know that we have had a White Paper today, but the old concept of new towns is plain enough, and that is to relieve overcrowding in large and growing cities and to plant acorns from oak trees. Certainly in the first generation of new towns these acorns took root and grew. The new towns have made a contribution to exporting industry and to the people in the new communities. They have surely proved to be an outstanding success.
  There is a chain of events in these affairs. When the economy is expanding and industry is growing, there is an impetus for expansion for which new towns are particularly suited, but when the economy as a whole is staggering, unemployment is rising and the population in the inner cities is declining, the growth of the new towns naturally comes into question.
  The situation is far more serious than the Government have recognised so far, because when the population in major cities starts to decline seriously, as it has done in London and Liverpool, these problems become all the more pressing. Services continue to expand while those who can pay for them have departed. This has also happened in the United States and France, in New York and in Paris. In both those cities, firms were driven out by high rates and because better communications made their departure possible. This has been happening here for many years and its progress is seemingly inexorable. It is becoming more serious, particularly in London, where rates are going up steeply and people are moving out, not through planned departure but because they cannot afford the rates any more. That is also true of industry.
  If we take London as an example, we now find a net loss of 100,000 people a year. The population has declined from 8 million to 7 million and the rate of
  452
  unemployment in some areas of London is over 13 per cent. The situation is also serious in Birmingham. Large numbers of people have gone to Telford and Redditch, and unemployment in some parts of Birmingham is at the rate of 7·8 per cent. In Newcastle 23,000 jobs have been lost in 10 years and many of the best workers have gone to Washington New Town. Unemployment in Newcastle is 11 per cent. In Bristol the number of manufacturing jobs has fallen by 11 per cent.
  In Liverpool there was a massive urban clearance in the 1960s. The Minister knows about this. Some 30,000 homes were bulldozed in 10 years and many people have moved, as I believe the hon. Member for Garston said in his intervention, to the new towns of Runcorn and Skelmersdale. It is not only big firms that have moved, but small businesses have done the same. They have taken with them some of the rate revenue. In 10 years the population declined from 850,000 to 560,000. In Manchester 82,000 houses have been demolished and scores of small businesses have gone. The population has fallen from 700,000 to 500,000 and the rate of unemployment in some parts of the city is 16 per cent.
  These are massive problems in themselves, and in transferring responsibility from the Home Office to the Department of the Environment the Government have not done nearly enough to recognise the scale of the problems. Neither is it enough either simply to step up the funds available from £30 million to £125 million by 1979-80, especially when one takes into account the £57 million that has been taken from the Housing Fund. Ministries and money alone can solve nothing. All that can be said with certainty is that much money will be wasted unless great conurbations such as London and Liverpool are allowed to attract industry and business on the same terms as the development areas do and as the new towns originally did. I do not mean that the growth of new towns should be stunted but that their opportunities should be given to London and Liverpool also.
  London has not declined simply because of the attraction of the new towns, but that the new towns have an attraction cannot be denied. Whole areas of

  453
  London, such as the docklands, have gone out of business. The same is true of Newcastle, except that the industry affected there is shipbuilding and not the docks. It has declined because some firms have moved to development areas and new towns, but it is declining most of all because of the demise of small businesses in inner cities. This is true in London and Birmingham and, I should guess, in Liverpool and other cities.
  There is nothing inevitable about this decline of small businesses. They can survive any normal competition, but they cannot survive high interest rates, high levels of direct taxation and constant Government interference. If the Government were really anxious to help these businesses, they would not bring forward a Bill such as this, which can only have the effect of increasing the borrowing requirement and interest rates far above what they would otherwise have been.
  The Government's prescription, through the Bill, is likely to be a contributory cause to the disease. High interest rates are the greatest enemy of small businesses, and the situation is far more serious than the Government have acknowledged. Essentially, the problem is not how to deal with expansion and overcrowding, but how to deal with contraction and decay in industrial areas. These problems are not solved by moving people out of the declining urban areas into new towns. That results in life becoming even more intolerable for those who are left in the urban areas and forces them to move out as well.
  Mr. Moonman: I understand the framework within which the hon. Gentleman is making his argument, but I hope he will point out that people do not leave inner cities solely for new towns We have to consider the expansion of suburbia. Many people moved into the Essex new towns, but not all came from East London.
  Mr. Hordern: The hon. Gentleman was not here when I started my speech. I referred to some of the points that he made. Certainly not all the people who have moved out of inner cities have gone to new towns. It is generally accepted that only about 10 per cent, of them have done so. However, the new towns around London almost all started with large and successful industrial firms which
  454
  originally came from London and a lot of people came with them. They acted as a magnet for work. It is the disappearance of these firms that causes the problems in inner city areas today.
  In his statement on 5th April, the Secretary of State said that the population of England and Wales seemed likely to be only 51 million by 1990 instead of the 60 million that was forecast in the 1960s. He sought to meet the situation by reducing the populations of third-generation new towns by about 380,000. I suggest that there may be another reason for his decision—namely, the considerable cost of third-generation new towns. This is an important factor.
  My figures come from the accounts prepared to the end of March 1976, and I imagine that the sums involved are higher and the rates of interest may be even more onerous now. The Central Lancashire New Town has received loans from the Secretary of State totalling £48 million at an average rate of interest of 13·9 per cent. Milton Keynes has borrowed £147 million at an average 12·3 per cent., Northampton has received £62 million at an average 12·3 per cent., Peterborough has received £88 million at an average 12·6 per cent., Telford has received £117 million at an average 11·3 per cent, and Warrington has received £55 million at an average 12·45 per cent. Taken together, housing and land account for about half of the total capital cost of these assets that, we understand, are to be handed over to the local authorities at what are bound to be a record high cost. This means that, unless extra taxpayers' money is provided, rents in these towns will be the highest in the country.
  The more houses that are built, the more onerous the rents will become. The rate of interest paid by the Central Lancashire New Town is more than twice that paid by the Harlow Corporation. It is difficult to see the justification for this or why Harlow residents should subsidise tenants in Central Lancashire. As Harlow has been going for 30 years, I assume that its housing assets will be handed over to the council next year.
  The hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens), who is not here at the moment, asked whether it was Conservative policy that houses built by the Commission should be sold in places where there was

  455
  a long waiting list. The answer is "Yes, most certainly". It is not the length of the waiting list that matters but the best method of getting more houses built, and if we get a higher contribution by selling to tenants than from rents it is much more sensible to sell.
  Quite apart from any question of the size of the population, the high cost of these new towns would have acted as a severe restraint in due course and will do so. Therefore, this is a fitting time for a reappraisal of development strategy and of the future of the new towns.
  The Government have not done anything like enough to recognise the desperate problems of London, Liverpool, Newcastle and Birmingham. It is no use spending money on a piecemeal basis. We need a substantial redevelopment of the London and Liverpool docklands. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) made this point so ably in his speech. There should be a redevelopment corporation for the docklands in both cities. They have become increasingly derelict over the years and jobs have become increasingly difficult to find. That is the direction in which we should move—the resuscitation of our great cities.
  The role of the New Towns Commission, which will be expanded by the handing over of commercial and industrial assets from the other corporations, should not be simply that of managers of some industrial and commercial trust. That is not what it was intended to do. It was intended to build new towns, and it still has a considerable task to perform in this area.
  The problem of finance lies at the heart of the debate and it is one of great urgency. In our view, finance should come from the development corporations and the Commission's own resources—that is, from the sale of their industrial and commercial assets. There can be nothing sacrosanct about assets that were built on behalf of the community and should be used to the best purpose for the community. There can be nothing objectionable about the sale of these assets, especially as the buyers would be pension funds and insurance companies acting on behalf of the people through their savings. There could be no better way of selling
  456
  the assets. The Government have sold the pass on this question by offering BP shares not just in this country but in the United States as well.
  Mr. Abse: My constituents will be interested to learn whether the Conservatives are prepared to sell assets to the United States. Do they intend that the city centre of Cwmbran should be sold to the United States?
  Mr. Hordern: The hon. Gentleman is always helpful, and never more so than on this occasion. It is not we who wish to sell assets to the United States; it is the Government. We have no intention of doing so. The Secretary of State has given the game away. He is not averse to selling the commercial and industrial assets, but he does not want the people who put them there to have them. He wants the local authorities to have them, although I cannot imagine how he can believe that the towns under the Commission could possibly have the resources to buy commercial and industrial assets. He should ask his advisers to show him the latest balance sheets of local authorities. They will show the impracticability of such a scheme. The right hon. Gentleman is concerned not with the principle but only with the fact that the people should not get these assets through pension funds and other means.
  There is no particular merit in selling commercial and industrial assets as opposed to borrowing money, but there is a clear optimum benefit between borrowing money and the disposal of assets and their proper management. No industrial or commercial company would borrow on the expectation of future earnings of the industrial and commercial assets at these rates of interest.
  I offer it, therefore, purely as a matter of judgment, which is what we on this side are concerned with, that it is much better to put those industrial and commercial assets to their best and proper use by selling them to the people and by using the money for expanding new towns or for expanding docklands than simply to keep them in some extraordinary industrial and commercial holding company for which they were never originally intended.
  Therefore, whatever the figures may show, unless there is some change in the

  457
  financing of new towns their future development must be in doubt. What would be tragic would be to stunt the development of new towns while allowing the old cities to continue to deteriorate.
  Nothing that the Secretary of State has told us can allay our fear that he does not understand the gravity or urgency of the situation, and he is not prepared to use the assets of the new towns to proper effect. I therefore invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill, since we are being asked to allow the Government to borrow up to £1,000 million for reasons which they have made no attempt to explain and for purposes which in any event are totally unnecessary at this time.
  6.41 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Guy Barnett): The debate has enabled hon. Members representing new towns, as well as others who are interested in new towns and the problems of inner cities, to range fairly widely over the whole area of policy which has been developed over relatively recent time.
  I recall, for instance, that only last week the New Towns (Amendment Bill became law, and that at present housing transfers are taking place, or schemes are being prepared, in some 11 towns. I recall also that over the last few months my right hon. Friend has undertaken a considerable reappraisal of the new towns programme, and, in addition, the White Paper on the inner cities has been produced. No one, therefore, can accuse the Government of inactivity or lack of interest in the substantial issues that have been raised in the debate.
  I imagine that many of the hon. Members who have taken part in the debate are aware that in the whole area of policy involving planning in the new towns and inner cities there are a number of fundamental questions which need to be asked in the light of population projections and the rest. Indeed, those questions have been asked in the debate.
  I am glad to echo what has been said by hon. Members on both sides who have made clear that they do not believe that there is necessarily any opposition between the interests of new towns and the interests of inner cities. My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Moonman)
  458
  spoke strongly on that point. I echo what has been said, because the suggestion has been put about by some—not, I am glad to say, in the House—that the main purpose behind my right hon. Friend's reappraisal was to find money for the inner cities from the new towns programme. I am quite sure, from what has been said in the debate and from the description which my right hon. Friend gave of what formed the reappraisal programme, that it is now fully understood in the House that the Government expect a continuing programme in new towns for some years to come.
  Even though the population projections show a slowing down of growth, so that we are expecting to reach by 1991 a population not of 60 million but of 51 million, so that the demands will not be so great, nevertheless, as has been said, the amount of household formation which will take place during the years up to 1985 means that there will be a continuing need for homes.
  My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler) had certain suspicions about that but, in the light of the figures, the Government see a continuing need for a house-building programme in the six third-generation new towns in the light of the demand presented to us by the extent of household formation which will be taking place during the 1980s as a whole. The house building will need to go on during the next seven or eight years, and it is that, in part, for which the Bill is intended.
  I have been asked by the hon. Members for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) and for Horsham and Crawley (Mr. Hordern) to go into greater detail on the purposes to which the £1,000 million is likely to be devoted. The House knows that the new town development corporation spend their money on roads, on housing, on servicing industrial estates, on building factories and the rest. The Bill is designed to provide moneys to enable new town corporations to borrow money as and when they require it.
  Our difficulty is that we do not know precisely when new town corporations will need to raise certain sums of money in order to continue their programme, and, for reasons which my right hon. Friend explained—the rise in interest

  459
  rates and the fact that there has of late been considerable activity by new town corporations—the present borrowing limits will unfortunately run out a month or two earlier than we had expected. That has necessitated the Bill now before us.
  I am surprised to hear that it is the Opposition's intention to vote against the Bill.
  Mr. Raison: I wanted to ask the hon. Gentleman a question on the passage in his speech which he has just passed. Can he at least tell us how long the £500 million or £1,000 million will last?
  Mr. Barnett: Not with absolute certainty. I should say about two years, but I cannot be certain how long it will last. It will depend upon the speed with which new town corporations are able to get on with their job. It will depend upon what the interest rate happens to be next year and the year after. There are unquantifiable factors, and I cannot give a precise answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. That is the difficulty we are in.
  Mr. Raison: But this is important. The public expenditure projections must contain something about the rate of spending for this purpose.
  Mr. Barnett: Indeed. If the hon. Gentleman is interested to have specific details about a new town, I shall certainly give him any information I can about the progremme which the town is planning and the speed with which it hopes to proceed, but the fundamental point I make is that there are variables, about which we cannot be absolutely certain at the moment, which may determine the speed at which money is being spent after a year or two.
  As I say, I am surprised at the Opposition's intention to vote against the Bill. It is apparent from the debate that they have some ideas about raising finance by other methods. My right hon. Friend has explained, and we have explained in answer to Questions, that the Government are interested in the ideas which are being put forward by the Opposition and by others. However, whatever ideas they may have, I should at this point make clear to the Opposition the dangerous implications of their voting
  460
  against the Bill. They ought to realise that whatever proposals they may have for raising money cannot be adopted in the next two years on the sort of scale which would remove the need for further provision under the existing arrangements.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) said that we must bear in mind the serious effect upon the development corporations' staff if their contribution to the development of new towns were to be subject to the decisions of private investors. Such investment— in new town assets—may or may not be attractive to the new towns, and is so speculative a basis on which to work that it would be irresponsible to adopt it.
  Mr. Speed: The Minister is suggesting that the House should vote £1,000 million over an unspecified period to be spent on something about which he cannot give us any details. He is asking us to take that on trust. We are in an economic crisis. What the Minister has just said reinforces me in the conviction that the House should throw out the Bill.
  Mr. Barnett: This has been the practice of the new towns programme since it began. Both parties have indulged in it. The country is in economic crisis, but it would be in a far worse crisis if, through voting out the Bill, the House denied the new town corporations the money that they require to pursue their programmes.
  The debate has been useful and well-informed in some respects. However, the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) seemed to assume that if the Bill were rejected some simple way could be found of continuing to fund the new towns programme. By rejecting the Bill the House would vote to bring the new towns programme to a halt within a few months. That would be the direct consequence of the House throwing out the Bill on Second Reading.
  The Opposition have every right to be interested in the Bill, but the Second Reading is hardly the occasion for discussing matters of detail. The House has procedures by which it can discuss details which individual hon. Members may wish to raise about new towns in their constituencies or which they know and have visited.

  461
  I turn now to the Opposition's proposals. As has been said by several hon. Members, there is a restraint on public expenditure. The idea that the Opposition have put forward certainly has its attractions in that context. My right hon. Friend has said that he is considering the idea. It is a new idea for the Opposition. They have never implemented it nor put it in their programme in previous years. Now they find there is an urgency to take it on board. Frankly, it is a new idea, which the Government must carefully consider. Although the idea may have merits, the House must bear in mind that we are discussing sound public investments. They are potentially very profitable public assets which are appreciating in value. The Commission has a duty to enhance their value. In the 15 years since it was established it has accumulated a substantial gross operating surplus, part of which has been paid into Exchequer funds for other programmes. It is important for hon. Members to bear that in mind, and to recognise that the case would have to be very convincing before we changed our present policy.
  I cannot believe that the attitude which either my right hon. Friend or myself have taken on this issue is sufficient justification for the Opposition suddenly to decide that they are right to vote against the Bill and, as a consequence, endanger the future of the whole new towns programme.
  I must now deal with issues raised by hon. Members from both sides of the House. First, I shall deal with the questions posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse). He knows that I am not responsible for new towns in Wales. A decision on the extension of designated areas will be announced by the Secretary of State for Wales in the near future. That decision will take into account the needs of Cwmbran as well as the needs of Wales. That is the only assurance that I can give my hon. Friend at the moment. I found his speech very interesting. He made a number of interesting comments.
  The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) spoke about Milton Keynes, the new town in his constituency. I was glad he said what he did about the complementary relationship which exists, and will continue to exist, between new towns
  462
  and inner city areas. He asked me about the likely consequences of housing transfer when it takes place in Milton Keynes. The only answer that I can give him is that the business of housing transfer is well ahead in the future for Milton Keynes and Redditch and some other new towns. But the terms that we are working out now will not necessarily predetermine the terms that will affect second or third-generation new towns. The hon. Member was a member of the Committee that considered the New Towns (Amendment) Bill. We shall try to ensure that no undue burden falls upon the ratepayers of any district where transfer takes place. Hon. Members who represent constituencies in which first-generation new towns are situated will agree that we have behaved fairly and reasonably so far.
  My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin talked about the statistical situation. I have tried to deal with that. He also suggested that one of the dangers is for Governments or public opinion generally to indulge in policy making by lurch. I cannot agree more about that danger but I hope that we are now avoiding it. Where there has been an unfortunate concurrence between the need to examine inner city policy and new town policy, some people have regarded that as implying an enormous lurch in one direction. I hope that the shape of my hon. Friend's statement on new towns and inner cities has demonstrated that there has been no sudden lurch of policy, and that we are continuing the new towns programme in a responsible fashion.
  The hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) was particularly concerned about the problems of the disadvantaged and the elderly. He was worried about the burden that might be placed upon the social services and about the inadequacy of hospital provision. I am aware of complaints in a number of new towns about the inadequacy of hospital provision. All I can say is that I shall certainly examine that argument. I shall have discussions with Ministers to see what can be done in the hon. Member's area.
  I am sorry that there will not be time for me to deal with other speeches hon. Members have made. This has been a useful debate. I hope that we have been

  463
  able to assure the House of the need for the Bill, and that the details can be properly considered at the proper time and in the proper place.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time: —
  The House divided: Ayes 179, Noes 140.

  Division No. 1511

  AYES

  [7.00 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Graham, Ted

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Allaun, Frank

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Penhaligon, David

  Anderson, Donald

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Radice, Giles

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Hardy, Peter

  Reid, George

  Bain, Mrs Margaret

  Harrison, Rt Hon Waller

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Hatton, Frank

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Bates, Alf

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Beith, A. J.

  Henderson, Douglas

  Rooker, J. W.

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kllmarnock)

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Sandelson, Neville

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  John, Brynmor

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Buchanan, Richard

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Campbell, Ian

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Slllars, James

  Canavan, Dennis

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Silverman, Julius

  Cant, R. B.

  Kerr, Russell

  Skinner, Dennis

  Carson, John

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Lamble, David

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Cartwright, John

  Lamborn, Harry

  Snape, Peter

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Lamond, James

  Spearing, Nigel

  Cohen, Stanley

  Lee, John

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Coleman, Donald

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

  Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Conlan, Bernard

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Stoddart, David

  Cowans, Harry

  Loyden, Eddie

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Luard, Evan

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Davidson, Arthur

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Tinn, James

  Davies, Denzil (Llanell)

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Tomney, Frank

  Deakins, Eric

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Tuck, Raphael

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

  Dempsey, James

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Doig, Peter

  Madden, Max

  Watkins, David

  Dormand, J. D.

  Magee, Bryan

  Watt, Hamish

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Marks, Kenneth

  Weetch, Ken

  Duffy A. E. P.

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Weitzman, David

  Dunnett, Jack

  Meacher, Michael

  Wellbeloved, James

  Edge Geoff

  Mendelson, John

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  English, Michael

  Mikardo, Ian

  White, James (Pollok)

  Ennals, David

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Miller, Mrs Millie (llford N)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Evans, loan (Aberdare)

  Molloy, William

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Moonman, Eric

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Moyle, Roland

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Woodall, Alec

  Forrester, John

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Woof, Robert

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Ovenden, John

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  George, Bruce

  Padley, Waiter

  Ginsburg, David

  Pardoe, John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Gould, Bryan

  Parker, John

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

  Gourlay, Harry

  Parry, Robert

  Mr. Joseph Ashton.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Brittan, Leon

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Arnold Tom

  Brooke, Peter

  Cope, John

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Brotherton, Michael

  Costain, A. P.

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Crowder, F. P.

  Benyon W

  Buck, Antony

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Budgen, Nick

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Riff on John

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Biggs-Davlson John

  Carlisle, Mark

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Blaker, Peter

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Elliott, Sir William

  Body Richard

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Suttoft)

  Emery, Peter

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Bottomley, Peter

  Clegg, Walter

  Falrbalrn, Nicholas

  Braine Sir Bernard

  Cockcroft, John

  Falrgrleve, Russell

  Farr, John

  Lawson, Nigel

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Fell, Anthony

  Le Merchant, Spencer

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Luce, Richard

  Shepherd, Colin

  Forman, Nigel

  McCrindle, Robert

  Silvester, Fred

  Gardiner, George (Relgate)

  MacKay, Andrew James

  Sims, Roger

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)

  Mates, Michael

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Mather, Carol

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Goodhew, Victor

  Maude, Angus

  Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Speed, Keith

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Grieve, Percy

  Mills, Peter

  Stainton, Keith

  Griffiths, Eldon

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Grist, Ian

  Moate, Roger

  Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

  Hall, Sir John

  Monro, Hector

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Hannam, John

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Nelson, Anthony

  Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

  Hodgson, Robin

  Neubert, Michael

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Holland, Philip

  Newton, Tony

  Viggers, Peter

  Hordern, Peter

  Page, John (Harrow West)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

  Howell, David (Gulldford)

  Page, Richard (Workington)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Percival, Ian

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Hurd, Douglas

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Wells, John

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Raison, Timothy

  Wiggin, Jerry

  James, David

  Rathbone, Tim

  Winter ton, Nicholas

  Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&W'df'd)

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Wood, Rt Hon Richard

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Rhodes James, R.

  Younger, Hon George

  Kimball, Marcus

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Mr. Peter Morrison.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Coleman.]
  Committee tomorrow.

  NEW TOWNS [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to increase the limit imposed by section 43 of the New Towns Act 1965 on the amounts which may be borrowed by the development corporations for the new towns and the Commission for the New Towns, it is expedient to authorise any increase in the sums—

  (a) falling to be paid out of or into the National Loans Fund or the Consolidated Fund;

  (b) falling to be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament;

  being an increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session increasing to £3,250 million the limit imposed by the said section 43 of the amounts outstanding in respect of borrowing by the development corporations and the Commission.—[Mr. Shore.]

CONTROL OF OFFICE DEVELOPMENT BILL
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
CONTROL OF OFFICE DEVELOPMENT BILL

  Clause 1
  CONTINUANCE IN FORCE OF PROVISIONS RELATING TO CONTROL OF OFFICE DEVELOPMENT
  7.13 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Guy Barnett): I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 12, leave out 'fourteen' and insert 'seventeen'.
  The principle of the Bill was approved by the House on Second Reading, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained why the continuation of the office development control system was required. It will be noted that the amendment reverses the amendment that was secured in Committee by the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) to prolong the control for two years rather than five years as the Government proposed.
  I am in no doubt that the extension of the office development control powers should be for five years. When the control was first introduced, it was given a life of seven years—that is, from 1965 to

  467
  1972. When that period had elapsed, it fell to a Government supported by hon. Members on the Opposition Benches to decide whether to renew the control, and the period they chose was five years. That seems a very reasonable one to choose and I am quite content to adopt it on this occasion.
  By contrast, two years would be quite unsuitable. As I said in Committee, it would lead to uncertainty in the office property world and among local authorities in the area in which the control applied. People would very soon find that within the time scale of development they were planning they could not tell whether office development control would be in operation.
  From the point of view of Parliament, I am sure that two years is an unreasonably short time to have to go through the process of promoting fresh legislation, if the control is still required. Nor am I attracted by the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Hampstead in Committee—namely, that at the end of two years the powers should be continued on an annual basis, subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses. Although that would take up less time than legislation, I am sure that it would be wrong to ask the House to reconsider this question so frequently. I believe that it is quite unnecessary to get into that position when Section 86(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 enables the control to be brought to an end by Order in Council at any time before the end of the specified period.
  Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Gentleman said that in Committee, but if he looks at Section 86(1) he will see that it provides "unless Parliament otherwise determines". As far as I know, that cannot be interpreted as meaning by Order in Council. An Order in Council is when Her Majesty determines. It should surely be by resolution of both Houses—an affirmative resolution—rather than by Order in Council.
  Mr. Barnett: I cannot answer the right hon. Gentleman immediately. I have put before the House the advice that I have been given—namely, that office development control can be varied, as indeed it has recently been varied, by Order in Council. That seems to be the correct
  468
  process. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes, I shall check the point that he has made.
  Everything points to renewing the control, if it is to be renewed—and that was the decision of the House—for a reasonable period. I contend that five years is a reasonable period. If circumstances change within that time, the control can be terminated if that course seems appropriate.
  Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I think that the Minister is being a little too ingenuous. He is saying that, among other things, uncertainty would be caused if the Bill were passed with a two-year life. He might be right if we were starting from scratch. However, the Bill is continuing existing powers for a further two years. That is what the Bill would be doing if the Government were prepared to accept the will of the Committee.
  I suggest that the hon. Gentleman is not being quite open with the House in the way in which he has put forward his argument. This is an extension of existing powers, subject to the fast ball that my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) bowled, which I hope can be answered before the end of the debate. The Committee took the view that the period should be changed. There have been many changes of policy, and they are all to be welcomed—for example, relaxations in industrial development certificates, the reversal concerning the Location of Offices Bureau and the changes announced in respect of office development permits.
  Life should not always be made too easy for the civil servants. It is so easy for civil servants to say to Ministers that they should have a Bill that will run for five years because otherwise they would have to go to the trouble of preparing another Bill within a shorter period, parliamentary time would have to be found and it would be difficult to get parliamentary time. I do not think that the House should accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. A simple Bill could be introduced if necessary and if the Government of the day felt that they wanted a further Bill. That would be the time for a fresh Bill.
  As I said in Committee, we would not oppose the Bill if it merely had to be extended on an annual basis by affirmative

  469
  resolution. I am not certain that the Minister has answered that point especially effectively. At least a Minister could obtain time for an affirmative resolution, which is rather different from obtaining premium time from a busy House in normal circumstances.
  On Second Reading the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) was a trifle confused and there was not time to correct him. He said, as reported at column 354 of the Official Report, that the Bill was being opposed by the new GLC and by the Conservatives. I tried to make it clear, as I made clear earlier in the debate when the hon. Gentleman was not with us, that the old GLC and the new GLC both wanted to get rid of office development permits. I told the hon. Gentleman that I would clarify that matter. There has been a bipartisan approach all the way through.
  The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) was unhappy in Committee, although on Second Reading he was clear that he liked the principle of the Bill. He said:
  "I have some apprehensions about the Bill and am not entirely happy with it. However, there is enough in it to tempt me to support it."—[Official Report, 17th May 1977, Vol. 932, c. 340.]
  I hope he will feel, therefore, that he can support the principle of the Bill without going along with the amendment.
  I see that the hon. Member for Swansea, East has now come in. I referred to him, but in a kind way, so I hope that he is not too upset to have missed it.
  In Committee, the hon. Member for Ealing, North said something which was not accurate. Following a comment to the effect that the GLC wanted this relaxation, he said:
  "But that was not the view of the London boroughs, whether Tory or Labour."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 24th May 1977; c. 10.]
  Speaking as one of the parliamentary panel of the London Boroughs Association, I know that they do not want a continuation of ODPs. They said so in evidence to the Department when they submitted their paper on inner cities. That is still their view, and I wanted to place that fact on record. The hon. Member is a good local government man and I do not want an inaccuracy to stay on the record.
  470
  There is no justification for the Government's attempt to reverse the amendment on which the Committee decided after a long and interesting debate. As I said, two years is just as good as five when we remember that we are not starting from scratch but are renewing existing powers. The right way of proceeding is by affirmative resolution or a new Bill if necessary but not, at this stage, by a five-year extension which allows the things to stay on the statute book for too long.
  Mr. Stephen Ross: I rise to speak with some trepidation, because I intend to advise my hon. Friends to vote differently from the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) voted in Committee after having heard the persuasive words of the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg). In fairness, I must say that the hon. Member misled my hon. Friend somewhat, although, of course, not deliberately. My hon. Friend was under the impression that this was a matter on which we had supported the Opposition on Second Reading, when that was not so.
  The matter arose from the statement of the hon. Member for Hampstead that all parties in the previous GLC, which had two Liberal members, favoured the lifting of office development permits. I accept that, but the Government have gone a long way in raising the figure in the Bill to 30,000 sq. ft.
  The commercial and industrial property page of the Evening Standard on Monday 30th May contained the statement:
  "The sun is beginning to shine brightly for a change on the beleagured property world; a new Tory administration at County Hall, a new role for the Location of Offices Bureau and no need for office development permits for buildings of below 30,000 square feet."
  The article went on to describe the improved activity in the property world in London, and concluded:
  "Figures just published by Richard Sanders and Partners in April show that the amount of office space let within the City was 115,820 square feet—half the amount of the previous month. Overall, the amount of space available for letting in that area is a record 3,387,721 square feet."
  I should have thought that this House was opposed to further vast office building at this time. A big area is already permitted without an ODP.

  471
  Four or five years ago, many people felt strongly about the vast number of office blocks that were being built when we should have been building houses and factories. Much of this space will not be taken up in the next couple of years. One has only to walk down Tottenham Court Road to see the number of offices which are vacant. I am sure that the property world would prefer the controls maintained so that some of these buildings can be taken up. The same is true in the provinces. Portsmouth, for example, is full of empty office blocks. Five years is a fair compromise.
  Let us concentrate on getting the available finance into the right areas and not give another boom to office building. The Opposition more than anyone—I support them on this—want to cut back bureaucracy.
  The local authority at Richmond, I understand, intends to build an office block of 36,000 sq. ft. Apparently, the local MP and many local people are completely opposed to the project, which is connected with a car park. The development was to have been done by a Government Department, which, fortunately, no longer intends to do so. But the local council has an ODP and apparently intends to go ahead with this speculative building, despite indignation in the borough.
  The Government are right to bring in [his legislation, and I shall support them tonight.
  Mr. Hugh Rossi: It is an interesting admission by the Liberal spokesman, the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), that his party places on Committee people who do not understand what they are doing. That is the import of his speech. But he is less than fair to his hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells), who followed the arguments closely, intervened several times and was convinced of the necessity for the abolition of ODPs. One notes with interest the difficulties that the Liberal Party has in deciding exactly how to vote at any given time.
  As for the argument of the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight about surplus accommodation, if his figures are accurate he should be arguing for the abolition of ODPs. What is the point
  472
  of keeping controls if they are not needed? Who will build if there is a surplus of accommodation? The more the hon. Gentleman talks, the more ridiculous a posture he gets himself and his party into.
  We have argued this matter at length and researched it carefully. On Second Reading we gave abundant evidence that the ODP system was completely unnecessary and damaging to inner London rents and that it affected our competitiveness in insurance, commerce, banking and mercantile shipping. There is no need for it to be retained. The only justification is to maintain the present bureaucracy for longer than is necessary. I hope that my hon. Friends will adhere to our view and oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Guy Barnett: I must first give the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) the answer to the fast one he bowled at me. He will be surprised to learn that Section 86(1) to which I referred was amended by Section 5 of the 1972 Act. That is the justification for what I was saying.
  It will not do for the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) to say that to extend the control by a couple of years, even though it is only an extension and not a new control, will not bring uncertainty to the property market. That is precisely what it will do. The hon. Member said that all parties on the GLC are opposed to office development control. That matter was aired in Committee. No doubt the hon. Gentleman and office developers know that his party on the GLC is opposed to control and that the Government have deliberately produced a reappraisal of policy which implies some flexibility in the operation of that policy. If one were to add a reduction of the length of control from five to two years, property developers and local authorities would gain the firm impression that the days of office control were numbered. That would certainly be a dangerous situation.
  That is my answer to the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi), who, echoing the interesting information given by the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross)—that interest in office development is at a low ebb at the moment— said that that proved that there was no need for office development control.

  473
  Admittedly there may not be much at the moment, because there is not much mobile office development in the current year, but with the upturn in the economy there almost certainly will be
  The Opposition's amendment which was made in Committee would have had the effect of maintaining office development control during the period when little office development was likely to take place, and when the upturn in the economy came the whole question would be in doubt. Whatever office development might be taking place now, however little, could well be delayed in the expectation that after a couple of years control might be lifted. This could create massive uncertainty in the property market and among local authorities.
  As I said on Second Reading and in Committee, the Government are firm about the need for office development control The Opposition have been critical, but, although we have tried to make it clear to them, they have failed to realise that office development permit control must be seen as part of the policy which includes new terms of reference for the Location of Offices Bureau and the regional grants provided by my right hon. Friend the
  Secretary of State for Industry as an encouragement for offices to move to the assisted areas, where office jobs are badly needed.
  Therefore, I am not convinced by the arguments advanced in this debate. The argument, which has been put again, that all parties in the GLC are against ODP control does not move me, even though I am a London Member, because the purpose of office development control is a regional purpose, to help constituencies such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), where, as in many other parts of Wales, there is a considerable lack of employment opportunity and offices, a matter which we want to redress.
  We believe that by the Government's new policy, of which the Bill is a part, we can move towards a fairer balance of employment opportunities in different parts of the country. Therefore, I must ask my hon. Friends to support the amendment.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 119, Noes 94.

  Division No. 152]

  AYES

  [7.33 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Miller, Mrs Millie (llford N)

  Anderson Donald

  Forrester, John

  Molloy, William

  Ashton, Joe

  Garrett, W.E. (Wallsend)

  Moonman, Eric

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  George, Bruce

  Moyle, Roland

  Atkinson, Norman

  Ginsburg, David

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Gould, Bryan

  Ovenden, John

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Padley, Walter

  Beith, A. J.

  Grocott, Bruce

  Parker, John

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Harper, Joseph

  Parry, Robert

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Hatton, Frank

  Penhaligon, David

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  Campbell, Ian

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  price, William (Rugby)

  Cant, R. B.

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Radice, Giles

  Carson, John

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Cartwright, John

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  John, Brynmor

  Ross Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Johnson Walter (Derby S)

  Ross, Rt Hon. (kilmarnock)

  Coleman, Donald

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Sandelson Neville

  Conlan, Bernard

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Sedgemore Brian

  Cowans, Harry

  Kilroy-Silk Robert

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Lamborn, Harry

  Skinner Dennis

  Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

  Lamond, James

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Lee, John

  Spearing, Nigel

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Deakins, Eric

  Loyden, Eddle

  Stallard, A.W.

  Dempsey, James

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Doig, Peter

  McCartney, Hugh

  Stoddart, David

  Dormand, J. D.

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  MacKenzle, Rt Hon Gregor

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Maclennan, Robert

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Edge, Geoff

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  English, Michael

  Madden, Max

  Watkins, David

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Magee, Bryan

  Weetch, Ken

  Evans, loan (Aberdare)

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Meacher, Michael

  White, James (Pollok)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan

  Mendelson, John

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Woof, Robert

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Mr. James Hamilton and

  Woodall, Alec

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Mr. Peter Snape.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Arnold, Tom

  Hodgson, Robin

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

  Holland, Philip

  Rhodes James, R.

  Biffen, John

  Hordern, Peter

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Body, Richard

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Brooke, Peter

  Hurd, Douglas

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Brotherton, Michael

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Buck, Antony

  Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&W'df'd)

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Budgen, Nick

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Shepherd, Colin

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Kimball, Marcus

  Silvester, Fred

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Sims, Roger

  Clark, William (Croydon S)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Cope, John

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Smith, Timothy John (Ashfleld)

  Costain, A. P.

  Lawson, Nigel

  Speed, Keith

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Loyden, Eddie

  Stainton, Keith

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  McCrindle, Robert

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  MacKay, Andrew James

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Elliott, Sir William

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Mills, Peter

  Tebbit, Norman

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Viggers, Peter

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Moate, Roger

  Wakeham, John

  Forman, Nigel

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Warren, Kenneth

  Goodhew, Victor

  Neubert, Michael

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Newion, Tony

  Wood, Rt Hon Richard

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Page, Richard (Workington)

  Grieve, Percy

  Percival, Ian

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hall, Sir John

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Mr. Peter Morrison and

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Raison, Timothy

  Mr. Carol Mather.

  Hannam, John

  Rathbone, Tim

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Order for Third Reading read— [Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wales's Consent, on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall, signified.]
  7.44 p.m.
  Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  If any points are raised, I should like to have the opportunity to reply to them after the debate.
  7.45 p.m.
  Mr. Rossi: I do not wish to detain the House, because we have already rehearsed the arguments for and against the Bill very fully on Second Reading and again in Committee. Although I am sure that the House would be fascinated to hear me rehearse the arguments once more, I would be bored having to listen to myself say the same thing for the third time of asking.
  The old canard was raised that these ODPs are necessary in order to help the development areas, and that this is the need for office control. We have adduced the evidence on Second Reading and again in Committee that not one office of 10,000 sq. ft. or more for which ODPs were refused found its way out of the
  476
  South-East. They stayed where they were, suffering the inconvenience of cramped conditions, or the firms concerned persuaded the Department to grant them the ODP eventually, or they moved to some other place within the South-East.
  No benefit of the kind that is the justification for the Bill in the eyes of the Minister exists on the evidence that we have seen and argued about and which he has accepted. All I can say to him is that none is so deaf as he who will not hear, and none is so blind as he who will not see.
  The arguments are on the record in Hansard for Tuesday 17th May 1977, commencing at column 320. Having read that into the record, I beg the House to reject the Bill.
  7.47 p.m.
  Mrs. Lena Jeger: I express my total regret concerning this Bill. I well remember the time when the system of office permits came into being. It was because the whole House—I say advisedly "the whole House", including the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), who had ministerial responsibility for the period—was completely outraged at the

  477
  continuing emptiness of blocks of offices in the centre of London—blocks such as Centre Point and the acres of nearby offices which were unoccupied. These continuing vacancies were an outrage to us all. They seemed to me to symbolise a measure of speculative cupidity and bad planning which has hardly been equalled this century.
  I am amazed that my right hon. and hon. Friends are bringing forward this Bill at a time when Centre Point is still empty and when there are still thousands of square feet of empty office buildings in the centre of London. It is no help for the Minister to say, as he did on Second Reading, that he was only changing the limit from 30,000 sq. ft. to 15,000 sq. ft. because several small blocks, particularly if they are built close together, have the same deadening effect on a neighbourhood as one large block.
  My right hon. Friend said on Second Reading:
  "The fact that the office sector continues to expand makes it an obvious contributor to the regeneration of urban areas".—[Official Report, 17th May, 1977; Vol. 932, c. 315.]
  What regeneration has been brought to Camden by the continuing emptiness of Centre Point, which is merely a provocation to the people who lost their homes in order that that site could be cleared for office building?
  There are many more office blocks in the pipeline. There are many more that have not yet been built and for which permits have been granted. It is not as though most of the time these offices are to be built on virgin land; they are being built on land which in central London is precious indeed. I cannot tell the House—no one has kept the figures with sufficient care—of the number of people who have lost their homes in order that great blocks such as Euston Tower could be built.
  I know that one of the arguments for this change of policy is that there are fewer jobs in central London, but it is a pity that sometimes Ministers do not have to try to catch a bus down Tottenham Court Road in the rush hour. If they did they might not feel that central London was becoming an empty desert during working hours. I know all about the difficulties of this situation, but office building has practically nothing to do with
  478
  regeneration. Regeneration can be brought about only by people, and without people there is no community.
  The crying need in central London is for places in which people can live. There are very many special needs which can best be met in that way. I am thinking particularly of students and young single people, for whom there is an alarming lack of provision. Anything that this House does to tilt the balance away from meeting the needs of people in terms of their homes, with the shops that will serve them, and with the pubs in which I hope they will enjoy themselves, cannot be for the social good of our inner cities.
  We have an example of this in Covent Garden, where local people, largely through the work of the Covent Garden Community Association, have been fighting for years to preserve something of the community life of that area, and not without some success. But the shame is— and this is one of the things that puzzles me about this Bill and makes it impossible to vote for the Third Reading—that there are acres of derelict land in Covent Garden which my constituents have to look at and for which office permits have already been given, so that the land cannot be used for any other purpose such as recreation for the community, for shops, or, above all, for homes.
  Developers are leaving the sites unused even though they have their permits. They do this for their own commercial reasons. That is their business, and I do not blame them for that. But I do not know what a Labour Government are doing adopting similar yardsticks when introducing legislation. I am not convinced that there is any need to relax the rules when so many permits are not being acted upon.
  The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) said on Second Reading that at the moment there is a surplus of office accommodation in the London area. I have read all the debates, including the Committee stage, carefully and I can find not a single Member who has denied that this surplus exists in central London. What are we getting, therefore? People are having to leave their homes and communities are being destroyed. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State talks of regeneration. I do not know what regeneration there is in areas that die at 6 o'clock in the evening and are dead at weekends.

  479
  We used to say that the only inhabitants of this area at the weekend were a cat and a caretaker. Times have changed, and it is now more likely to be a fierce dog and a security guard populating the concrete deserts in the heart of London. We have too many offices already, and until those that are already built and those that are in the course of planning are occupied I cannot accept this easing of control.
  I still believe, as the whole House believed a few years ago, that Centre Point and the fact that it continues to be unoccupied is offensive. I am sorry if I tend to talk often about Centre Point, but for me it has become a symbol of the kind of speculative building that no one supports but which the Bill will make easier for future developers to perpetrate. No one else in this House may share that view, but representing as I do a constituency that has suffered grievously in its community life from an excess of office building, I know that most of my constituents, supporters of all parties, would say that there has been enough and that they want no more.
  I end on a lighter note. All of our constituencies have been the scenes of street parties recently. We had a splendid party —I am sure it was the best of all—in Charlotte Street, in an area that we call Fitzrovia. Many people who came from other areas were amazed at the number of children present. They had not realised that all of these families lived in the area between Tottenham Court Road and Charlotte Street. The only pity about all these families—and bonny splendid children they were, living happily in the centre of our city—is that most of them are under threat of losing their homes and of having to move away, breaking off with their schools and losing touch with their neighbourhood, because of the number of applications, some of which have already been accepted, in this, one of the last living lungs of neighbourhood life in that part of my constituency.
  There seems to be some idea among many people that offices are more regenerative than a lot of families having a party in Charlotte Street. Surely nothing can be further from the truth.
  This is a subject which I am not glad to say I know a lot about but on which,
  480
  because of my constituency, a great deal of information has come my way. I am very sorry about the Bill. There are places where it will be useful, but I do not see why it should apply to central London, and we do not want it in Camden.
  7.56 p.m.
  Mr. Tim Sainsbury: I do not want to detain the House for long, if for no other reason than that I want to find the source of the strong smoked-fish smell that permeates the Chamber. I hope that it has nothing to do with the Bill.
  I understand that among the constituents of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Jeger) who do not follow her view about the Bill are the councillors of the London borough of Camden who are opposed, I understand, to the retention of office development permits. So perhaps the borough is not as united in its view as the hon. Lady seems to think.
  We have put into Clause 2 a certain amount of information about areas. I appreciate that the Minister has been intensely busy with drafting the Government's amendment and with his lengthy peroration on the Bill. Perhaps I may remind him, however, that he undertook to write to me about a matter and I still await his letter. Now that he has finished his arduous work on behalf of the Government, he might find time to put pen to paper.
  7.59 p.m.
  Mr. Guy Barnett: I can inform the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) that I have written to him and I have signed a letter concerned with the issues he raised in Committee. I am sure he will receive that letter very shortly.
  A number of us have covered the arguments on the Bill on a number of occasions and we do not want to go over them yet again. Perhaps I may refer, however, to the point raised by the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) concerning the evidence contained in the office location review. That review indicates that, in the particular period examined, large firms that were refused ODPs did not move to the assisted areas. The period concerned ended in 1972. In the following year the Government introduced a system of incentives to the service

  481
  industries in order to attract mobile non-manufacturing employment to the assisted areas.
  I underline that point, and I also underline the point that the incentives were increased in October last year, in order to repeat and emphasise to the House that in my view office development control is unlikely to be fully successful unless accompanied by grants of assistance to firms prepared to move to the regions and also accompanied by the Location of Offices Bureau with its new terms of reference. That is the policy that the Government are putting before the House, and that is the policy that the Government wish the House to support this evening.
  I admit that to some degree ODP control in the previous period before that aspect of policy was not pursued may not have been as successful as many of us would have hoped. That is my answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Hornsey.
  Mr. Rossi: All that the hon. Gentleman is arguing is that the carrot is more effective than the stick and that people obviously refused to move when there was an element of compulsion in the attitude of the Government. But at the moment when the Government introduced incentives of a positive nature they took them up. That is a very human reaction. What we are arguing is that there is no need to have the stick because what has succeeded is the carrot. We are not arguing about the carrot today. Now, the Minister is to give the carrot to certain firms to come back to central London to help regeneration there. Is not that a bit of nonsense?
  Mr. Barnett: Not at all. One aspect is that where a firm is refused an ODP, or where it asks for one and is told that it is unlikely to get it, it comes in contact with my officials, who discuss the possibility of perhaps being moved to an area where office employment is badly needed. The firm is put in touch with the Location of Offices Bureau. The opinion of the Government is that the best forms of dispersal policy are those in which both a little bit of the carrot
  482
  and a little bit of the stick are involved, as well as a little bit of information. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give the policy a chance to work, because I have a strong feeling that on the basis on which it was designed it will work.
  I listened with close interest to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Jeger). Representing a London constituency, although not one facing the sort of problems that my hon. Friend has described, I know of the appalling problems created in her constituency by office development of one kind or another. I remember that Centre Point was planned and built largely—indeeed, wholly— before office development control was introduced. The kinds of problems that my hon. Friend described and the effects which office development may have on certain sorts of communities are surely issues related to planning control rather than to ODP control. I see ODP control as a regional control to try to disperse office development to areas where it is needed.
  In my hon. Friend's constituency there is too much office development, but there are other parts of London—indeed, other parts of the country—where there is too little and where the balance of employment for youngsters does not exist. The sense in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State speaks of offices being able to regenerate communities is the sense in which they are able to offer to young people in certain districts opportunities for employment which they might not have and for which they might be well suited and qualified.
  My hon. Friend said that she cannot support the Bill because it will raise the exemption limits. In fact, the Bill itself will not do that. All that the Bill will do is continue to control, and I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees with that. She criticised my right hon. Friend's decision to raise the exemption limits, and she is entitled to do that in view of what she has told the House. But that is done under an order-making power and not as a consequence of the extension of legislation. In view of that, I hope that my hon. Friend will feel able to support us in the Lobby.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time: —
  Question accordingly agreed to.
  The House divided: Ayes 119; Noes 93.

  Division No. 1531

  AYES

  [8.5 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Garrelt, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Parker, John

  Anderson, Donald

  George, Bruce

  Parry, Robert

  Ashton, Joe

  Ginsburg, David

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Gould, Bryan

  Penhaligon, David

  Atkinson, Norman

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Grocott, Bruce

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Radice, Giles

  Beith, A. J.

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Hatton, Frank

  Rooker, J. W.

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Sandelson, Neville

  Campbell, Ian

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Canavan, Dennis

  John, Brynmor

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Cant, R. B.

  Johnson, Waller (Derby S)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Carson, John

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Cartwright, John

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Snape, Peter

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Spearing, Nigel

  Cohen, Stanley

  Lamborn, Harry

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Coleman, Donald

  Lamond, James

  Stallard, A. W.

  Conlan, Bernard

  Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

  Stoddart, David

  Cowans, Harry

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Davidson, Arthur

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Deakins, Eric

  Maclennan, Robert

  Watkins, David

  Dempsey, James

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Weetch, Ken

  Doig, Peter

  Madden, Max

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Magee, Bryan

  White, James (Pollok)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Meacher, Michael

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Dunnett, Jack

  Mendelson, John

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Edge, Geoff

  Miller, Mrs Millie (llford N)

  Woodall, Alec

  English, Michael

  Molloy, William

  Woof, Robert

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Moonman, Eric

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Moyle, Roland

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Ovenden, John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Padley, Walter

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

  Forrester, John

  Pardoe, John

  Mr. Alf Bates.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Hodgson, Robin

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Arnold, Tom

  Holland, Philip

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

  Hordern, Peter

  Rhodes James, R.

  Biffen, John

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Body, Richard

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Hurd, Douglas

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Brooke. Peter

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Brotherton, Michael

  Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Buck, Antony

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Kimball, Marcus

  Shepherd, Colin

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Silvester, Fred

  Clark, William (Croydon S)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Sims, Roger

  Cope, John

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Costain, A. P.

  Lawson, Nigel

  Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Speed, Keith

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  MacKay, Andrew James

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Mather, Carol

  Stainton, Keith

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mills, Peter

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Elliott, Sir William

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Eyre. Reginald

  Moate, Roger

  Tebbit, Norman

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Viggers, Peter

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Wakeham, John

  Goodhew, Victor

  Neubert, Michael

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Newton, Tony

  Warren,Kenneth

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Wealherill, Bernard

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Page, Richard (Workington)

  Wood, Rt Hon Richard

  Grieve, Percy

  Percival, Ian

  Hall, Sir John

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Raison, Timothy

  Sir George Young and

  Hannam, John

  Rathbone, Tim

  Mr. Spencer Le Marchant

  Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Bill read the Third time and passed

OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS PROJECTS (GRANTS)
8.16 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): I beg to move,

That this House authorises the Secretary of State to pay, or undertake to pay, by way of financial assistance under section 8 of the Industry Act 1972, as amended by section 22 of, and Part I of Schedule 4 to, the Industry Act 1975 and section 1 of the Industry (Amendment) Act 1976, as grants in respect of interest on money borrowed for obtaining in the United Kingdom goods and services for each of the projects specified in column 1 of the Table below carried on by persons specified in respect thereof in column 2 of the Table sums which, together with the sums already paid or undertaken to be paid by way of such financial assistance, exceed the sum of £5 million but do not exceed the sum specified in respect of the project in column 3 of the Table.

TABLE

(1)

(2)

(3)

Project

Persons carrying on Project

Maximum amount of financial assistance

Establishment offshore of production platforms and other installations with their equipment for the development of the Ninian oilfield

Chevron Petroleum Ltd. BNOC (Ninian) Ltd. Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd. Murphy Petroleum Ltd. Ocean Exploration Co. Ltd. BP Petroleum Development Ltd. Ranger Oil (UK) Ltd. Scottish Canadian Oil and Transportation Co. Ltd. London & Scottish Marine Oil Co. Ltd.

£43 million

Establishment offshore of a production platform and other installations with their equipment for the development of the Thistle oilfield

BODL Ltd. Burmah Oil (Exploration) Ltd. BNOC (Thistle) Ltd. Deminex UK Exploration and Production Ltd. Deminex Oil and Gas (UK) Ltd. Santa Fe (UK) Ltd. Tricentrol Thistle Development Ltd. Charterhouse Petroleum Development Ltd. Conoco Ltd. Gulf Oil (Great Britain) Ltd. BNOC (Exploration) Ltd.

£18 million

Establishment offshore of a production platform and other installations with their equipment for the development of the Forties oilfield

BP Oil Development Ltd.

£10 million

Establishment offshore of a production platform and other installations with their equipment for the development of the Brent oilfield

Shell (UK) Ltd. Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd.

£9 million

Establishment offshore of a production platform and other installations with their equipment for the development of the Frigg (UK) gas-field

Total Oil Marine Ltd. Aquitaine Oil (UK) Ltd. Elf Oil Exploration and Production (UK) Ltd. Total Marine Norsk El Norge A/S Aquitaine Norge A/S Norsk Hydro Produksjon A/S

£9 million

The offshore supplies interest relief grant scheme was introduced in October 1973. I say that to remind the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), in case he wants to be pejorative about that order and to recall its history.
The grant scheme was introduced under Section 8 of the Industry Act 1972. As the House knows, affirmative resolutions
486
arise under this section of the 1972 Act when the amount of financial assistance to be provided for a single project is likely to exceed £5 million. For the purposes of this resolution, the United Kingdom offshire oil and gas fields named in it have been considered as a separate project. That is the reason for the detail on the Order Paper.
The amounts shown in column 3 of the table in the resolution are maxima. The grants are payable in instalments, either six-monthly or annually, over a period of up to eight years to the participants in the development of the fields named in column 2 or the successors of those so named.
Let me remind the House of the origins of this scheme. As the extent of the North Sea's potential became apparent in the early 1970s, there was concern that British and particularly Scottish industry would not get its fair share of orders for offshore supplies for equipment and for services in markets where other powerful suppliers were long established overseas and quite entrenched. This was at a time when precisely those British industries which seemed best placed to cater for North Sea requirements were suffering from the shortest order books.
Against this background, the previous Government commissioned a firm of independent consultants. IMEG, the International Management and Engineering Group, was commissioned in 1972 to study the developing offshore market and British industry's place in it. Its report early in 1973 confirmed that British industry was indeed missing out. I might say that this was a very good report in my estimation and that of many of my colleagues.
The report estimated that only between 25 per cent, and 30 per cent, of money spent up to that time by oil companies in developing the offshore fields had been spent on orders to British companies, and it recommended more positive policies on the part of the Government.
Among its findings, IMEG noted that the availability of medium-term credit at officially supported preferential rates was a significant element in the competitiveness of the tenders submitted to offshore operators, and it went on to state that in this respect British companies were at a disadvantage compared with overseas suppliers. This situation arose from the fact that the powers available to the Export Credits Guarantee Department are designed to encourage trade with other countries. Sales by United Kingdom firms to the United Kingdom Continental Shelf are outside the ECGD's remit. Many overseas suppliers, on the other hand, are
488
able to secure the advantage of export credits supported by their national credit institutions since their sales to the UKCS are straightforward exports. As a result, the ability of United Kingdom firms to compete in this challenging new market was increasingly being adversely affected by an inability to offer competitive credit terms.
It was accordingly decided in October 1973 to introduce a scheme which would operate directly on the cost of credit obtained to finance contracts for the supply of goods and services for fixed offshore installations for our Continental Shelf. This Government share the view of the previous Government that the scheme is necessary to counter subsidised competition from suppliers in other countries and believe that it should be maintained.
It is a key objective of Government policy that British industry should have a full and fair, opportunity to succeed in the difficult UKCS market which, despite its currently depressed state, is still worth around £1,000 million a year and is likely to remain at about that level into the 1980s.
Nobody could be more delighted than I to see that the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) has come into the Chamber to speak for the Opposition on this matter.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: I hope that the Minister is not in any way suggesting that I, also on the Opposition Front Bench, could not give a very full and devastating condemnation of Government policy on oil rigs.
Dr. Mabon: No, I am not suggesting that. The hon. Member for Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) would definitely give an adequate reply. Whether it would be a friendly one is quite another matter. I would prefer the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty, who is a much nicer man, but that is a matter of personal preference.
The industrial capability that is being built up in the United Kingdom to meet the particularly stringent requirements of the UKCS should enable our industry to exploit the vast potential of the world wide offshore market. British industry has substantially increased its share of orders for the UKCS market from 35 per cent, in 1973, when the study was commissioned, to rather more than 50 per cent.

489
in 1975 and 1976. Later we shall be discussing orders for the current period.
It would be unrealistic to attribute all this improvement to the interest relief grants scheme; other factors include our proximity to the market and the considerable United Kingdom offshore industrial capacity that has been built up. But the oil companies share the Government's view that the scheme does reasonably counterbalance the availability of foreign preferential credit rates and have confirmed that it is taken into account in their contract decisions.
As for the operation of the scheme, an oil or gas field operator ordering or installing a production platform or pipeline may apply to register with the Offshore Supplies Office of my Department a contract he places with a United Kingdom supplier which meets certain basic requirements. Broadly, these are that the contract value must be £100,000 or more —although grant may be paid only on up to a maximum of 80 per cent, of the contract value—and the contract must be for the provision of, a fixed offshore installation on the United Kingdom shelf outside territorial waters, or plant, machinery or other goods for fitting out such an installation, or services directly connected with the provision of such installations.
Mr. Peter Rost: I wonder whether the Minister would tell us what assistance this will provide for the United Kingdom steel industry, which we understand is still not in a position to supply the offshore underwater piping. What have the Government done since 1973 to put the industry in a better position to compete for this huge market?
Dr. Mabon: That is a very fair point. In July 1976 I discussed this personally with Sir Monty Finniston, that excellent former Chairman of the British Steel Corporation, and he said that he was investigating the possibility of opening one of BSC's installations to see whether it could produce that size of pipe which, incidentally, the Americans are not able to produce for their installations in Alaska and other parts of North America. The information from Sir Charles Villiers, Sir Monty's successor, is that investments are going on in Hartlepool to such an extent that the Corporation will be able to put forward competitive tenders.
490
The BSC has looked very seriously at its capacity in RDL, not just for steel platforms, but for steel modules as well, in order to see how it can compete in this market. I hope that there will be a vigorous effort. The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty has questioned me because he thought that the remarks of Sir George Sharp were prejudiced, but Sir George has been misreported, as they say in these political days. It is not quite like that.
The BSC is making an earnest attempt to get into the market for pipelines and modules, which is considerable and expanding. [Interruption.] Yes, it is expanding. There are still seven more fields to commission and a lot more afterwards, if we are lucky. I say to anybody in the business that the bonanza is not over and there is a lot to be done. I am sorry that the BSC, up to now, has been unable to rival Japanese and other efforts in this regard.
Mr. Hamish Gray: Does the Minister agree that the BSC is not only not able to rival foreign competitors but is not able to rival the yards at Ardersier and Nigg Bay in my constituency? Both these yards have obtained contracts, so the BSC is not only unable to rival foreign competition.
Dr. Mabon: I find it difficult to decide whether the hon. Member is acting as shadow spokesman or as the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty. It is difficult to ride two horses at the same time, especially when they are travelling in opposite directions. The two yards in question are doing well, but they have a substantial American interest. I do not begrudge them that; I am merely saying that it contributes to their success. On the other hand, RDL has had a hard time, but it has put up a good performance. It has delivered on time, but there have been many difficulties. I have reservations about one or two thing that have happened in the past in connection with RDL. However, it is a fair competitor.
We in Britain—and I mean "Britain" since we have three yards in Scotland and one in England—should not quarrel among ourselves about the orders. Our main dedication lies in obtaining orders for Britain. It is true that others, in

491
Holland or Norway or elsewhere, may challenge us, but we must beat them fairly at their own business and obtain the orders for ourselves. I believe that the Nigg installation is admirable, Arder-sier is splendid, and RDL first-class. I also believe that Laings is one of the best yards in the United Kingdom. All four deserve to be widely considered. The foreign yards are not very good, and we should concentrate on obtaining orders for our own yards.
We are talking about a whole range of contracts for steel and concrete production platforms and deck structures and module fabrications. I received a deputation this very evening from a Clydeside firm in that connection. This embraces a wide variety of products: process plant and equipment, well casings, well-head communications and safety equipment as well as pipework. There are many associated engineering and supporting services connected, for example, with design work, project management and installation. All these matters are covered by this affirmative resolution. The total number of contracts so far registered under the scheme approaches a figure of 500, with total expenditure in the United Kingdom in excess of £800 million.
Having registered a contract under the scheme, the consortium financing the field development of which the contract forms part may claim interest relief grants on borrowing undertaken specifically to finance that field. Individual consortium members must satisfy the Offshore Supplies Office that, for example, the borrowing they undertake is of a genuine arm's length nature. Grant has been fixed since the start of the scheme at 3 per cent, per annum, payable on the outstanding balance of the qualifying loan. The maximum period for which grant may be claimed is eight years for any particular project, with provision for progressive reduction of the outstanding qualifying amount over the last five years.
To revert to the resolution now before the House, the amounts of assistance for which I am asking the House for approval are my Department's estimates of the likely maximum grants payable under contracts associated with the probable development of each of the five fields named. These estimates depend, I quite
492
agree, on many uncertain factors, including the nature, scale and timing of development programmes, the proportion of contracts likely to be won by United Kingdom suppliers, the extent to which applicants make qualifying borrowings to finance such contracts, and the timing of the repayments of such borrowings. The estimates have been prepared after consultations with the operators, but they are our estimates.
The maximum amounts of grant for which approval is sought are admittedly large. To put the grant in perspective, I can say that broadly, each pound of grant represents between £8 and £10 of business for the United Kingdom. For the five fields in question—making allowances for contracts still to come— we are looking to over £800 million worth of work for United Kingdom companies. I should also add that the total amounts of grant envisaged will not be realised —if they ever are—until 1982–83.
Mr. Rost: Will the Minister fill in the details by explaining how much has already been granted under the scheme and whether, in his view, this is a satisfactory reflection of the contribution that British industry has been able to make to North Sea oil development?
Dr. Mabon: I suspect the latter, but I shall not deal in generalities. If I have an opportunity to reply to the debate I may be able to give the figure, which I hope will be supplied to me in the course of our proceedings.
The present resolution concerns only five fields. There are 14 other fields currently under development on the United Kingdom Continental Shelf, but in none of these cases is it yet clear whether assistance under the scheme will exceed £5 million. These cases are being kept under review, and we shall return to the House to seek approval for any more affirmative resolutions that may prove to be required, if and when the need is established.
In line with the provisions of Section 8 of the 1972 Act, it has been made clear to the oil companies in the published "Guide to Industry" on the scheme, and repeated in every letter accepting a contract for registration under that scheme, that the Secretary of State cannot pay or undertake to pay sums exceeding 5 million by way of grant unless and until the House has approved a higher sum.

493
It would be appropriate for me to say a few words about the EEC Commission's inquiry into the scheme. Although the Commission raised no objection when the scheme was introduced in 1973 it has since expressed to the Government its concern that the scheme may be distorting competition within the Community. It has suggested that the scheme might be modified. We have told the Commission that we consider it necessary to maintain an effective scheme to counter subsidised competition from suppliers in other countries—not necessarily EEC countries—and that while we doubt that the scheme causes problems in intra-Community trade, we are prepared to discuss any proposals that the Commission might wish to elaborate. The Secretary of State for Energy met Commissioner Vouel on 16th May when the subject came into the discussion. It was agreed that officials on both sides would get together on the matter. In the meantime, the Commission has been notified of our intention to put the resolution before the House.
Mr. Anthony Nelson: Will the Minister elaborate on this, because it is an important matter? My understanding is that action is to be taken by the Commission under Article 93(2) to modify the system and that this follows the representation that has already been made by the Government to the Commission. Will the Minister say exactly what action is envisaged and whether, following these discussions, a stop or hold has been put on any action under that article?
Dr. Mabon: The response from the Commission has been extremely friendly. Many of the misconceptions about the scheme that have been in the minds of many people in Europe have been dispelled and I do not imagine that the Commission will proceed much further than it has done. I believe that it recognises that our scheme is perfectly fair and reasonable and that it is not ready to proceed further in the matter.
That may not be the outcome, but the Government take the view that in any process that may follow this we should be willing to defend our position. Even though the original scheme was introduced by our predecessors, who were ardent pro-Marketeers, we believe that the scheme quite justifies itself in the best
494
pro-Marketeer sense and is in no way antipathetic to the interests of the Community. On the contrary, if the scheme were dispensed with it would work against the Nine rather than for them. We shall maintain that argument if any challenge is made. I am open to correction, but I think that we have reached the end of that road of contention and misunderstanding and that we are now able to see the light on this scheme.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Since this is one of the few opportunities that we shall have for discussing this matter, we are entitled to more information. Is the Minister saying that the Commission is satisfied on the basis of the discussions it has had about the scheme and that the Commission believes that it is not inconsistent?
Dr. Mabon: If the Commission is wise it will be satisfied. I know that the hon. Member for Cathcart is not the most ardent pro-Marketeer in the House—I can think of other hon. Members who are more intensely pro-Market than he—but I believe that on reflection the Commission will realise that in the changed conditions of today that is not an unreasonable position for us to take in relation to the development of the North Sea. On this matter I hope that we shall receive as much support from those in favour of the Market as from those who are against it, that it will be realised that this is the situation and that it will not be challenged. Therefore, the views of the Commission apart—and I am surprised that the hon. Member for Cathcart should be bedazzled by the Commission, because he should be more concerned with the position of the House —I ask the House to agree to the resolution, with or without the approval of the Commission. I hope that the House will thereby demonstrate its support for the continuation of this policy, which has been pursued by both Conservative and Labour Administrations.
The House will be well aware—many Members whose constituencies are directly affected will be keenly aware—of the concern that exists among unions, managements and work forces about the difficult time that the offshore supplies industry has been facing during the last 18 months or so and is still facing because of the hiatus in ordering. This has been brought about by the escalating costs of

495
developing our oil and natural gas resources offshore and the need seen by the oil companies, in view of this experience and developing technology, to reassess their investment plans.
Without the resolution, the scheme would collapse. It would effectively be at an end. The continued availability of preferential credits for overseas supplies means that we must continue to help to ensure the competitiveness of our hard-pressed supply industry and thereby reduce the risks to the heavy investments that the industry has made in this business in terms of capital, management and engineering skills and, above all, to reduce the risks to the jobs involved.
I appeal to members of the Opposition and other parties to join the Government in supporting the resolution.
8.41 p.m.
Mr. Hamish Gray: I apologise to the Minister for not being in my place for his opening few sentences.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend did not miss much.
Mr. Gray: I shall not comment on that intervention. I shall read what the Minister said and judge whether I was deprived of any great pearls of wisdom.
I am glad that the Minister acknowledges that the initial scheme was introduced by my party when in Government. On 6th November 1973, my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Butler) asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress he had made in preparing a scheme to improve the credit terms available for sales of British equipment and services for the development of United Kingdom offshore oil and gas resources. Mr. Christopher Chata-way, who has now sought remuneration elsewhere, replied:
"Accordingly my Department is now ready to provide, under Section 8 of the Industry Act, interest relief grants at 3 per cent. per annum on credit obtained to finance contracts for the provision of British goods and services for the construction of fixed offshore installations used in the development of hydrocarbon resources on the United Kingdom Continental Shelf. To qualify, orders for goods and services must have been placed on or after 1st October 1973. These grants will help to create fair competition in this market."—[Official Report, 6th November 1973; Vol. 863, c. 119.]
496
That shows that as long ago as 1973 my party was fully alerted to the necessity for a scheme such as this and took the initial steps to ensure that the investment of British companies in the North Sea was wholly safeguarded. Those facts are at variance with what we have been told by the Government about the inadequate measures taken by the last Conservative Administration. I am glad that the Minister confirmed that he inherited the scheme, and I am pleased that the Government have not cast it aside.
The motion, which authorises the Secretary of State to make payments under the Industry Act 1972, is relatively narrow and we are grateful to the Minister for broadening the debate. The order is narrow because its provisions deal mainly with Section 8 of the 1972 Act. About £90 million is involved, and it is essential that the House should examine carefully the way in which the money is being used. This is the first time that we have been able to debate this specific subject.
The annual reports by the Secretary of State for Industry have included references to assistance to offshore projects. The 1974 report, for example, said at paragraph 51:
"Other projects may be considered under Section 8. Three large projects in that category were under consideration at 31st March 1974."
That again highlights the fact that, because the Conservative Party when in Government introduced the measure, aid was at that time being considered although, because these measures were in their infancy, it was not necessary actually to pass money at that stage.
Paragraph 52 of the same report goes on to explain that the Offshore Supplies Office administers the special offshore supplies interest relief grant scheme designed to help United Kingdom firms to compete with overseas suppliers. We are grateful to the Minister for going into such detail on how the scheme operates at present. United Kingdom suppliers, as we know, are not eligible for ECGD facilities, while overseas suppliers have access to loan finance at preferential rates from their national export credit institutions.
In the report of 1975, this is clearly spelt out at paragraph 52. I shall not

497
repeat it because it is virtually what the Minister has explained to us already. But my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) raised the important question of the effect of our EEC obligations on the administration of what is proposed in the motion. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor)—to whom I am indebted for taking my place for a few minutes while I was detained elsewhere —also raised the same question.
I should refer also to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet), who, with his usual ingenuity—
Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: Where is he?
Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend has given me his apologies tonight because he has an important group of constituents visiting him in the building, and this has prevented his being in the Chamber.
I was about to say that my hon. Friend received a Written Answer on 8th June 1976 in which the Minister of State said that he had not received any complaints from our European partners at that time. I am glad that he has elaborated on that tonight. May I put it to him, however, that on 31st March 1974 it was known that contracts valued at about £100 million were in final stages of preparation. One comes, therefore, to the question of the EEC attitude towards those contracts and the fact that what is here proposed would be applicable to them. Was its attitude cleared during the renegotiations which the Minister's Government undertook before the referendum? If it was, there is no question of the EEC taking exception to what we are doing now. But it would be interesting to know from the Minister whether this specific point was raised with our partners in the Community at that time.
The report of 1975, paragraph 50, states that by that time 193 contracts were registered under the scheme and that these involved maximum qualifying borrowing amounting to £128 million, on which assistance to a maximum of 3 per cent. for up to eight years would be provided. However, at that time the amount which had been paid out was only £44,000. By March 1976, however, contracts registered under the interest relief grant scheme numbered 130, and
498
by then £1·1 million had been paid out. This is recorded at paragraph 56 of the 1976 report.
The motion reveals the interest that has been shown in the development of the North Sea. Despite what the Government may say and what the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) may say on behalf of the Scottish National Party, this interest was undoubtedly built upon the firm foundation of the terms of the licences issued by the Conservative Government when they were in power.
Each round of licences must be considered in the light of the current situation. I shall always defend the Conservative Government for the licences which they issued when in power. There is little doubt in my mind and in the minds of many people that, had the attractive terms offered by the Conservative Government at that time not been offered, the prosperity which is about to be appreciated in this country from North Sea oil would not exist.
Mr. Gordon Wilson: Is the hon. Member saying that the discovery of oil in the Forties Field did not represent a change of circumstances which should have led to the automatic tightening of licensing conditions? I accept that the conditions before the discovery of oil in the Forties Field justified the then Government's action, but not afterwards.
Mr. Gray: I do not agree with the hon. Member although I take his point. I am glad that he concedes my point about the licences issued prior to the discovery of oil in the Forties Field.
The Forties Field was the first major discovery. It was to the advantage of this country that the terms which applied to that field should have encouraged British Petroleum to exploit the oil to its full extent. It was because of the confidence which the Conservative Party gave to this project that we are all now about to reap the benefit.
Mr. Gordon Wilson: Is the hon. Member aware that the Forties Field was discovered in 1969? The Conservatives therefore took office in 1970 with the knowledge that Forties had been discovered, and that would have affected their judgment about the terms.
Mr. Gray: I do not accept that. The hon. Member is unintentionally misleading the House. Although oil in the Forties Field was discovered in 1969, its full potential was not known until many years later. Only last year British Petroleum announced that the potential of the Forties Field was even greater than had been originally believed. It would have been foolhardy for the Government to change the rules before they knew the full extent of the development. I defend my party without any fear.
Situations change and, as they change, so do the awarding of grants and the determining of the criteria upon which grants should be extended. I am satisfied that the steps taken by my party when in Government were justifiable in the light of the circumstances that prevailed at that time.
The motion deals principally with the application of grant aid to those involved in the platform and module industry. I declare an active interest in platform yards since I represent a constituency in the North of Scotland which has within its boundaries two of the largest oil platform building yards in Britain.
The Nigg Bay yard produces steel platforms and the Kishorn yard builds concrete platforms. I am proud to say that they have achieved worldwide success through private enterprise. They were helped because private industry in the two places was welcomed by the local community. They use local labour, and where local labour is not sufficient it is imported. They have produced platforms and won orders in competition with such organisations as the British Steel Corporation, Methil, Graythorpe and yards on the Continent. The Nigg Bay yard has a very proud record. The enormous central platform that is being built at the Kishorn yard for Chevron will undoubtedly attract further orders.
Mr. Neville Sandelson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman has only just come into the Chamber. He does not come in very often, so he can sit and listen.
Mr. Sandelson: I come in all the time.
Mr. Gray: In that case we do not see the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Sandelson: Perhaps that is because the hon. Gentleman is not here very often.
Mr. Gray: When the hon. Gentleman has sat it out for a little while I may give way, but he cannot walk in and interrupt my speech like this. I have great sympathy with the hon. Gentleman, who has problems—
Mr. Sandelson: I have no problems.
Mr. Gray: I shall not give way, whether or not the hon. Gentleman has problems. We shall take care of our problems; he can look after his.
We must also say that the question of diversification is very important indeed. For these yards the oil platform industry is very important indeed, and it will not last for ever. We all appreciate and realise that. The Minister of State himself has from time to time raised the question of diversification. Indeed, in an article which appeared in the Financial Times as long ago as 7th December 1976, the Minister of State is reported as saying that the necessity for diversification was absolutely essential and that
"companies are being urged to diversify and to look outwards to potential exporting markets."
He went on to name the opportunities available in the Middle East, South-East Asia, Brazil, the Soviet Union. Australasia and the Far East. We know that many of our platform yards have followed this up and have tried to attract attention from those areas, and not without considerable success.
The Government's policy concerning the oil platform yards was wrong. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not try to deny the fact that about £20 million to £25 million was spent unnecessarily in yards at Portavadie and Hunterston which have not attracted a solitary order to date.
Mr. Gordon Wilson: We told them so.
Mr. Gray: Yes, indeed. They were told repeatedly. However, they went ahead with this and, while I do not wish to be too carping about it, it was an unfortunate misjudgment at the time, but it is a misjudgment for which the Government must accept responsibility.
Concerning the question of the grants that are now available, perhaps this is a suitable time for us to revise the criteria

501
for which those grants are offered. Indeed, it is for the Government seriously to consider whether it is any longer practical to offer the grants on the scale on which they have been offered in the past if they are convinced that companies will develop in any event. That is something that each Government in turn must consider very carefully.
I know that the right hon. Gentleman has taken this on board and will no doubt be considering it in the future. However, it might even be the case that, where highly profitable and potentially highly profitable exercises are to be entered into by major companies, there might be a case for at least some of the grants being given in the form of loans, so that it can be repayable at a future time. I shall not go further than that, but I think it is a point that the Minister will wish to consider carefully.
I have one or two questions about the relationship of the motion to the rest of the administration of the Act under which the grants are given. May we have some idea of what percentage of the total grants made under the 1972 Act goes to the oil-related purposes for which the motion refers? I realise that that is a broad question. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will touch upon it when he replies. In these days of devolution, or separation, as the hon. Member for Dundee, East might describe them, what proportion of the £90 million has gone to yards in Scotland or yards working for basic companies in Scotland? I realise that in the context of the United Kingdom it is difficult to make such a sub-division because sub-contractors do not necessarily locate themselves within the narrow confines of the home countries. However, it would be useful to be given some indication.
I should like to know what estimate the Government have made of the use that may be made of Section 8 of the 1972 Act over the next few years. For example, the Minister mentioned the number of fields that are likely to be developed over the next few years. It would be useful to know what forward prediction the Government have made over the next three years, for example, of the amount that is likely to be payable under Section 8 to companies developing the North Sea potential.
502
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will mention briefly the British National Oil Corporation, which is mentioned in the motion from time to time. There is a slight difficulty because the BNOC will presumably be receiving grant aid although it does not operate on the same basis as the other organisations with which it is in partnership. For example, it does not pay petroleum revenue tax. It is in a number of fairly privileged positions when compared with its partners. In what way is grant being paid to it?
In the Corporation's report it is pointed out that in its early stages most of its liability was due to the interests that it had taken over elsewhere. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will say a word about that. The House will be interested to know in what category it has received grant under the Act.
I do not wish to detain the House very much longer. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson) has found it necessary to leave the Chamber. I was anxious to give way to him. I am sure that he had a valuable contribution to make. However, with these few remarks I wish the motion well. I hope that the various peripheral parts of the United Kingdom, especially the peripheral parts of Scotland, and not least the constituency of Ross and Cromarty, may benefit in due course from anything it has to offer.
9.8 p.m.
Mr. James Dempsey: I was interested in the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, who in his usual lucid fashion explained the operation of the grants. I was attracted to his contribution when he referred to the benefits to industry in general, especially in Scotland. I was sorry that he did not develop that approach a little further. Some of us would like to know to what extent the grants will benefit the spin-off jobs throughout the whole of Scotland.
There seems to be some misunderstanding about the contribution that British Steel Corporation has made towards the development of the capacity for piping in the North Sea. It is clear that it has done remarkably well. I can recall questioning why the very wide dimension of pipelining could be done

503
only by Japan. At that time it was the only country that specialised in this dimension. I thought that we in this part of the world should be doing something about it.
It has been pointed out to me that if we had to provide such piping we should have to equip a special mill. What would happen to the mill at the turn of the century when the demand for North Sea piping had been met? What would it then be used for? If it were to be made redundant, the Opposition would be the first to criticise the BSC for the lack of marketing knowledge and failure to anticipate trade trends.
That is why the BSC concentrates on supplying other types of piping. For example, my contituency has done jolly well out of the North Sea development. We opened a works that had been closed so as to deal with North Sea piping. We have modernised an old hand repairing mill which might by now have been closed—the Imperial Tube Works at Airdrie—and are in the process of spending £18 million expanding it, increasing the number of jobs from 200 to 720.
These are some of the benefits that we have gained from the BSC's imaginative entry into North Sea piping supply. If my hon. Friend says it has now found some means of competing with the Japanese for the specialised piping they manufacture, I wish the BSC well.
Mr. Michael Marshall: One can understand the hon. Member's valid point about his constituency sharing in these benefits, but, on the BSC argument which he advanced, would he not consider that it is sad that the BSC did not foresee and take advantage of this demand? Otherwise, why were the Japanese able to take advantage of it? The hon. Gentleman talks about what will happen at the turn of the century, but surely there was a time scale here which we in this country could have enjoyed. Would he not agree on reflection that a major problem was the total uncertainty about investment intentions due to constantly changing Government intervention in the BSC's affairs?
Mr. Dempsey: No, I do not think that Government intervention had anything to do with it. In accordance with the per-
504
formance of publicly-owned industries, this was a commercial decision, based on the fact that this type of product was strictly limited and that the Corporation could see no further use for a mill beyond that time. That was the reason given at the time, a few years ago.
Times may have changed and there may be other markets abroad. It is well known that the Japanese were specialising in that type of piping, not merely for North Sea oil but for developments in many other parts of the world.
Therefore, I can only convey to the hon. Gentleman the advice that I received from the management of the BSC at that time when we pressed this demand. I can only relay to the House the replies given to me.
But we can still do much better. I want to draw the Minister's attention to the section of the Industry Act which is operating. I am never too sure what elements are implemented by the Secretary of State for Industry, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Scottish Development Agency respectively.
I hope that I shall be forgiven for mixing my metaphors, but in Scotland there is an inordinate demand for small factory space for oil-related developments. But I am dashed if we have such facilities. I have done all I can to induce the powers that be to provide them. I even invited Sir William Gray, the Chairman of the Scottish Development Agency, to meet me. He courteously did so. I took him over a few sites which are tailor-made for the construction of small factories to take advantage of oil-related developments in the North Sea. That was 18 months ago, but there has still been no decision by the SDA, which, I understand, operates Section 7 of the Industry Act to provide industrial grants for building factory developments and equipping factories. As far as I know, not one small factory has been built over that period in the whole of my area and outwith my constituency.
I appeal to my right hon. Friend to use his good offices with whichever agency is responsible to get cracking and let us have the small units which are in so much demand by up-and-coming business men. We need new skills and young management. We need not only

505
to encourage working people and provide jobs but to encourage the development of skilful management and stimulate young people to think of making a go of it themselves—for example, setting out on the path to having their own little concern and thus making a contribution to oil-related jobs and providing more employment, especially in areas of very high unemployment, and at the same time retaining and expanding the skills of which we can be very proud in our part of the country.
All those opportunities are being lost because we have no small factory units. I appeal to my right hon. Friend to discuss the matter with his ministerial colleagues and try to bring about a decision to develop such small units, to encourage such jobs and to make the maximum of the oil-related developments taking place off the North Coast of Scotland.
9.12 p.m.
Mr. Gordon Wilson: I suppose that this is yet another chapter in the great North Sea oil bungle by both Governments. I had an exchange with the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray), and I was disappointed that, with his usual ability to slip round difficult fences, he did not accept my point that the Conservative Government from 1970 onwards were well aware of what the Forties oilfield meant. If the data about the field had not been supplied to the Government, or if they did not take it in, that was another bungle by them. I am not blaming the hon. Gentleman personally, because he did not then occupy his present position. The mess in which the last Conservative Government left the economy generally is well known, so it is only to be expected that they were not immune from making the wrong decisions in other matters.
We are discussing an interest subsidy. The Minister put quite a good gloss on it when he talked about the export credits guarantee incentives and said that they did not apply to the home market. That was a strong argument, about the only one that can be applied to this scheme. If the scheme has produced employment and contracts, as I am sure it has done, it is to be welcomed, but we must examine it to see whether in other circumstances, with other approaches, public money might have been saved.
506
We must accept—this is part of he procedures that we sometimes look upon with a degree of doubt—that at this late date there is nothing much we can do because the scheme has been in existence and we are now putting a rubber stamp on the expenditure which has been promised as part of two Governments' proposals for expanding the amount of United Kingdom involvement in the offshore industry.
I question much of the financing. The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty referred to the two yards at Hunterston and Portavadie, where there was substantial previous expenditure by the Government on the provision of facilities which have never been used. It would not surprise me if at some time the Public Accounts Committee turned its attention to those two yards. I know that the Government have often said that at some time in the future those yards may be used, but we must realise that, with the paucity of orders facing the industry, if an order goes to those two new yards it will be to the detriment of the existing yards and those now employed in them.
As to whether these grants were necessary, the oil companies already get a massive allowance from the Government for the purpose of petroleum revenue tax. If I recall the figure correctly from the Committee dealing with oil taxation two years ago, about 75 per cent. of the capital cost was provided in an uplift allowance. That allowance was to apply not only to the capital expended, which presumably was 100 per cent., but also to the interest on the capital before any return accrued to the company. If that 75 per cent. was an interest allowance, we have here yet another subsidy being made available to the companies, which will get a rebate of interest on platforms which is not deductible from the PRT uplift allowance, as it is called.
Will the Minister comment on the extent of the financial incentive being made available to the Government? We have two separate things. The companies are getting a rebate on the petroleum revenue tax because they are allowed to set off an allowance for interest. Under the position here, we find that they are also being given a cash subsidy for placing their orders with certain yards located in Scotland.

507
As the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty said, as and when the bonanza is made known the conditions of the licensing should be made progressively tougher. I hope that there will not be much disagreement on either side in relation to that. One must obviously strike the best possible bargain in the national interest, particularly if one is disposing of a national asset.
The argument which develops—I shall not make too much of it tonight—concerns the point of time at which the toughening-up process should have been started and whether we have gone far enough at present. My party feels that successive Governments have been far too slack and that the oil companies have virtually been laughing at the Government for being so soft for so long.
Mr. Gray: I put to the hon. Gentleman the converse argument that as the oil is depleted the time will come when it might be suitable to make the terms of the licences that much easier where there is a need to develop marginal fields.
Mr. Wilson: There are two separate aspects to that. I would not disagree at all on that with the hon. Gentleman. As and when the negotiating position changes we should not take cognisance of that, but while the negotiating position is strong I think that we should. We should also separate the fact that smaller or marginal fields should be dealt with in a different way from the major fields. Here, in relation to the motion, we are certainly dealing with the major fields. Ninian must be very high up in the league. Thistle is no mean development. There may be some argument over Forties, which was one of the first developments and, therefore, might possibly have been dealt with in a different way from some of the others. Brent is hardly the smallest —it is in fact the biggest—and Frigg is the biggest gasfield in the North Sea.
From all these aspects, I think that we should relate our discussion to the major fields. I concede that there is an interest in developing the marginal fields. I have said so frequently, and particularly in relation to the oil taxation measure, and the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Bill.
508
What could the Government have done? Once they had appreciated that oil was present in large quantities and could be developed, and that because of this the oil companies themselves would have a continuing interest in taking out new licences, it should have been made clear to the companies that, if they transgressed blatantly in buying equipment for the North Sea which was not produced from Scotland, they would not be given any further licences, or, at least, their opportunities for getting licences in the plummier areas would be rendered much more difficult.
I think that the Government are perhaps considering some of the proposals I have been making, but they would never dare admit this because most of the fighting is done out of sight. Nevertheless, what is being done is being done far too late. The production licences could have been made dependent upon the purchase of suitable quantities of equipment from Scotland.
The Minister of State referred to the somewhat greater than 50 per cent. share of the offshore market which is now enjoyed by the United Kingdom. I think that the figure is about 52 per cent., but unfortunately he has never told us what the Scottish figure is. There have been many requests for him to estimate that figure. It is a very important market. With the OSO located in Glasgow, I should have thought that it would be easy for it to calculate the Scottish share, or at least to make a fairly intelligent guess. Is the figure 20 per cent., 25 per cent. or 32 per cent.? The Minister is unwilling to say, and even Professor Donald Mackay has commented on the difficulty of extracting information from the Government.
If the Minister of State is about to repent and give that information, we shall cry "Hallalujah!" and be glad that he is prepared to tell us what it is. Whether we believe him is another matter. If hon. Members want me to give an estimate. I would put it at between 25 and 32 per cent. I am not sure that I would believe the Minister's figure, and given a choice between the two I would probably prefer my own.
I do not want to annoy the Minister, because he has been taking a suitably anti-European line. Only yesterday he

509
was pulling at the beards of his European comrades, telling them to take their hands off British oil. I only wish that he would tell his English colleagues to take their hands off Scottish oil. Since he is beginning to learn, we hope that in a few years he will see reason on this score, particularly as the oilfields will be under totally Scottish control at that time.
The European Commission may take the view that this scheme, faulty as it is in many ways, should be discontinued for the benefit of the Commission. I accept the Minister's argument that the implementation of the scheme might be for the benefit of the nine members of the Community as well as specifically for the benefit of the United Kingdom and Scotland. But he should tell his comrades in the EEC that they are not going about their activities in such a way as to gain public popularity. The reputation of the Common Market has been falling sadly in the last two years.
The EEC is quite prepared to grab our fish. It is trying to grab our oil, and even now it is trying to grab the oil jobs. It is trying to grab the jobs from Ross and Cromarty, and even the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty, who has been a loyal supporter of Brussels, appears to be coming round to the opinion that Ross and Cromarty must come before Brussels. [Interruption.] Apparently the hon. Gentleman does not believe that. So be it. We should tell the Common Market in no uncertain terms that if it wants to retain any popularity in Scotland it should cease this impertinent interference in our affairs.
I was interested in the remark by the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty that instead of giving grants we should consider loans. In an earlier debate—I believe it was on the Cromarty oil refinery—the point was made that we should consider large advances or loans to petrochemical institutions on the basis that these should be separately negotiated. As the hon. Member said, many of these organisations would want to come here anyway and there is no point in subsidising an industry which is only too desperate to set up camp in a given area. That idea should be followed through. It might even be applied to the Cromarty refinery itself.
The Government should perhaps now look at the question of giving more atten-
510
tion to the revision of the technology in the yards concerned to develop tension-leg platforms which have export potential. That is where a large part of the market will develop.
Only last week I was in the United States. Although the Americans are very anxious about the environment and about pollution which might be caused to their sea-going areas, it seems only a matter of time before their shortage of oil and gas will drive them to developing their Continental Shelf in a more active fashion than they have been doing lately. If that is so, and if other countries follow suit, exportable platforms will undoubtedly be a far better bet than the present ones, which are large and cumbersome and not easily transportable from one part of the world to another, particularly if there is the danger of foul weather in the process.
I welcome the motion. It has undoubtedly produced some employment in these difficult days. That is welcome, but I still share many reservations about whether it is necessary. A lot of push and pull will still have to take place before we get the benefits for which we have had to pay so expensively to the tune of £89 million.
9.27 p.m.
Mr. Anthony Nelson: The comments of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) on the need for research and development in this important industry will meet with agreement on both sides of the House. However I am bound to say that some of his remarks on the handling of North Sea development by successive Conservative and Labour Governments appeared slightly less than objective. One cannot help wondering how even an independent Scotland would have been able to raise sufficient finance to offer a scheme similar to that which we are debating this evening.
I start by paying tribute to the outstanding performance of the many companies involved in the offshore supply industry. There is no doubt that many United Kingdom companies have responded successfully and profitably to the immense challenges presented by the discovery of North Sea oil within the last decade. The fact that United Kingdom offshore supply companies account for

511
half the contracts in the North, Celtic and Irish Seas is a great tribute to the flexibility of the North Sea oil supply industry and its ability to see opportunities and profit from them.
This has been a £1 billion-a-year market, which the managing director of Esso has projected as doubling to a £2 billion-a-year market until 1980. Therefore, there are still tremendous and growing opportunities for the British offshore supply industry. I have no doubt that it will be quick to seize the opportunities that that presents.
Mr. Michael Marshall: Would not my hon. Friend take his argument wider and agree that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) is in a way urging the case for further State intervention at an early stage?
Is it not the case that had it not been for private enterprise the whole of this exercise would never have got off the ground? We ought to be mindful of the fact that the Scottish National Party is pushing more State interventionism in the whole of this argument.
Mr. Nelson: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right in his comments. Indeed, despite the SNP's criticism it patently would not have been able to raise sufficient finance to offer anything like the scheme that we are debating tonight at the beginning of the development period. We have been told by the Offshore Supplies Office at the Department of Energy that the proportion of the market that United Kingdom companies supply could be increased to about 60 per cent. It is quite clear that even if the proportion increased only by about 10 per cent. the amount of money that we are talking about would be very considerable indeed. Equally, it is true that it will be much more difficult to increase the size of our share of the market over the 50 per cent. level and that it will become more costly as time goes on.
It is also clear that although many of the companies operating in the North Sea have given undertakings that they will provide full and fair opportunity for all suppliers to compete for orders, there is to some extent an indication of a bending of the rules, in that national pre-
512
ferences are creeping in. The perhaps poor performance of the Norwegian supply industry in supplying only about 15 per cent. of the Norwegian Shelf has been followed by clear action by Statoil, the Norwegian agency, to increase its percentage of orders for its own country. The fact that many nationalised oil operators are now acting in joint partnership with public and independent oil companies is perhaps the first sign that there will be much greater pressure for orders to be placed in the countries concerned and that the operators will not be able to offer the full and fair opportunities for tendering that they have been able to in the past.
I want now to say a little about the EEC Commision's report on the operation of this scheme, not only because of its relevance to this motion but because it is very important for future Government intervention and any form of assistance to industry provided under successive Industry Acts.
The Minister indicated earlier that the Commission had informally withdrawn its threat to take action under Article 93(2) of the Treaty of Rome, but it is clear and in writing, in paragraph 221 of the Sixth Report on Competition Policy, that
"The Commission therefore decided to initiate the procedure under Article 93(2) of the EEC Treaty in respect of the scheme."
That followed representations that the Government had made. If the Minister is now saying that the Commission has withdrawn the intention of any action under this article he should be quite unequivocal about it, because this is very important for all the companies operating in the offshore supply industry.
Some of the observations in the EEC Commission's report are interesting in considering the basis of interest relief schemes. In its report, the Commission differentiates between the interest relief that is given to suppliers and that which is given to operators. It feels that although there was a case for such selective financial assistance being given to potential supply companies at the beginning of the development period this has ceased to be the case and should be discontinued. There is no doubt that the recipients of the funds that we are now discussing will exclusively be operators in the North Sea, rather than supplying companies.

513
However, on the question of operators, the EEC Commission also feels that competition within the Community will be seriously disturbed by an escalation of the funds made available through this and similar schemes.
It is true that it was a Conservative Government who introduced the 1972 Industry Act, but it is equally true that this Government have, through amendments in the Industry Act 1975 and by orders which have vastly increased the funding made available through these Acts, radically transformed both the intention of and the criteria for providing selective financial assistance to industry. The level at which it is being provided now is very different from that envisaged during the passage of the 1972 Act.
Equally, it is clear that the intention at that time of assisting and providing Government encouragement for the development of an offshore supply industry has been acted upon by the private sector and has been successful. But it is proper, when we are considering further expenditure of public and taxpayers' money on these schemes, to question whether, now that the industry has developed, this is really the best use of taxpayers' money.
I believe that there are serious questions—I would not put them as strongly as criticisms—which the House should debate and consider on the efficacy of interest relief grants. After all, if a case for providing interest relief grants can be made for the offshore supply industry, there may be a case for other areas of industry as well where potential markets exist both at home and abroad. I have no doubt that this Government would be the first to seize on this possibility, if it offered a means of overcoming serious political difficulties on employment.
I believe that the extension of interest relief to other areas is something that the British Government cannot afford at present. There may be less of a case for the provision of such schemes at a time when inflation is falling, not rapidly but to some extent and, as a reflection of that, interest rates are falling more sharply.
If the Government offer a grant to a major offshore supply company aimed at meeting some of the cost of interest on
514
capital in setting up plants when interest rates are 14 per cent., they must be satisfied that without such assistance the company would fail to set up productive machinery. If, in the course of another six months or a year, interest rates fall to 11 per cent., the 3 per cent. benefit that the Government gave to that company would become redundant.
In that situation, when interest rates have fallen, as they have done in recent months, is it still appropriate for the Government to provide extra support and subsidy, when that support was supplied originally to encourage the setting up of productive capacity and to make the tendering of supplies from that company more competitive internationally. When interest rates fall, so do the production costs of the offshore company concerned, and therefore it should be more competitive or cheaper than for companies of other countries. This is an important area, because the figure that we are discussing tonight—potentially £89 million —appears firmly fixed. I would welcome an indication whether this figure is a maximum or whether, with a further fall in interest rates, our liability could be substantially smaller.
On the question of the effect of extending the scheme to other areas of industry—
Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: We are not talking about that.
Mr. Nelson: The Minister says that we are not talking about that, but we are talking about support for the offshore supply industry and money that has gone into Hunterston, Marathon and other sectors through selective industrial assistance. This matter should be discussed in a motion of this nature, because it is an alternative means of spending public money, and public money, by its very nature, is limited. Therefore it is proper and responsible to look at the best possible way of spending public money.
I question whether interest relief grants are the best way of doing this. I feel that many of the projects enunciated in this motion are immensely important, but I underline the query made by one of my hon. Friends whether this investment would have been undertaken by the companies involved without public finance being made available.

515
I come to the very important question of the British Steel Corporation. It is clear that the potential market provided by the North Sea gas development could provide a potential pipe market for the BSC. I would welcome an indication of the extent to which those requirements are compatible with the needs of the North Sea oil industry in wanting a large diameter trunk line pipe. I do not know the size of the pipe required in the gas industry, but this is an important matter. If we are talking of setting up and funding, through public finance, massive investment in plant in the British Steel Corporation to provide high-quality pipe for the North Sea oil industry, we shall lessen the risk if there is also a market in the gas production industry.
The Minister said that he hoped the British Steel Corporation would be able to respond to the demands of operators in the North Sea to a greater extent than in the past. If we were given some indication that the Corporation was able to supply these requirements it would underline the importance and viability of this manufacturing plant within the BSC.
This has been an important debate. It has given us a rare opportunity to examine in depth the reasoning and methods of the Government's selective finance for industry at a time when the amount of money provided in various forms to various companies has escalated substantially.
I am increasingly concerned at the level of finance that is being made available through the Government's selective approach to many companies, whether it is an interest relief scheme, an accelerated project scheme, or a grant that is being made available under Section 7 or 8 of the Industry Act. As with the National Enterprise Board under the 1975 Act, I suspect that the Government are taking out funds from productive industry and placing them where they will be less efficiently used.
I welcome the fact that we are now discussing the placing of public money in an industry in respect of a product that is of immense importance to the British consumer and our economy. To that extent I welcome the provision of this finance. The debate has given us an opportunity to lay down some markers on the extent to which the Government
516
are using on an increasing scale taxpayers' money in a questionable way to finance speculative public sector projects for political rather than commercial considerations.
9.43 p.m.
Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) made an interesting speech. I cannot help reflecting that when I first came to the House the late Iain Macleod told me "The trouble is that you talk well, but you talk for so long". The hon. Member for Chichester made a good case at the beginning on a number of points but went on to talk with 20: 20 hindsight, as the Americans say, about schemes which had been developed in the past.
I should like to tell the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) that the scheme envisaged in 1973 was a sensible one even from a Conservative Bow Group point of view. I do not think that anything we have added has made it any less sensible.
What is at the end of the road? The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) came to the House when we were in the middle of discussions and decisions on this subject. Indeed, it was a Conservative scheme financed by our money. We had to defend the raising of the taxation to pay for the scheme. In other words, it is a Labour scheme although conceived by a Tory principle. At the end of the day we have captured 52 per cent. of the offshore Continental market— indeed, I believe that the figure is even higher since we have achieved from our own capability about two-thirds of the capital goods market. We are under no illusion that not all of that is due to our enterprise. Our competitors are not free enterprise agents.
We have only to look at the Dutch, French and German systems and the various other support systems that exist either overtly or covertly. I do not have to go into that. The Commission originally accepted in 1973 the scheme that I am now defending in the sense that it raised no objection when it was introduced. It is true that the Commission has since expressed concern about the scheme's effect on intra-Community trade. We are having discussions, but it is difficult for a Minister, even in this House,

517
to reveal everything that goes on in discussions. We hope that we shall be able to obtain an acceptable solution to persuade our eight colleagues in the Common Market that our scheme is a sensible one from both our point of view and from theirs.
Mr. Nelson: The Minister will be aware that in the Sixth Report the specific recomendation of the Commission was that if the United Kingdom scheme was to continue it should also be made available to supply companies in European member States. Can he tell us what is the Government's attitude to that?
Dr. Mabon: As the hon. Member might know—and as I believe he suggested, although if it was not him it must have been the hon. Member for Dundee, East—we are hoping that the House will look at this, investigate it and make comments. However, I take the point, but if we are to borrow from each other in the Common Market and if the scheme is to be introduced in the other eight countries I should like us to borrow from a few of their schemes. Some of those schemes are enormously inventive and very able. I commend the French ones particularly. I am sorry only that the Japanese are not in the Common Market, because they have even better schemes than anyone else. I am all in favour of fair competition with the aid of these schemes, and I am willing for us to look at them in the light of circumstances at the time.
As for this scheme, it was conceived by the last Government and implemented by this Government. It is a sensible scheme and, with hindsight—although it has its defects—has on the whole been successful. I make no apology to the House for defending it.
As for the future, we must look at new developments in the light of circumstances. The hon. Member for Dundee, East talked about the future. I take the view that long after the oil industry has gone we shall still be building oil platforms for the rest of the world, whether for the United States, Mexico, Venezuela, Brazil, Indonesia or any other country, in the same way as we built the railways for other countries long after we had developed our own. We could be in the business, whether it is building tension-leg platforms or other platforms.
518
That is what the motion is about—creating a capability for Great Britain that other countries would like to have and that the Americans certainly do have. We must be able to compete with them, not only in our own market—in which we have captured two-thirds of the capital goods business—but in the markets of the world.
Mr. Gordon Wilson: Will the Minister bear in mind that it is not sufficient to rely simply upon the platform industry? If platforms are like the railways, the sub-sea wellhead units may be the aircraft of the future. We should try to balance the two. At the moment there is a definite lack of wellhead and sub-sea wellhead installation development within the United Kingdom. Perhaps the Government could give equal attention to that as to the maintenance of capacity in the yards.
Dr. Mabon: I am not sure that that is entirely fair, but we are concerned about it and I take the hon. Gentleman's point that we ought to try to develop as much as we can of what he calls the toughening-up process. However, being a member of an Opposition party—not so much the official Opposition, but a minority party—it is terribly easy for him to have 20:20 hindsight, to complain, to switch policies every 10 minutes and to be wise.
I have exposed the hon. Member for Dundee, East I do not know how many times for his foolishness in the past and for saying things that he much regretted later. However, I take his point that we should be looking at these problems on what he described as a fairly intelligent basis. Scotland has about half the offshore business. It may be more: it depends on when the estimate is made. That is not bad for a country that has only one-tenth of the employment in the United Kingdom. Considering our capability in Scotland, it is good that we should have half the business and I do not resent the fact that England and Wales, which have nine-tenths of the people, have the other half of the business.
Mr. Gordon Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that Scotland has 25 per cent. of the total business? My estimate was that we had between 25 per cent. and

519
32 per cent. compared with the total United Kingdom figure of 52 per cent. Is the right hon. Gentleman going for the lower end of my estimate?
Dr. Mabon: These are rough figures. I think that it may be rather more than the lower end of the hon. Gentleman's estimate, but I do not think that we should be arguing in these terms.
The hon. Gentleman referred to Portavadie and Hunterston. I am ashamed that he should go along with the Rightwing criticism of the Conservative Party that we should not have made a bet on Portavadie and Hunterston. We think that there is one concrete order on the way. It could go to the Dutch or the Norwegians. The style of the order is such that in the United Kingdom it could go only to Portavadie, Hunterston, Ardyne or even possibly Kishorn, although I do not think so. If we shut Portavadie and Hunterston, we shall make sure that the order does not go there. That would be a mistake.
If we get the order at Hunterston, the hon. Member for Dundee, East will have to apologise. If we get it at Portavadie he will have to apologise miserably, and if we get it at Ardyne he will be embarrassed because the yard is supposed to be closing down and all the rest of it. We cannot make predictions in this business.
Laing's is officially shut down but is actively canvassing the possibility of a steel order on Teesside. It may get 1,000 jobs from it, and I say good luck to the venture. The job of a Minister is to get orders, whether concrete or steel, for Britain. Wherever the orders may be and
520
whatever yards are involved, the basic concern of Ministers is to get the orders for Britain. I make no apology for that to the Common Market, the Scottish National Party or anyone else.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) made a very good speech about the interests of the British Steel Corporation and distribution in Scotland. He asked what proportion of the grants payable benefited Scotland. It is clear that the scheme is of substantial benefit to Scottish-based industry. I cannot give the exact figures now. As the hon. Member for Dundee, East said, there are difficulties because of the amount of sub-contracting on both sides of the border, but we believe that about half of the expenditure which qualifies for grant is incurred in Scotland, and that is a very large sum of money.
My last comment is this. It is often thought that the Grampian Region of Scotland is the main beneficiary of Scottish offshore activity. In fact, that is not so. It is marginally so, perhaps, if one takes various areas into account, but what is true also is that Strathclyde, miles away from the North Sea, is a one-third beneficiary in terms of jobs in offshore oil production. Moreover, many areas of England, in the North-East, as well as Wales, are beneficiaries of North Sea oil production.
Therefore, the motion before the House, which I am happy to know has been well received by hon. Members on both sides, is a British matter concerned with the welfare of the offshore oil industry of the United Kingdom.
Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House authorises the Secretary of State to pay, or undertake to pay, by way of financial assistance under section 8 of the Industry Act 1972, as amended by section 22 of, and Part I of Schedule 4 to, the Industry Act 1975 and section 1 of the Industry (Amendment) Act 1976, as grants in respect of interest on money borrowed for obtaining in the United Kingdom goods and services for each of the projects specified in column 1 of the Table below carried on by persons specified in respect thereof in column 2 of the Table sums which, together with the sums already paid or undertaken to be paid by way of such financial assistance, exceed the sum of £5 million but do not exceed the sum specified in respect of the project in column 3 of the Table.

TABLE

(1)

(2)

(3)

Project

Persons carrying on Project

Maximum amount of financial assistance

Establishment offshore of production platforms and other installations with their equipment for the development of the Ninian oilfield

Chevron Petroleum Ltd. BNOC (Ninian) Ltd. Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd. Murphy Petroleum Ltd. Ocean Exploration Co. Ltd. BP Petroleum Development Ltd. Ranger Oil (UK) Ltd. Scottish Canadian Oil and Transportation Co. Ltd. London & Scottish Marine Oil Co. Ltd.

£43 million

Establishment offshore of a production platform and other installations with their equipment for the development of the Thistle oilfield

BODL Ltd. Burmah Oil (Exploration) Ltd. BNOC (Thistle) Ltd. Deminex UK Exploration and Production Ltd. Deminex Oil and Gas (UK) Ltd. Santa Fe (UK) Ltd. Tricentrol Thistle Development Ltd. Charterhouse Petroleum Development Ltd. Conoco Ltd. Gulf Oil (Great Britain) Ltd. BNOC (Exploration) Ltd.

£18 million

Establishment offshore of production platforms and other installations with their equipment for the development of the Forties oilfield

BP Oil Development Ltd.

£10 million

Establishment offshore of production platforms and other installations with their equipment for the development of the Brent oilfield

Shell (UK) Ltd. Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd.

£9 million

Establishment offshore of production platforms and other installations with their equipment for the development of the Frigg (UK) gasfield

Total Oil Marine Ltd. Aquitaine Oil (UK) Ltd. Elf Oil Exploration and Production (UK) Ltd. Total Marine Norsk El Norge A/S Aquitaine Norge A/S Norsk Hydro Produksjon A/S

£9 million

TRANSPORT (COMMUTING COSTS)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Snape.]
9.56 p.m.
Mr. Geoffrey Dodsworth: I am grateful for this early opportunity to raise a matter of pressing urgency for those of my constituents in South-West Hertfordshire who use the London Transport Metropolitan line outside the Greater London area.
522
In a Press statement on 13th May, London Transport announced special penalty fare increases outside the GLC area in addition to the increases already announced for the rest of the Underground and for London buses. Travellers in my constituency using Moor Park, Rickmansworth, Chorleywood and Croxley Green will be severely affected by these increases.
London Transport says that on these sections the services run at heavy losses, and the county councils have been unwilling to make any financial contribution. London Transport describes the increased

523
fares as premium rates. I describe them as penalty rates, and, indeed, there is a threat that this is only stage 1 of the fare increase programme. If the county council does not pay up, says London Transport, there is to be a further increase in fares.
In face of the present level of inflation and the huge increases in the cost of living now experienced by members of the public, it is outrageous that they should be told that the total increase, that is, the general increase and the so-called premium increase together, would not exceed 40 per cent. What a promise—that it would not exceed 40 per cent. It is fair to add, moreover, that there would in special cases be increases of over 50 per cent.
In the same statement London Transport said that the season ticket increases will be kept down to a maximum of 40 per cent. It is increases of that sort that people are being asked to bear out of taxed income.
The effect of these charges is to produce £300,000 a year for London Transport. I understand that the overall losses are at the rate of £600,000 a year, and I gather that the bulk of these losses in Hertfordshire lie on the section of line between Moor Park and Watford Junction, where the fare income is only 10 per cent. of operating costs.
I had the opportunity to meet the Chairman of London Transport to discuss the situation, which I regarded as one of great urgency and concern to people travelling on these lines. He was extremely sympathetic, but I cannot say that I gleaned any possibility of a change of heart, despite the fact that it is a historical accident that the Metropolitan line is part of London Transport in this part of Hertfordshire and as a result is responsible to the GLC.
If one examines the traffic on the line one finds that it is long-distance rather than local. The average length of journey in 1975 from the five stations in Hertfordshire was 13 miles, compared with five miles on average for all Underground trips. Only one-fifth of journeys are local to Hertfordshire and Buckinghamshire, whereas two-thirds are to London. Therefore, the lines mainly serve commuters to London rather than just local travel needs. On that basis, I believe that the
524
Hertfordshire commuter should be treated in the same way as are travellers on other commuter services.
By an unfortunate historical accident, the track for the Amersham line is shared with British Rail, and this complicates the track shared costs. However, this arrangement pre-dates the present financing systems, and I understand that it would be impossible for the entire operation to be transferred wholly to either British Rail or London Transport. That appears to be a logical suggestion and a logical way in which to deal with the situation, but I understand that it is not possible to do that.
The Hertfordship County Council does not feel that it should contribute to the situation.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Snape.]
Mr. Dodsworth: The county council believes that the loss on the lines should be covered by a central Government grant, as are all the British rail commuter services around London, which involve grants of over £290 million this year.
The demand of travellers from the county authority places an unfair burden on the county ratepayers as a whole, because of the anomalous financial structure of London Transport. On numerous occasions I have pointed out the unfair and partial redistribution of the rate support grant, which is already costing the Hertfordshire County Council £30 million. That is equivalent to more than 18p in the pound on the rates.
These two factors lead me to believe that the GLC thinks that it can treat the people of Hertfordshire indiscriminately and allow the county to be sucked dry. It is not true that Hertfordshire is a rich county. In fact the reverse is true. Hertfordshire represents the heartland of those who are penalised by the results of Government policy. The Government's policy has diminished income through inflation and oppressive taxation. That in turn has eroded the ability of people to pay fare increases of the size and nature contemplated.

525
My constituents believe that there is a failure of natural justice in the proposals. It is remarkable, to say the least, that the announcement about the fare increases, with a commencing date, was made prior to approval being given by the Price Commission.
I shall not detain the House with extracts from the many letters that I have received from my constituents, which describe in detail the different aspects of the issue. One such letter refers to the lack of proper facilities at the Rickmansworth station, which are caused by other services that use that line.
The situation is summed up by a resolution passed by the Three Rivers District Council at a recent meeting. The council is intimately involved in the situation and it deplored
"the discriminatory fare increases proposed by London Transport for all the Metropolitan Line stations in the district".
It asked the Price Commission to give consideration to its views on that matter.
I have written to the Chairman of the Price Commission supporting the views of that authority, but I have not yet received anything more than a formal acknowledgment. I can understand that these matters take time.
If we find that the Price Commission is powerless to prevent the inequitable and penalty increases I believe that it is time that this useless body was disbanded. We know that it has failed dismally in other cases. For instance, it was overruled by the Secretary of State for Energy on gas prices.
In those circumstances I ask the Minister for assurances to cover two different eventualities. If the Price Commission vetoes the price increase I want an assurance that the Minister will ensure that the price increase does not proceed. If the Price Commission inadvertently accepts the increase, I want the Minister to ensure that the whole question is investigated through the machinery that is contemplated in the Price Commission Bill. That would be a suitable and appropriate remedy.
10.4 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Horam): The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Dodsworth) has tonight raised an import-
526
ant and fundamental question. It is, simply: who pays for local transport services? At the heart of the matter is a dispute between the London Transport Executive and the county councils of Hertfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Essex over the deficits incurred on those sections of the Executive's Underground services. I mention the three counties although I know that the hon. Member is concerned principally with his own county.
The London Transport Executive estimates that during this year its Underground services will incur a total operating deficit of a little over £11 million, of which no less than £3½ million will result from its services in the three counties I have just mentioned. Hitherto, losses of this order on these out-county services have been borne by the Greater London Council.
Hon. Members will be aware of the restraints that have had to be imposed on public expenditure and in particular concerning public transport in the past two years. Faced with the need to reduce its own expenditure on public transport, the Greater London Council considered it should no longer have to bear the whole burden of the losses incurred on LTE's out-county Underground services. In all reasonableness—the hon. Gentleman mentioned natural justice—I think he would agree that that is a very reasonable point of view.
The LTE therefore approached the three counties concerned last year and asked them to make provision in their 1977–78 transport policies and programme submissions to the Secretary of State for Transport for the finance necessary to meet the continuing deficits on these services. The counties declined to do this, although it is worth mentioning that last year Essex County Council contributed £88,000 towards the losses incurred on the Epping-Ongar section of the Central Line.
The sum sought by the LTE from Hertfordshire County Council to meet the losses expected to be incurred this year on that part of the Executive's Metropolitan Line services operating within the county—that is, between Moor Park and Chorleywood and including the spur line to Croxley and Watford—is a total of £900,000.

527
The main line service between Moor Park and Chorleywood is served, as I think the hon. Gentleman explained, by parallel services operated by both LTE and British Rail, and because of this the county counter-claimed that at the very least losses made on the BR service should be met by the central Government. It further counter-claimed that in practice the LT Underground service in Hertfordshire is indistinguishable from other services operated by BR on its South-East commuter network and, therefore, the whole of the deficit on the Hertfordshire Underground service should also be met by the central Government. I think that this is the point with which the hon. Gentleman is concerned tonight, and I think it is generally agreed that it is the nub of the matter.
Let me deal first with the joint operation of services by BR and LT on the Metropolitan main line between Moor Park and Chorleywood. This results from an agreement between the two undertakings under which responsibility for providing the services rests with London Transport, and in contributing to them British Rail is essentially acting as London Transport's agent. All receipts that accrue from passengers using the BR trains over this section are taken by London Transport, which then pays British Rail for the train mileage provided and bears any deficit. In practice the BR trains are therefore, in all except livery, part of London Transport's operations serving this area, and it is perfectly appropriate for the LTE to seek a contribution from the county towards the overall cost of these services.
To dispel any lingering doubts there may be that the agreement between the LTE and British Rail is a one-sided business, I should explain that there are other similar agreements in and around London, in other parts of the peripheral area, for the use of shared facilities of this kind on local rail services where the same sort of arrangements apply. In the case of Hertfordshire, particularly relevant is the peak hour London Transport Bakerloo Line service to Watford Junction, where London Transport trains run on British Rail track, and it is British Rail which pays for the overall costs of the service in this case. Thus the Hert-
528
fordshire ratepayer receives a substantial benefit to compensate for the cost that he is being asked to incur on these other lines.
I turn now to the second of the county's propositions—that the whole of the deficit should be borne by the central Government because, in the county's view, the Underground services in Hertfordshire are essentially the same as the South-East commuter services operated by British Rail which are wholly supported by the central Government. It has been suggested that the Railways Act 1974, which specifically limits grant aid to British Rail, should be amended to encompass these operations of the LTE. There would, I am afraid, be very little justification for such action. After all, they are local services and an integral part of the London Transport rail network.
Local transport is a matter for local decision, and this philosophy is at the heart of the present transport policies and programme system. Central Government subsidy for losses incurred on the London Transport network, bus and rail, is, and will continue to be, provided through the transport supplementary grant. That subsidy can reach the London Transport Executive only through discretionary payments, agreed with it by each of the respective counties served by the system. It is, therefore, for Hertfordshire to decide whether and to what extent financial support for London Transport services in the county may in future be justified. If it is decided that there is a case for contributing to the costs of these services, that should be taken into account in the preparation of the county's next transport policy and programme submission, which is due in my Department at the end of next month. That will cover the next financial year—namely, 1978–79.
I understand that the county council is extremely reluctant to consider subsidising the London Transport Executive's rail services in the county because under the transport supplementary grant system at least 30 per cent. of the subsidy will need to be found from the rates and only limited numbers of people in one part of the county benefit from them. Given that up to 70 per cent. of the county's contribution would in any case be eligible for transport supplementary grant, one might reasonably ask what would be the value to the country if the council is so

529
doubtful of the value to the county of these lines.
Be that as it may, this is what local autonomy is all about. It is for the county to decide what its priorities should be and which services should have first call on its available resources. It cannot be expected to shift the burden on to the central Government because the choices are difficult and unpalatable ones.
The hon. Gentleman finally referred to the additional increases that the London Transport Executive proposes to charge on its out-county services over and above the general increase, averaging about 15 per cent., that will take place from 17th July. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, outside London it is intended that increases for some shorter-distance singlefare journeys should be as much as 50 per cent., although at other distances the total increase would not exceed 40 per cent. Increases in season ticket prices are not intended to exceed a maximum of 40 per cent. In many instances the proposed increases will be much less, dependent upon the proportion of travel outside the London area.
Obviously, we regret that such large increases are considered necessary. However, faced with the decision of the three counties concerned not to contribute towards the losses on the Underground services in their areas, it is reasonable that the London Transport Executive should, subject as it is to the approval of the Price Commission, take action of this sort to reduce the deficit on these lines. As it is, even these increases could not be expected to contribute more than an additional £300,000 towards the losses. That would still leave a deficit of over £3 million to be funded by the Greater London Council. In equity, the responsibility of Hertfordshire, Buckinghamshire, and Essex County Councils in this matter must be recognised.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to give an assurance that, if the Price Commission took an unfavourable view of these large increases, I or my right hon. Friend would not seek to overturn its verdict.
530
Obviously, I cannot give him such an assurance in the name of my right hon. Friend. Probably he did not expect me to do so. None the less, the Commission will have clear views on the matter and we shall pay serious regard to what it says. I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. We expect a decision fairly shortly, and I shall be interested to see the conclusion at which the Commission arrives. Obviously it is a tricky matter.
Fare increases are of concern to everyone, particularly those in London, given the history of the past three years of cumulative increases of over 100 per cent. facing many commuters. We are very concerned about that. However, this is a situation in which the three counties should seek to look at their own responsibilities, given that the GLC has footed the bill, which is a large one, for many years. In the interests of his constituents, I urge the hon. Gentleman to approach them to ascertain what solution can be found.
It is right that the county councils should seek to obtain the maximum information about the costing of these services and the deficits incurred on them, to satisfy themselves on the figures, before making any judgments.
In the final analysis, however, we are talking about a local transport service taking commuters over short distances in some cases and longer distances in other cases, for which they have season tickets and are travelling regularly into London. These are local services, part of the London Transport system, and this is fundamentally something in which the central Government has not intervened and should not intervene with using taxpayers' money. It is a matter of local judgment. I hope that the counties will get together with the GLC and come up with some solution acceptable both to the hon. Gentleman's constituents and to the councils' wider responsibilities.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes past Ten o'clock.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Apples and Pears
  Apples and Pears
  Departmental Correspondence
  Departmental Correspondence
  LORD ADVOCATE (CORRESPONDENCE)
  LORD ADVOCATE (CORRESPONDENCE)
  DEVOLUTION
  DEVOLUTION
  PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICE (CORRESPONDENCE)
  PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICE (CORRESPONDENCE)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Services (Accounts)
  Services (Accounts)
  Social Functions
  Social Functions
TRANSPORT
  A27 (Worthing)
  A27 (Worthing)
  Coaches
  Coaches
  Cars (Type Approval)
  Cars (Type Approval)
  M1-A1 Link
  M1-A1 Link
  A38 (Saltash)
  A38 (Saltash)
INDUSTRY
  Textile Quotas (Hong Hong)
  Textile Quotas (Hong Hong)
  Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions
  Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions
  Computers
  Computers
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Maldives
  Maldives
ENVIRONMENT
  Building Materials
  Building Materials
  Community Land
  Community Land
  Inner City Policy
  Inner City Policy
  London Government Finance
  London Government Finance
DEFENCE
  Married Quarters
  Married Quarters
  Retirements
  Retirements
  Pay and Pensions
  Pay and Pensions
EMPLOYMENT
  Asbestos
  Asbestos
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
  Incomes Policy
  Incomes Policy
  Cancer Epidemiology and Clinical Trials Unit
  Cancer Epidemiology and Clinical Trials Unit
ENERGY
  Nuclear Power Stations
  Nuclear Power Stations
  Power Stations (Coal Burn)
  Power Stations (Coal Burn)
  Tidal Power
  Tidal Power
  Celtic Sea Exploration
  Celtic Sea Exploration
  Opencast Coal
  Opencast Coal
  Joint European Torus
  Joint European Torus
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Electrical Appliances
  Electrical Appliances
  Price Commission Bill
  Price Commission Bill
SCOTLAND
  Tourism
  Tourism
  Mortgages
  Mortgages
  Crimes of Violence
  Crimes of Violence
  Murder
  Murder
  Burrell Collection
  Burrell Collection
  CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (CORRESPONDENCE)
  CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (CORRESPONDENCE)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Family Allowances and Maternity Benefits
  Family Allowances and Maternity Benefits
  Benefit Recipients (Newham)
  Benefit Recipients (Newham)
  Emphysema and Bronchitis
  Emphysema and Bronchitis
  Iron Lungs
  Iron Lungs
  Speech Therapists
  Speech Therapists
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Pneumoconiosis
  Pneumoconiosis
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Regional Psychiatric Secure Units
  Regional Psychiatric Secure Units
  Asbestosis
  Asbestosis
  Widows
  Widows
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Departmental Correspondence
  Departmental Correspondence
  Commerce and Law
  Commerce and Law
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Money Supply (Definition)
  Money Supply (Definition)
  European Community
  European Community
  Currency Remittances (Asia)
  Currency Remittances (Asia)
  Motor Vehicle Fuel
  Motor Vehicle Fuel
  Tobacco
  Tobacco
  Capital Appreciation
  Capital Appreciation
  European Community Budget
  European Community Budget
  Foundries (Small Businesses)
  Foundries (Small Businesses)
  Wealth Creation and Distribution
  Wealth Creation and Distribution
  HONOURS LISTS
  HONOURS LISTS
  PRIME MINISTER (CORRESPONDENCE)
  PRIME MINISTER (CORRESPONDENCE)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Bailed Persons
  Bailed Persons
  Royal Ulster Constabulary (Londonderry)
  Royal Ulster Constabulary (Londonderry)
  Prisoners (Escapes)
  Prisoners (Escapes)
  Police Stations
  Police Stations
  Departmental Correspondence
  Departmental Correspondence
WALES
  Tan-yr-Unto, Llanbedr
  Tan-yr-Unto, Llanbedr
  Family Planning
  Family Planning
  Welsh Language
  Welsh Language
  Caernarvon Inner Relief Road
  Caernarvon Inner Relief Road
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Mr. Christopher Hird
  Mr. Christopher Hird
  Overseas Visitors
  Overseas Visitors
  Crimes of Violence
  Crimes of Violence
  Murder
  Murder
  Mr. George Ince
  Mr. George Ince
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
  Human Rights
  Human Rights
  Bermuda
  Bermuda
  Singapore
  Singapore
  Mr. Angel Dalmau Fernandes
  Mr. Angel Dalmau Fernandes
  Nuclear Energy
  Nuclear Energy
  Belgrade Review Conference
  Belgrade Review Conference
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Pakistanis (Passports)
  Pakistanis (Passports)

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: the CHAIRMAN Of COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Birmingham.
Lord Crathorne—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

THE DISABLED: RAMPS AND LIFTS
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many Community Health Council offices are entered by steps with no ramps or are on upper floors with no lifts.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the information asked for by the noble Baroness is not available, but it is admitted and recognised that a substantial number of Community Health Council offices can be entered only by steps with no ramps or are on the upper floors with no lifts. I am advised that it is general practice for councils to enable disabled people to whom offices are inaccessible to be consulted in, for example, nearby interview rooms or, if necessary, in their own homes. I understand that some councils do not normally hold meetings in their offices, and I would expect disabled people generally to be able to attend council meetings even if offices are inaccessible.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask him whether he does not agree with me that the Community Health Councils are supposed to be the friends and the mouthpieces of the consumers of the National Health Service? Would he not agree that many
156
of these people are elderly, infirm and very lonely, and that, because of the cutback in the social services, they have not got telephones? How do they contact the secretaries of Community Health Councils in the first place, therefore, if they cannot get into the offices?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, presumably the people who want to use the services will find means to let those services know. As I have already pointed out, the CHCs are prepared to interview people in their own homes, and do in fact do so. We recognise that many of the buildings are quite unsuitable. The responsibility is on the Regional Health Authority to provide accommodation, but when the CHCs came into operation it was desirable to get them going quickly and to use whatever accommodation was available. As I say, we recognise that much of it is unsuitable, but this is the best that we can do at the present moment and we try to meet the needs of the disabled by seeing them either in their own homes or in an interviewing room which they will find it easy to reach.
Lord MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that quite a number of local authorities are not making this elementary provision of ramps into public buildings? Would it not be a good plan now to send a reminder to them about the necessity to provide a ramp for disabled people?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, let me be perfectly frank. There is a question of expense here, and reluctantly I have to say that we must have regard to economy. A tremendous amount of work is put on local authorities, and there is a tremendous expense. We have had to ask them to curtail their expenditure, and at this stage I do not think we can do anything more than we are doing.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord what guidance, in view of Government policy, was circulated when these community centres were started? Would the noble Lord not agree that the question raised by my noble friend is very important? What guidance was circulated, if it is Government policy? It seems so stupid if guidance was not circulated.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the noble Baroness is always in danger of accusing the Government of something they have not done. May I remind her that in November 1970—and the Government could not have acted any more quickly—a notice was sent round drawing attention to Sections 4 and 7 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. It drew the attention of the Regional Health Authorities to the fact that this kind of accommodation would have to be provided, and it drew attention to the need under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act to provide facilities that would cater for disabled people. Many authorities have done so, but we realise that we still have a long way to go.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether a quick cut to a solution to this problem might not be achieved by approaching the architects' association? After all, every local authority has to go to an architect, and if the architects were reminded that, when they prepare plans, this provision is one of the essentials, that might be a very quick cut towards getting what we want.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, local authorities have their own architects. It is not that one is not aware of the gravity of the situation. The difficulty is trying to meet this and, if I may say so, hundreds of other needs on a very limited amount of money.
The Earl of SWINTON: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord is aware that his colleague, the Minister for the Disabled, is today launching a campaign and setting up a committee to try to encourage private individuals to make their premises suitable for the disabled to enter. Would it not be a good idea if the DHSS were first of all to put its own house in order?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the noble Earl is being very unfair when he talks about the Department of Health and Social Security putting its own house in order. I would suggest to him that if he really goes into this matter he will find that the DHSS has done a great deal—more than one would think possible—on the amount of money it has been allowed to spend.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, can the Government tell us whether the cost of answering this Question is greater than the cost of installing the ramps? Secondly, can the Government assure us that the wide-ranging and detailed consultations which were said to be taking place within the Department, and with those authorities concerned with the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, have reached fruition on this important subject?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for asking that question because it enables me to say something which I hoped I might be able to say. The Minister for the Disabled has recently announced the setting up of a Silver Jubilee committee on improving access to public buildings for disabled people. The purpose of the committee is to publicise and promote simple and inexpensive ways of improving access facilities, especially in places of recreation and leisure, and to consider how public attitudes on this matter can be improved. I am sure that the whole House will be pleased to learn that among the members whose names will be announced today are a number of disabled people and also the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw.
Viscount BARRINGTON: My Lords, speaking of architects, are the Government aware that Sir Christopher Wren, the architect of the Chelsea Pensioners' Hospital, a long time ago installed a staircase with, I think, one-inch steps for the benefit of Chelsea Pensioners? Might he not be taken as an example to encourage—a great deal later and at a time when finances are no more difficult than they were then—energy to do it?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am aware of that. The situation today is that one-inch steps would not be suitable for many disabled people who need ramps, lifts and moving stairs.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, in view of the somewhat unsatisfactory replies that the noble Lord has had to give about makeshift arrangements for the present, can he give us any real assurance for the future?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I do not accept that. This is the second time that the noble Lord has said that my Answers have been unsatisfactory. I do not accept that they are unsatisfactory. I consider the replies I have given today to be very satisfactory.
A noble Lord: My Lords—
Several noble Lords: Order, order!
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, I think that we should proceed. The noble Lord has another Question.

IMMIGRANTS AND DISEASE SCREENING
2.45 p.m.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper, and I hope to give more satisfactory response to the noble Lord.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the admittedly unsatisfactory Answer to the Question asked by Baroness Masham of Ilton (4th May, cols. 992–994) they are now able to give a more definite answer with regard to the screening of immigrants for tuberculosis; and whether at the same time they can give an assurance that all immigrants working in schools or kitchens are screened for the carrier-state of typhoid and other bowel-conveyed diseases.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, it is always an intention of mine to try to give satisfactory Answers. I am now able to confirm that foreign nationals and Commonwealth citizens coming to settle in this country are normally seen at ports of entry by a medical inspector appointed under the Immigration Act 1971. Arrangements have also been made in most Commonwealth countries for local medical examination of applicants for employment vouchers or entry certificates and this includes, where appropriate, X-ray examination. According to the circumstances, admission may be refused or may be granted on condition of reporting to the medical officer for environmental health at the destination.
160
Routine pre-employment screening for typhoid and other bowel-conveyed diseases involving laboratory examination is not in our view required. The difficulty is that carriers of these diseases may be symptomless and, furthermore, in such cases excretion of infectious organisms may be only intermittent.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, with regard to the second part of my Question, will the noble Lord observe that I mentioned that,
"immigrants working in schools or kitchens"
should be screened? I was not thinking of everybody being screened for these particular diseases which are conveyed by the bowels.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am advised that any medical examination designed to pick out symptomless excreters (in other words, carriers) would need to include laboratory examination of stool specimens. This would mean a heavy drain on scarce medical manpower and laboratory resources. I am told that these are not reliable because, when we consider the number of cases of typhoid, paratyphoid and other similar complaints, it is very difficult to distinguish whether they are a result of personal contact or of contaminated food. Much of it is found to have been brought back by people of this country who have been abroad.
Lord WADE: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that one must use the word "immigrants" with care? Quite wrongly, often that expression is used to apply to those who have lived all their lives in this country and who were, perhaps, born here. We must be sure that we use the word in its right sense. So far as tuberculosis is concerned, is it not correct that this is very much related to change of climate? Where someone comes to live here from a part of the world where there is much more sunshine and where the diet is different, the liability to tuberculosis may be greater. Screening on arrival is not the sole solution.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, my understanding of the situation is that it is not so much one of screening on arrival but that before anybody can come

161
to this country from Commonweath countries they have to satisfy our High Commissioner in that particular country that they have a clean bill of health. He has a medical adviser. Notwithstanding that, when they arrive at Heathrow, the Immigration Department also can refer people to further examination if they have any doubt as a result of the medical certificate which they have. I would point out that the only people we admit into this country where there is any history of tuberculosis or the presence of tuberculosis are those who are entitled to come, and we cannot stop them.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the excellent work being done by the community medicine people in Bradford? Is he aware that they have found, as the noble Lord, Lord Wade, has said, that people are developing tuberculosis after, say, a year in this country because of lack of vitamin D? Is he also aware that it has been suggested in Bradford that vitamin D be added to the flour which makes chapattis?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am not aware of the last point. So far as the first point is concerned, one has to remember that everybody in this country has access to a doctor. It is for the local general practitioner to pick these matters up.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that, after the very high level of tuberculosis following the war, a dramatic drop took place and people are very concerned at the increase again of this disease? Although in theory many of these immigrants and families come to this country with medical certificates, we are well aware that certificates can be easily obtained abroad, particularly if only one member of the family may be a sufferer, a situation which would perhaps debar the whole family. In order to eradicate the disease, would it not be more useful if, instead of merely advising people to consult their medical officer, the people were followed up? We should endeavour to ensure that anybody who conies into the country with tuberculosis does not have the opportunity of spreading it and, in their own and the country's interest, has to take treatment.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, anybody coming into the United Kingdom with tuberculosis is required to see the medical officer for environmental health in the district to which he or she is going. It is not left to their discretion. The medical officer for environmental health in that area is notified, and he follows that case up. We recently had a survey into that matter.

DRIVER AND VEHICLE LICENSING
3.52 p.m.
Lord ALLERTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the new system of vehicle registration with the centre at Swansea has in fact been cheaper than the old arrangements, and if so by how much; and why it has been found necessary to issue the licences through a number of local offices.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, it is estimated that the annual running cost of the centralised Driver and Vehicle Licensing system, when it is fully operational in 1978, will he roughly the same as that which would have been incurred under the old system, taking into account the increase in driver and vehicle populations. Such a comparison is, however, virtually meaningless since the old system would certainly have collapsed before 1978 and that is why the change was necessary. It was intended from the outset, in 1965, that there should be a reduced network of local offices to provide an over-the-counter service for first registration of vehicles, the issue of licences and the provision of information.
Lord ALLERTON: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that reply—I do not know whether I dare say "satisfactory" reply—may I ask whether it is the intention to close the local offices? I am not clear on that. If it is the intention to do so, how is it proposed to employ the personnel who now work in those offices?
Baroness STEDMAN: No, my Lords, it is not intended to close those local offices. Even the most enthusiastic proponents for centralisation have always seen the need for a network of local offices and post offices to provide a counter service to deal with certain aspects of the licensing work. We see that continuing.
Viscount MONCK: My Lords, is the noble Baroness happy about the efficiency of the Swansea centre? Is she aware that on 7th May, on receiving a courteous reminder that my driving licence was due for renewal on 9th June, I filled in a form which said: "Three weeks' notice should he given," and sent it with my cheque, which was duly passed through my bank ten days later? Is she further aware that up to this morning's post—which is five and a half weeks later—I have received neither acknowledgment nor driving licence, so I have been driving illegally for a week?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, if the noble Viscount will see me afterwards and give me particulars, I will certainly look into that. As to whether we are happy that the driver and vehicle licensing centre is working satisfactorily, perhaps I may say that even the Automobile Association at the moment have said that most of the wrinkles seem to have been ironed out.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the reduced network of over-the-counter facilities for first-time licensing is so reduced as to cause considerable embarrassment and difficulty to the motor industry in various parts of the country? Could some consultations take place with the appropriate authority to ease this difficulty? Secondly, is she aware that the type of documentation resulting from this economy in centralisation has left very little consumer protection in so far as the history record on the new and repeatedly newly-released documents is concerned?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I will bring to the attention of my Secretary of State the suggestion that the noble Lord has made. Regarding the network of local offices, it was not envisaged that we would keep open local offices in all those places where it had been possible
164
in the past to obtain licences over the counter. It was envisaged that for customer satisfaction and convenience there was a need for a network—albeit a reduced one—of local offices from which one could easily obtain licence discs over the counter. So far as the records are concerned, we had some 13 million vehicles and 14 million drivers when we established the Swansea centre. Today, we have records for 19 million vehicles and 25 million drivers. By and large, we are keeping them in order.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: My Lords, would the noble Baroness accept that a 50 mile round trip to obtain a new road fund licence for a vehicle is reasonable?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, if the noble Lord does not want to make a 50 mile trek, he can use the post.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, if it is usual for the authorities to ask for three weeks' notice for renewing a licence, will the noble Baroness confirm that it will be in order to send a postdated cheque with the form and that that will not be the subject of any further delay?
Baroness STEDMAN: That is another question, my Lords; but I will look into it.

US FOREIGN POLICY: PRESIDENTIAL STATEMENT
2.57 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how far they agree with the statement of USA foreign policy outlined by President Carter at Notre Dame University, Indiana, on 22nd May 1977.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are in close touch with the Government of the United States on all aspects of international relations and we welcome the positive approach which President Carter is taking towards current international problems.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Would he agree that, despite some ambiguities, this speech was memorable because it recognised that we are now in a new world which is not just dominated by the confrontation of democracies and Communist countries? Would he say in particular whether Her Majesty's Government endorse the following points made in the speech: the rejection of dictatorships as allies of the West; the acceptance of the Third World to end the gulf between riches and poverty; the urging of the ending of nuclear rivalry and of the arms traffic, and the call for human rights everywhere and not merely in the Soviet Union?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am sure that we would all agree that the four points which my noble friend has selected are all implicit—if not explicit— in the truly remarkable speech which the American President made at Notre Dame University on 22nd May. I know also that my noble friend and, indeed, the whole House, also will wish to refer to the very helpful and constructive statement on nuclear power which the President made in Washington on 7th April. I believe both papers are in the Library and one should check on this because the two documents taken together present, not only for the American people but all the democracies of the West, a very helpful, encouraging basis for a progressive foreign policy.
Lord CHALFONT: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that in this remarkable speech President Carter made two basic propositions? One was that the Cold War was over. The other was that the greatest danger to the West was now the denial of human rights. Do Her Majesty's Government agree that perhaps the most vivid example of the denial of human rights in the world takes place in the Soviet Union? Would the noble Lord agree that the Soviet Union is the only country capable of posing a military threat to the security of the West? Would he therefore agree that there is a certain lack of logic in President Carter's reasoning?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, great as my respect is for my noble friend's expertise in this matter,
166
I doubt whether he has—I will not say fairly, but definitively—interpreted the speech of the American President. He said that he considered the Cold War was over. I believe it is. However, that does not mean—and my noble friend has constantly drawn the attention not only of this country but of the entire West to this fact—that the West can afford to neglect its own precautions or not to take the most careful notes and the most positive action with regard to meeting any possible threat to its liberty and its security.
As to whether one can single out any one country as being a threat to peace, I should not care to do so in an exchange of question and answer. I would prefer to join the American President and, on occasion, Mr. Brezhnev, in inviting all corners to make a concerted attempt to seek agreement on two outstanding questions: the control and proper use of nuclear power and the progressive reduction of armaments.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that Western political preferences, and particularly liberty, have been of doubtful value as exports, and that foreign affairs will be more comfortable when the President grows up a little and learns this? We have sought to export liberty to Africa. Every single African country has rejected it and has accepted one form of political dictatorship after another. Would my noble friend agree that the denunciation of other people's preferences is not really a satisfactory foundation for an exchange on foreign affairs?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am sure the American President has long ago grown up, and he well understands what he is about. What he is about accords very closely with the purposes of this country and of the entire West. As to the export of ideas, I am sure it is a common purpose that there should be an increasingly free export of ideas as between East and West. What one is against, of course, is the imposition of systems either by the East on the West or by the West on the East.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that these wide matters are hardly susceptible of discussion by question and answer—
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord O'HAGAN:— and since the Government apparently have little or no legislation for your Lordships to discuss, could we not have a debate soon on foreign affairs?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I always agree with the noble Lord, especially when he speaks such specific sense. I do my poor best. It is up to the noble Lord and others to initiate debates on these matters, and I am always responsive.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, although many of us have a great admiration for President Carter, and even think that his rather naive approach is very helpful at this time in our history, would not the Minister agree that we do not necessarily have to swallow the whole of that speech?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Of course we do not, my Lords. Coordination, co-operation and a special relationship do not mean totalitarian subservience. We are both democracies and therefore, by definition, we exchange ideas and are very glad when the ideas are a matter of consensus.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, might I suggest to the Minister that while we would all welcome Mr. Carter's speech, it is always a good idea to attribute to your enemies the best qualities that you possibly can, and that whether or not the Cold War has disappeared, the atmosphere is slightly warmer?
Lord GORONY-ROBERTS: Yes, my Lords; it is a few degrees warmer and that is to be welcomed. The point is that any movement, however gradual and slow, towards détente is to be welcomed. It is the movement that is important, not instantaneous change; and a movement towards détente—not simply in Europe but everywhere else—is welcome because one cannot have détente in Europe and disturbance in Africa.

TRANSPORT (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker
168
that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act 1911; read 1a, and to be printed.

THE ARTS IN ENGLAND AND WALES
3.6 p.m.
Lord FEVERSHAM Lord FEVERSHAM rose to call attention to the report to the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation by the Lord Redcliffe-Maud, Support for the Arts in England and Wales; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I am very pleased to have the opportunity today to raise the matter of support for the arts. It cannot be denied that our great cultural heritage, together with the continued resourcefulness and creativity of our artists in music, literature, the theatre and the visual arts command the very highest regard throughout the world. In a world where we no longer control a great empire, where we have lost the economic ascendancy which we began in the Industrial Revolution, where our Parliamentary and democratic processes, which have served as a model throughout the world for so long, are perhaps being questioned, we can claim that in the field of the arts in the eyes of the rest of the world Britain remains great.
But for how much longer will Britain remain a great power in the arts? Our cultural heritage is in danger. Some of our great works of art are in the salerooms, and our treatment of our living artists is shoddy. If it continues to he shoddy for much longer, then our best creative people are going to leave these shores to work where there are better conditions. Some of them have started to leave already. I doubt whether we shall be able to sustain for much longer the standards of excellence which have been achieved and maintained at extraordinarily small cost for the nation. For years, our superb record in the arts has been sustained on the cheap, thanks to the efforts of a few ingenious men and women of great determination, commitment and judgment. I think I am right in saying that the City of Munich spends more money on the arts than the Arts Council of Great Britain has to spend on the arts throughout our country. At any

169
rate, we certainly spend a great deal less on the arts in this country than they do in most other countries of the world. We should pay tribute to those who have had to decide in the past how best those slender sums of money should be allocated. I do not think it would be an exaggeration, although I am open to challenge from the Bishops' Benches, to say that miracles have been worked on behalf of the arts in Great Britain in the past few years. It is my earnest hope that we shall, as a nation, offer in the future greater support to the creative talents of our society.
At the present time, we have to face up to the harsh realities of a depressed economic climate. I do not think that anybody could deny that the arts world is in a state of great economic distress. Of course, we are all suffering from the economic crisis, both individually and collectively as a nation, but I think it would be fair to say that the arts are presented with particular difficulties at the present time—not least because we have achieved such value for money in this field with such slender resources that it is difficult to see what might be done to cut or even to hold back developments in the arts without seriously threatening the vital contribution of the creative talents contained in our country, without which I cannot imagine a society fit for my children or, for that matter, for anybody else's children.
I suspect it is an indication of the difficulties facing the arts that we have seen a handful of reports on the arts published during the last year or two. We have seen the publication of the report of the Study Group set up by the Labour Party and the report of the TUC Working Party. The Annan Report, concerned with the future of broadcasting, could hardly fail to ignore the contribution of broadcasting in the arts, and we have the report on Support for the Arts in England and Wales, made by the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, to the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation upon which I have tabled this Motion for discussion today. The Annan Report has already been the subject of an excellent debate in your Lordships' House, and I hope that we can avoid any further discussion on it today except where absolutely necessary. But I am delighted to have this opportunity of a debate on the arts so soon after the
170
debate on the Annan Report, because, as the Maud Report stresses, the role of broadcasting in support of the arts is vital.
I have been asked why I have chosen to confine today's Motion to discussion of the Redcliffe-Maud Report, and not tabled a Motion for a general discussion on the arts. My reason is that of the reports concerned specifically with the arts, the Redcliffe-Maud Report covers the most ground and not only does it do so with regard to making recommendations—and it makes well over 80—but it provides us with a most comprehensive survey of the system which has evolved for provision for the arts in England and Wales. Such a survey must he of immense value in any consideration of how provision for the arts should be developed.
I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, on the thoroughness with which he constructed his report. The fact that he travelled over 11,000 miles for the purposes of the inquiry, and sought advice from the host of organisations and individuals catalogued in Appendix 4 of the report, can hardly put across the warmth with which the noble Lord's efforts were received in all the corners of the Kingdom into which he poked his nose. The fact that the noble Lord was not encumbered with a committee—and a committee would, for reasons of convenience, almost certainly have meant that the lion's share of the report was constructed in London—meant that he was able to wage his campaign in the field, and I, at any rate, find such an approach refreshing in a world bedridden with desk wallahs!
I have one final point with regard to the Motion which is down for debate, and it is an important one. It will not have escaped your Lordships' attention that the Motion seeks to confine the debate to discussion on support for the arts in England and Wales. The more alert of your Lordships—but perhaps I should not suggest that some of your Lordships are more alert than others—will have noticed that as a result of my Motion a large party of noble Lords have descended upon the House from Scotland. This is precisely what I had hoped for, working on the basis that we have no right to discuss Scottish affairs in London but that the Scots would feel

171
dejected, deprived and unhappy should we decide not to discuss their antics in the capital city of the United Kingdom. The Maud Report, of course, makes direct reference to Scotland, along with the recommendation that the Scottish Arts Council should have its own charter. Furthermore, the Scottish Arts Council has recently produced its own report dealing with the problems in its country, and I am sure that the experience of speakers from Scotland will contribute usefully to our debate.
In this connection, I must say how much I am looking forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, a noble Lord for whom I have the very greatest respect. He has hidden shyly for far too long behind his sporran. I am delighted that he is here today, and I hope that we shall hear from him frequently in the future. I should also like to say how much I am looking forward to the speech of our other maiden speaker, and to offer him similar encouragement in the speech that he is to make. I can see nothing in the wording of the Motion which could possibly prevent us from having the widest possible discussion on the arts.
Perhaps I should declare something of an interest at this stage, as chairman of the Yorkshire Arts Association. Perhaps I should also mention that I served on the advisory committee which originally persuaded the Gulbenkian Foundation to commission the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, to undertake this survey. Let me add immediately, however, that I do not wish to use my time today in pursuing in detail my own particular interests in the arts field, so far as the Regional Arts Associations are concerned; and, of course, the Maud Report devotes a good deal of time to the role of Regional Arts Associations in the machinery of arts administration. I am much more concerned at the moment with the wider issues concerning support for the arts.
Two major difficulties confront the continued welfare of the arts in our country, and they are serious. They are difficulties with which we must grapple in earnest, and they are difficulties which must be overcome. The first great difficulty lies in the severe restrictions of the
172
current economic climate; the immediate threat to the arts. The Maud Report does not really help us very much with this urgent problem. It is much more concerned with the future of support for the arts. It merely says that there is an immediate problem, and that it must be solved. I have heard some criticism of the report, that it does not set down a short list of easy answers to the immediate threats to the arts posed by the economic crisis. I do not believe that such criticism is warranted, because in a society where the chief patron of the arts has become the State, where artists are paid largely with public money, then any crisis facing the arts must properly be the concern of the Government and the Treasury.
Indeed, the Government recognised this fact when Mr. Harold Wilson took action to investigate the crisis facing the arts, while the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, was in the process of constructing his report. What Mr. Wilson did as Prime Minister was to appoint Mr. Harold Lever to look at the problem. Mr. Lever then appeared on television and his movements through the arts world were reported in the Press, and everybody said, "The arts will be saved at a wave of this wizard of Westminster's wonderful magical wand." What, in fact, happened was that when the wizard of Westminster waved his wand the arts remained as they were before, struggling and crisis bound. The wizard himself, however, disappeared from view in a puff of smoke. He wrought no miracles. He left behind him no tablets of stone to tell us what to do. He merely vanished entirely or, at least, created the illusion of so doing.
Perhaps the Minister for the Arts will be able to advise us this afternoon of the Government's plans for tackling the crisis facing the arts. Perhaps he will also be able to tell us what these plans are, and pinpoint for us those areas in which the arts most urgently require help if they are to survive undamaged the current economic crisis. What is the Government's strategy? What are their priorities? What has happened to Mr. Lever? Arts organisations throughout the country are understandably keen to hear proper answers to these questions. We have had no Government policy statement of any great significance concerning the arts since Mr. Lever's appointment was

173
announced. Since then, some of the Government's actions have caused concern. The economic crisis, quite possibly associated with current tax laws, has caused a number of important works of art to be sent to the sale rooms. Are the Government satisfied with this situation? The Victoria and Albert Museum has disbanded its regional services department, a very serious setback indeed for regional museums and galleries. It is urgent that the problems already being caused by this setback are looked into, and that action is taken—and I mean "action"—to try to solve them.
There are many other areas in which urgent action is required, in order to meet a crisis situation. The apparent lack of enthusiasm by Government to recognise, or to do anything about, the difficulties facing the arts should be cause for great concern, and, since the arts are not, and should not be, a matter for Party political wrangling, perhaps the noble Earl who is to speak from the Opposition Front Bench will be able to advise us on what plans they are formulating to tackle the difficulties, and how they plan to ensure a healthy, cultural climate for us in the future.
The fact of the matter, I am afraid, is that Governments, Oppositions and civil servants are not greatly troubled about the problems facing the arts, and herein lies the heart of the matter. The British people and their Governments and their servants of the State do not value the creative spirit in man, as do their counterparts in, for example, France. If you are an artist and you walk into a greengrocer's shop in Provence in order to buy a cabbage, and you fall into conversation with the shopkeeper and tell him that you are an artist, he will not hear of taking payment for that cabbage. He will give it to you free. Try the same scene in Neasden or Penge, my Lords, and you will be lucky to escape with your life if you admit to being an artist. I know a sculptor—not a very well-known artist—who has a house on the edge of a village in the Dordogne. He had been living there for about 18 months when he noticed a small party of people trudging up the hill towards the front door. It turned out to be a party of village councillors led by the mayor, and they had come to tell him what an honour it was for the village that he should choose to come and live
174
nearby and, furthermore, that they would like to commission him to make a sculpture to be located in the market place. Can your Lordships imagine anything like that happening in England?
I know of at least one artist whom the local council in the North has been trying to run out of town for the past two years. He manages to keep working largely by going to France, Holland and Germany for three months a year. We do not like creative people in this country and we do not encourage them. That applies not only to artists but to the creative entrepreneur, the inventor and the scientist. We have produced some of the most creative people in the world and persistently we have failed to support them properly. We have led the world in breaking technological barriers, and in nearly every case where we have led the field—take the development of the hovercraft, for example—we have lost the lead given to us by our innovators because we have not backed them properly.
If I was asked what I considered to be the greatest failing of the British people, the facet of the British character which threatened most the recovery of Britain's fortunes in the world, then I would reply that it is the British public's apathy towards creativity. It is this apathy which forms the second great threat to the welfare of the arts in our country. Until recently, the apathy of the vast body of the British public towards the arts did not really matter. Private rather than public money provided the necessary support. Unless we can overcome public apathy towards the arts, unless we can convince the public of the importance of creativity in society, then the public will not provide adequate patronage and we shall enter the new dark ages which have been forecast by the doomwatchers.
This Government and subsequent Governments and the civil servants who maintain the cogs of the machinery of government in motion must therefore address themselves seriously, as they have not yet done, to treating the arts as a vital component of our society and to pursuing policies which will secure public support for the arts with adequate public patronage. That is what the Maud Report says; that is what the Labour movement discussion document says; that is what the report of the Trades

175
Union Congress Working Party says. This Government say very little and do practically nothing.
If you examine the three reports which I have just mentioned, you will find that they have in common recommendations which seek, in analysis, four common objectives. They all recommend some change in ministerial responsibility for the arts and all agree that the voice of the arts in Parliament should be given greater strength. They all believe that local authorities should do more for the support of the arts than they do at present. They all recognise that estimates and grants for the arts from Government must be put on to a rolling triennium. They all support the idea that support for the arts should be based on secure foundations locally, and in the Maud Report this is achieved through devolution from the centre. In the Labour movement's discussion paper it is achieved through a horrible, cumbersome, new bureaucratic structure of committees. Perhaps I might just say that after reading the discussion paper I went to see the film "Requiem for a Mad King" about Ludwig of Bavaria, that very great patron of the arts, and I came out wondering just how it would be possible to replace Ludwig with a committee. I felt that the committee structure recommended by the Labour movement discussion paper would produce a world in which the arts could not flourish but that in every other respect it would produce a world very much like that of poor, mad King Ludwig.
The Maud Report's recommendation that in the future local authorities should become important patrons of the arts is possibly the recommendation which has attracted the most criticism. In fact, I have heard critics prepared to write off the entire report as barely worth discussion, on the grounds that they believe that there is no chance in the foreseeable future of the local authorities giving substantially increased funds to the arts. These particular critics tend not to give their views upon the remaining 80-odd recommendations in the report. No doubt when it was first suggested that local authorities should finance public libraries and museums and art galleries, similar critics made similar noises.
I suggest that unless we can canvass greater support from the public for the
176
arts, then we shall not develop a policy of adequate support for the arts in the future. I suggest that if we cannot persuade the ratepayer to support his local theatre, ultimately the basis upon which that same ratepayer, through national taxation, supports the National Theatre is far from secure. I am not suggesting that at the wave of some magic wand—that of Mr. Harold Lever perhaps—the British public would stampede into their nearest art gallery, theatre or concert hall and empty their wallets. What I am suggesting is that with real leadership from central Government, with commitment and dedication from those who value the arts and who recognise the importance of the creative spirit in society, through education and by employing every trick of persuasion, more local public patronage for the arts must be found. I do not pretend that the task will be easy. It will be very difficult and it may well take a prolonged campaign, but I think that campaign is worth waging. So does Lord Redcliffe-Maud, so does the TUC Working Party, so does the Labour movement discussion document, and so does the excellent report of the Regional Development Committee of the Scottish Arts Council with regard to Scotland. All these good people who have been looking into the problems of support for the arts take this view. What I should like to hear now are the alternative suggestions of those who do not take this view.
As I said at the beginning of this speech, Britain has a great reputation in the world of the arts. This reputation has been achieved with sums of public money of little significance to the overall national budget, with smaller sums of public money than most other countries of the world engage in support of the arts. As a result, I think that we tend to take our success in this field for granted. We tend to feel that somehow or another the arts will survive the current economic difficulties without special attention, that our tried and trusted system of arts patronage will pull us through. I am quite sure that we should not be so complacent. I have nothing but admiration for the results achieved by the system of arts patronage which we have, but I am far from satisfied that we have found all the answers posed by the problems of converting from a system of private patronage to a system of State patronage.
I do not think that we should delude ourselves that there is any alternative in the future to the idea of the State acting as the principal patron of the arts in our society. I applaud all efforts designed to encourage and increase other sources of patronage. I am convinced that industry could gain a great deal out of increasing its support for the arts. I hope that the newly-formed Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts will make progress in this direction. But it is essential that we recognise that the efforts of the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts, of private foundations such as the Gulbenkian Foundation and other patrons can only augment, and not take the place of, adequate State patronage.
The Maud Report looks at the way in which our system of patronage has evolved and makes a number of suggestions as to how the existing system might he improved. In so doing, I think that the report pinpoints the key to our past success and, I hope, the key to the future. It is what my noble friend Lord Redcliffe-Maud calls the arm's length principle which divorces the direct political element from public patronage of the arts. It has been this distancing of the politician from the artist which has created an atmosphere conducive to creativity. It has produced a situation where the artist likes to live and work in England when he might be better off, in material terms, to work abroad. Our policy towards support for the arts in the future must hold this vital key to success. The artist must be left free to create. His patron must judge him by artistic standards alone. If my arguments fail to impress noble Lords, I can only suggest that they go and listen to a piece of music which I think is called the Yellow River Concerto. It was not composed by an artist. It was composed by the Central Committee for Orchestral Music in Peking, or some such organisation. I do not know how noble Lords, NN h o care to take up my suggestion, will react. For my part, I felt in complete agreement with Huw Wheldon's evidence in the Annan Report that "no real programme was ever made by a committee".
The great difficulty is that in distancing the artist from the patron to allow freedom of expression on the one hand, you reduce
178
the involvement between artist and patron on the other. It is not easy to exercise the arm's length principle. It seems to me that the Maud Report seeks to recognise the advantages of the principle while seeking to minimise the disadvantages, largely through broadening the base of public patronage at the grass roots and by encouraging that process through devolution from the centre.
Whether or not we agree with the recommendations contained in the Maud Report, I am convinced that we must take up the underlying theme of the report. We must plan now for the future of support for the arts in our country. The arts are vital. A society without a culture is a sick society. One has only to look as far as the new housing estates which have replaced slum streets, where the culture of the old streets—often centred on the weekly knees-up at the local pub—has been bulldozed away with nothing to replace it in the new tower blocks, to see the importance of the topic which we are discussing today. The arts are not a fringe benefit; they are as vital to civilised society as housing and hospitals. It is as necessary to provide food for the mind as it is to feed the body. The fact that our reputation in the arts in this country attracts large sums of foreign currency into our coffers out of the pockets of tourists is incidental. It would underline our stupidity should we neglect to invest adequately in the development of such a useful asset.
We must not take for granted our successful record in the arts; we must not take for granted our magnificent heritage. The public must take on still more the mantle of the great private patrons who built up that heritage. We must take care of what we have inherited. On the form of support which we give in the future to the creative talents of our society in the arts and in the sciences rests our place in civilisation and in world affairs. We do not pay enough attention to these matters. This debate upon the arts is a very quiet and modest affair so far as national issues are concerned but debate there must be, I am convinced, because without debate our great reputation in the arts world and our greatness there might so easily slip away. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.31 p.m.
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, we are more than conventionally grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Feversham, for giving us the chance to debate the situation of the arts in this country today and in particular for concentrating our minds on the Redcliffe-Maud Report. The noble Lord, Lord Feversham, needs no bouquets from me as to his fighting opening speech. Although only in his early thirties, for many years now he has been involved in arts administration in the North of England and he has a reputation there fast approaching that of the big guns who are going to speak later in the debate and who have been drawn up to the front line by the noble Lord's timely Motion. I think the Motion is timely, albeit in a bitter-sweet paradoxical way. Over the whole field of artistic activity in Britain the news is both good and bad. The situation is indeed critical in the sense that a record to be proud of could very quickly be undone and lead to one of which we are ashamed. It seems to me that things could go either way, and if they go the wrong way now they will go very quickly.
The good news is that as the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, put it in his report, and as the noble Lord, Lord Feversham, has reiterated, the period of history which we have so recently been celebrating in the Queen's Jubilee has seen a richer flowering of the arts, of music, opera, drama, literature, painting and sculpture, and above all a greater increase in the enjoyment of them than in any comparable period since the Industrial Revolution. I believe that that is incontestably true and that it is something to cheer about; something especially to cheer about at a time when many of our national hopes and expectations in other fields have been frustrated. If in my short speech I talk rather a lot about money, I hope your Lordships will not feel that I am simply a materialist on this issue. As the noble Lord, Lord Annan, who produced another report very relevant to the arts this year, said, money is the manure of the arts. Perhaps it is the sober business of politicians to treat with the manure rather than with the creative spirit itself.
Of course the laws of the market place are far from being the laws of most importance for art. Nevertheless, they have a place, especially where physical
180
works of art are concerned. It still feels amazing to me, and it still feels exciting, that Mr. Moore and Mr. Francis Bacon are far and away the most sought after living European artists anywhere and that huge crowds are today flocking to Mr. Moore's retrospective exhibition in Paris, just as last spring I saw queues down narrow streets in the St. Germain where Mr. Bacon's last exhibition was held.
London's only rivals as a musical city are Chicago and Berlin, and the range of music on offer is surely much greater here. Something in our relatively repressed public psyche perhaps has given us the world's best actors, and our theatre, involving at least as much new as classical work these days, keeps a smile on the face of the British Tourist Board. We have three or four novelists able to go the distance with, if not actually to floor, our great traditional masters. We have Mr. Larkin for a poet and for the last eight years Mr. Robert Lowell has been working here. Above all, we have a plurality of artistic achievement and enjoyment which is an important reason why, with more downs than ups in recent years, Britain is still in all senses a civilised country in which to live.
The bad news is that all this—God's plenty, so to speak—is threatened, as the noble Lord, Lord Feversham, said. As he also said, the British are used to their art, like their food, on the cheap. Like so much else, like food itself, nothing complex and nothing labour-intensive will foreseeably be cheap again. As things get more expensive, the arts require more money for their maintenance and expansion, and it must be said, of course, in a society depending on the State for patronage, for their administration. But with the rate of inflation that we in this country are running, every penny more for the arts is spent in a desperate attempt to stand still; in an attempt not to fall behind or to make less provision for the arts rather than, as our achievement requires, to make more provision.
Let me give two brief instances. Let us take art at its most expensive and at its cheapest. The most expensive, obviously, is opera. Here, incidentally, I am on rather tricky ground. In the last arts debate in which I spoke—and it was some years ago—I ventured the opinion that the Royal Opera House "hogged "—

181
and I am afraid that was the phrase I used—rather too large a slice of the Arts Council's budget. I was treated to interruptions of a fury unmatched even in a social services debate, say, in another place by my noble friend Lord Drogheda. I limped home to bed, for the debate went on until a very late hour, and at what felt like three or four o'clock in the morning the telephone rang. An icy voice, immediately recognisable as that of my noble friend, pointed out that since I clearly knew nothing about opera I had better attend Klemperer's Fidelio as his guest. So today I am going to be very careful not to be the slightest bit controversial on the subject of opera in case any of your Lordships should suspect me of fishing for free seats. As I said, it is incontestable that the most expensive form is opera. One might except cinema, but to provide an operatic repertory is at least as costly as a mammoth film production and in any case expenditure on film productions usually rises in inverse ratio to their artistic ambitions.
The noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, demonstrates on page 132 of his report that nearly £9 million of annual subsidy is absorbed by the three principal German opera houses—in Berlin, Hamburg and Munich—as against just over £1½million for the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden. The really significant thing about the noble Lord's figures is that they are at 1971 exchange rates, the only comparisons available. It seems to me that opera is like the violin; if you cannot do it properly you had better not do it at all. Amateur dramatics can be delightful, but the prospect of an amateur opera freezes the blood. Imagine what problems Covent Garden now faces with our rate of inflation, and with the currency devalued by that rate of inflation, in keeping up to 1971 standards, let alone going ahead; and all over the world real costs, by which I mean costs irrespective of rates of inflation, have risen since 1971.
The cheapest artistic form is poetry. You need pencil and paper and all the embarrassing richness of the language you freely inhabit, but as time goes by and you improve a little, you also need an audience. The moment you seek an audience you run into the same kind of costs faced by the publishers of textbooks
182
or thrillers or even of the Sun or Daily Mirror. Your audience may be there or it may not; that depends on you and your skill. But there are formidable financial hurdles to be overcome before you can find out.
My Lords, the Arts Council—whose latest report The Arts in Hard Times we may reasonably consider with the Redcliffe-Maud Report—demonstrates an admirable list of subsidies to individual poets and to the publishers and magazines who treat with poetry. Here I must declare an interest, as a generous, and indeed unsubisidised, publisher once brought out a book of mine, and I am involved with a heavily subsidised little magazine. But costs are rising at a rate which makes one wonder whether in fact the Gutenberg era is not coming to an end. As with opera, even a relatively generous Arts Council enables one at very best to stand still, and the particular problem facing small magazines, of course, is that their grants are annual rather than triennial, so they cannot afford to spend any of their budget on promoting and securing the private readership to leave them less dependent on the subsidy.
My Lords, the moral in both these cases is the same. Here is an area of our national life in which by exacting international standards, as the noble Lord, Lord Feversham, told us, we are conspicuously successful. We need to allocate more money to build upon and extend that success. But the moment we do allocate the money it is swallowed, as if by a gigantic tax, by our inflation. The short answer to the noble Lord's question as to what the Opposition would do must be the same as with so many other endeavours in our national life; we would try to get the rate of inflation more in line with that of our competitors.
My Lords, the Government have made brave statements about the arts, and whatever our personal political feelings about the Government, on this day of all days, we know that there are determinedly civilised men in the Government's ranks. We are all delighted that the Minister for the Arts is who he is, and has returned, as it were, to this House. We all sympathise with the struggles of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, over Mentmore. But there undoubted abilities and efforts are as

183
nothing against the overall failure of the Government to bring our inflation into some correspondence with that of our competitors. Indeed, we must always remember that achievement in the arts, as indeed in most human spheres, is not to be done without fierce competition and ambition.
Mention of Mentmore brings me to the main point I want to make, and also the last one. I think it is invidious, except perhaps by way of example, to single out any one area of artistic endeavour as being more important than another. We all have our preferences and our interests, as I think this debate will show. But, whereas all the arts are threatened by inflation, there is too much interest and too much sheer talent in this country for them to sink to purely nominal levels of activity. However, one part of our artistic tradition, our role as collectors and keepers of works of art, is under serious and immediate threat and we have got to do something about it. I mean "we" here in more urgent terms than we as a people; the responsibility is squarely with Government and with Parliament.
The British have great national museums but so then have other peoples. Britain has the greatest quantity and quality of works of art in private hands of any country in the world. This is where we are unique and vulnerable. The report suggests that these works constitute £3,000 million worth of value. I am professionally involved in this field—and here I must frankly declare that interest, even though I am going to try to speak against it to some degree—and as someone professionally involved I would put the figure considerably higher than that. Levels of personal taxation in this country, and the lack of any firm tax ceilings will, in my opinion, strip the country of the bulk of this heritage within one generation, or at best within two. This is almost too horrifying to contemplate, but there are vivid signs that it will come about. The sums are only too easy to work out. Progressive taxation, plus capital transfer tax, plus inflation, compels people to sell assets which do not themselves yield money, indeed which cost money to maintain. The State does not have the money, or may not find it politically opportune to give the money, to buy the works.
184
Even if there were calls for confiscation, which I hope we in Parliament would furiously resist, the State cannot afford to house its present possessions, let alone what would flow into its hands. Over the water, all about us indeed, the still vigorous and expanding economies endow institutions, both public and private, on a scale beyond our dreams of avarice. Take two instances only. The Getty Museum in Malibu, if the Getty will is proven, will have an annual purchasing grant of about £30 million. Grants for arts purposes of the City of Hamburg are about the same in money terms as the entire arts budget for England.
My Lords, it seems to me ironic that in this Jubilee year the Mellon Museum at Yale opened and showed the world that, far from confining ourselves to literature, we have almost as great a tradition in the visual arts. Two generations, three at most, in the late 17th and 18th centuries, built up an astonishing store of art objects, as well as being themselves creative in the way Mr. Mellon and his advisers, to their great credit, have demonstrated. The sums that I have mentioned and the pressures here could see an even more rapid dispersal. We must switch our political attitudes away from consumption and towards conservation. I say this in the full knowledge that the late Lord Keynes was the first chairman of the Arts Council. In other words, we cannot look at a man who possesses a work of art as being wealthy in that respect at least until he sells it; and we cannot treat a man who hands over a work of art to the State in lieu of death or capital transfer taxes as compelling the State to buy it—and I am using ironic quotation marks round the word "buy". This surely is the nub of the Mentmore size nonsense surrounding the Land Fund.
Because housing the arts is so expensive and because museums are not the only appropriate venue for a national heritage, we must make it possible for individuals to have a fighting chance of acquiring beautiful things and handing them on to their families. In practical terms, and surely we must seek practical rather than ideological solutions, this means that, while taxation under Governments of both Parties will remain high, we must try to achieve sonic kind of cut-off point

185
so as to give an individual this fighting chance.
My Lords, the present indications—and I say this with caution because all time is a long time in politics—are that there will be a Conservative Chancellor before very much time has passed. He will be a moderate and a centrist politician and he will, no doubt—like previous Tory Chancellors—be a little too sensitive to charges that he is favouring rather than soaking the rich. I hope that he will take courage from the speech of the Leader of the Opposition when she opened the Antiques Fair last week and from the notable work, especially in their representation to the Select Committee on the Wealth Tax, of my honourable friends Mr. Robert Cooke and Mr. Patrick Cormack. However, I hope that the Government—so long as they remain the Government—will be alert to the implications of their present and proposed fiscal policies for this threatened area of arts activity. We have more than our political faces to lose.
3.51 p.m.
Viscount NORWICH: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to those that have already been expressed not only to the noble Lord, Lord Feversham, for having tabled this Motion this afternoon but also to the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation for having sponsored it in the first place. I should also like to add my humble congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, for what seems to be an absolutely admirable report—it is lucid, perceptive comprehensive and, indeed, highly enjoyable to read. I enjoyed it so much because it emphasised so many points in which I have always fervently believed, none more strongly, both in its emphasis and in my belief, than in the noble Lord's view that we cannot stage another breakthrough of the kind that we have seen in the past 30 years without what he calls "a radical revolution in our whole philosophy of education"—a revolution as a result of which the arts will no longer be seen as a separate optional extra in the whole sphere of our education but as an integral part of it.
Above all, surely, it is the arts which separate us from the higher animals and
186
the electronic machine. The higher animals have the power of thought; computers nowadays are numerate and in a very real sense literate; but the arts remain the prerogative of humanity. They are our common heritage and it is the right of us all, and indeed the duty of the older generations, to ensure that the younger generations learn not only to appreciate but wherever possibly actively to pursue the cultural heritage that is theirs.
The second point which delighted me was the praise which Lord Redcliffe-Maud's report gave to the Arts Council—an organisation which in its concept could hardly be better, and that applies to the work which it has done over the past 30 years. However, to a very large extent it is still hamstrung by the length of time which the Government still take to make up their mind about the size of their grants. It seems to me that the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, that the grant now should not be on an annual basis but on a rolling triennial basis may rapidly be becoming out of date. I am not certain that even a rolling quinquennial basis would not be better for an age in which great international artists—and they are people whom we must have if we are to maintain our leadership in these fields—think nothing of booking themselves three years, or even on occasions four years, ahead.
Having said that and agreeing as I do with the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, that the Arts Council has as one of its great strengths what he calls the "arm's length principle", which I absolutely agree should be maintained between Government and Arts Council—in other words, that the Government under no circumstances should try to direct the Arts Council in the precise areas and proportions in which it should distribute its money—and also agreeing that this same arm's length principle should be pursued in relations between the Arts Council and the regional arts associations, I confess that I am not quite so sure about the desirability, as the noble Lord suggests, of pursuing it one stage further in devolution and maintaining the arm's length principle between the regional arts associations and local authorities. In my experience the very large majority of local authorities in this country, with several notable exceptions, remain extremely

187
philistine bodies. It seems to me idealistic, not to say, if noble Lords will forgive the word, possibly "starry-eyed", to think that they will greatly improve within the next generation or two. The buck must stop somewhere. I believe that it would be much safer if it stopped in the capable hands of the regional arts associations rather than going any further down the scale.
So much for certain general points which I wish to make. One or two particular aspects, which are mentioned in other areas of the report, are worth emphasising briefly. First, I should like to refer briefly—and it will be briefly because your Lordships have already debated the Annan Report—to broadcasting. I believe that by quite a long way the BBC is this country's biggest cultural creditor. We owe it a far greater debt than we owe any other organisation, a debt which we cannot possibly repay and a debt which puts broadcasting in this country on a much higher level than that which exists in any other country. In fact, the only serious disadvantage of the BBC of which I know is that it is acutely painful to listen to broadcasting or to watch television in any other country of which I have experience because one cannot help but compare that country's performance with the standards of excellence which we receive here.
That being the case I believe that the £18 licence fee for colour television is grotesquely low. It is the best bargain in this country. To have three channels broadcasting in colour for seven or eight hours a day at standards which we can enjoy, all at the price of a second-class return ticket to Wigan, is an inestimable boon, but a boon which unfortunately in our present age and our present financial stringency we cannot possibly afford. I should be delighted to see the colour television licence fee at least doubled. We could have as many concessions as we liked. The service could be provided free to old age pensioners living alone, to schools and hospitals. That should not be very difficult to organise, particularly as the licences are issued through the Post Office which already deals with old age pensioners and the disabled. All those groups could easily be given preferential
188
treatment. However, I certainly would be only too delighted to pay double for the service that I receive and I am sure that many noble Lords feel the same way.
I should like to mention museums. I had the privilege of serving for a very short time on the Standing Commission for Museums and Galleries. It was a very short time only because within a year I was forced to resign. The amount of paper work I found myself having to do was so gigantic it was almost a full time job. I admire those selfless members of the Commission led by the noble Earl, Lord Rosse—not, alas, a Member of your Lordships' House, and what a great loss to us all!—who have done an absolutely tremendous job and are continuing to do it, but they too are hamstrung. They are a purely consultative body. They should be, and deserve to be, a patronage body; one which is able to distribute money to the museums and galleries under their authority.
I well remember the days some years ago when I was chairman of the struggling British Theatre Museum—an organisation which was in fact kept going for 10 years on the dedication of the few members who believed in it at the cost of rather less than £5,000 a year in toto, which was what we got from one or two, though not very many more, benefactors. Now, thanks very largely to the efforts of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, that British Theatre Museum has become the National Museum of the Theatre. We hope soon to see it established at its new site at Covent Garden. Presently it is with the V. and A.
I remember the nightmare task that I and my successors had in trying to find money for it largely because the Arts Council, a patronage body, did not have the right to contribute to museums. There seemed really nowhere else we could go to get a really sympathetic hearing. When I think of the number of other struggling bodies in the same condition today who have not had the ultimate luck we had, I feel that the sooner the Standing Commission can be given not only teeth but purse strings and the ability to undo them, the better that will be.
I should like to mention, also briefly, one rather sad lacuna in the report.

189
Lord Redcliffe-Maud mentioned in his Introduction that he was not going to cover the question of architecture except in so far as it was necessary for the building of museums, galleries, et cetera. That seems to me a pity. Architecture is obviously not a pure art form in the way that most other art forms are. It has, and if it is to be good architecture must always have, a very practical purpose as well. None the less it imposes upon our vision more than any other art form. It is around us all the time. More than any other art form it conditions the environment in which we live. It is a duty—a duty which so far has been most lamentably and shamefully ignored—of all our educationists to teach our children first of all to look around them; not to take architecture for granted but keep their eyes open and ask themselves whether buildings are good or bad buildings. If we do not do that with architecture in just the same way as we try—once again nowhere near enough, but we try—to encourage them to look at pictures and listen to music, how are we going to improve the lamentable standards of 80 per cent. of British architecture today?
Those are the principle points I wanted to make. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Feversham, said, in the end it all comes back—and it must all come back—to money. Of course we all agree that at this particular moment there can be no question of increasing the Government money made available to the arts in the way that I believe we all of us know in our hearts that it should be increased. Of course we have to wait until sunnier times come, as, God willing, they will. But meanwhile, above all there is an enormous amount of planning that we can do, that we should do, indeed that we must do now because it is going to take quite a long time to do. There is no time for me, nor any reason for me in view of the admirable way it has been set out in the report, to spell out exactly what those plans need be. They are all here. All I should like to do is to quote one sentence from the report, which comes from paragraph 3 of the Summary of Main Conclusions, on page 61.
"The proportion of public expenditure at present devoted to the arts in England and Wales is still such a minute fraction of the total that to reduce it would make no perceptible contribution towards the reduction of total public expenditure".
190
Let us keep this in mind. Let us not reduce it, even if we cannot for the moment increase it.
Let us remember, finally, that the first public money made available by a Government of this country for the enjoyment of music and the arts was provided, as Lord Redcliffe-Maud reminds us on page 1 of his report, in the year 1940. Let us now at least not use the present critical condition in which this country finds itself as an excuse once again to brush our responsibilities under the carpet.
4.6 p.m.
Lord REDCLIFFE-MAUD: My Lords, I must thank my noble friend Lord Feversham for having put down this Motion and giving us the chance to have this debate, which already, for me at any rate, has been quite fascinating. T should also like to thank the Gulbenkian Foundation for having in the first instance made possible my wanderings round England and Wales, paying all my expenses and, still more important, lending me the services of Mr. Anthony Wraight, who I am delighted to know now serves the Scottish Arts Council, and without whose judgment, experience and dedication, as well as his kindness to me, my report would not have been made. That is not to say that I do not personally and solely take responsibility for everything that is in it.
I must also say how delightful it is that we shall shortly be hearing from the chairman of the Scottish Arts Council, the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh. He and his colleagues in Scotland were of the greatest help to me. I have read with fascination the document already referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Feversham, which I think was released to the public yesterday, describing how in Scotland it is going to tackle the sort of problems which we in England and Wales are also trying to tackle. I should like to say here that the significant difference in the proposals made in that report, which is only a discussion paper but which is going to be followed up by the Scottish Arts Council, is that there, where at present they have no regional arts associations compared with the twelve we have in England and the three in Wales, it does not recommend that regional arts

191
associations should be created or brought into existence. I cannot help feeling that that is a wise proposal, but it of course means that the Scottish Arts Council, in its determination to forge still closer links with local government, accepts the fact that it must deal with the individual local authorities both in the regions and in the districts of Scotland, which in this country would face the Arts Council with a really impossible task with 456-odd local authorities to collaborate with. In a moment I shall return to that point in terms of what we should do in England.
In thanking the Gulbenkian Foundation I should also like to thank them and others for the reception of the report—not in any sense like the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, who so very generously and over-generously said what he did about the report—and who have taken thought and action since the report was published last June, and in particular for the collaboration which the Leeds Castle Trustees have taken to enable a seminar of a special kind to be held within ten days from now as part of a follow-up to the thinking that should take place between all concerned in facing the problems of the next few years.
I will not repeat the remarks of Lord Feversham, who admirably expressed much of what I would have tried to indicate and which I have discussed in my report about the extraordinary value for money that we in this country have got from the very small sums that, from 1940 onwards, have been made available by the State. I would only add to what he said that we should remember that much of the virtue of the last 30 years has sprung from the Education Act 1944, which preceded any Act dealing with local government, though of course it was only just before the creation of the Arts Council, which took over from the Council for the Encouragement of Music and the Arts. But it is what has been done in the last 30 years to bring the arts from the periphery towards the centre of the curriculum, in primary schools in particular, but also in secondary schools, that in my view has been part of the success of those years, and it only indicates how far we have to go.
We still persist in thinking that reading, writing and arithmetic—however one likes
192
to describe them—must be the core curriculum in all our schools. We think that literacy, numeracy and the cognative faculties must be developed, and of course we are right to think that; but how wrong we are to think that these can be divorced in the development of every child—handicapped at one end, exceedingly able in the cognative sense at the other—for all children need to have at school the beginnings of the development of their artistic talents (the correlation of mind, heart, hand and head) which is the basis of a civilised education for a civilised society. We have a long way to go in the educational sphere before that kind of promise is fulfilled. It has been shown in some schools already; in Leicestershire, Hertforshire and many other places it has been shown that it can be done by an adaptation of school work, and the National Youth Orchestra is an example of the extraordinarily high international standards that can be achieved by people who have not yet left school.
It seems to me that at present it would be wrong as well as futile to ask Her Majesty's Government to do more than maintain the real value of what comes from taxpayers' pockets and is used for the arts. Despite what Lord Feversham said, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, who will reply to the debate, and the Government, for having in fact maintained the Art Council grant and various other grants at a time when it would have been exceedingly easy for them to yield to what has been said to be one of our national characteristics, which is to assume that the arts are frills and the first casualty when there are questions of economy cuts.
That does not in any way lessen the sense of crisis I share with those who have spoken already, in particular the fact that Covent Garden will not be able even further to enhance its reputation and, perhaps even worse, that the community arts, travelling theatres, mobile experiments, the theatre in education—the myriad of other exciting things that are happening now and have grown in the last 30 years, which I saw for myself on my visits to 67 of our local authorities and all 15 of our regional arts associations—are in peril. Here is where I must continue to ask the Government to see that local

193
authorities are not discouraged from at least maintaining the real value of what they now do, whether through education or through specific patronage of the arts.
We saw from a review, which the Arts Council wisely got out the other day, of expenditure by local authorities on the arts and museums in 1974–75 compared with the 1972–73 figures, which I used in my report, that local authorities—they are only rough figures—seemed to be spending £15 million in 1972–73 compared with £24 million in 1974–75. What they are spending today none of us knows, and this is something which I hope in the future we will get right so that we do not have ad hoc inquiries but know regularly, just as we know how much is being spent on the social services by local government, how much is being spent on the arts in the most comprehensive sense by local government. For the present we cannot ask for more than maintenance of the real value of these public grants from rates and taxes. However, we must now make up our minds that this is only a temporary postponement of the big, though gradual, increase which there should be over the next five, 10, 15, 50 years if we are to do justice to what we know we are potentially, a great nation of artists from top to bottom.
What I hope very much is that we will not, in thinking what local government should do, accept the necessity of Parliament compelling local authorities not to use their discretion but impose a somehow defined minimum rate for the benefit of the arts. That is something which many of my friends urge, and have urged on me, and were most disappointed that I did not propose. It has never been done in the history of local government, and it would be exceedingly difficult to know what the figure should be and how one should calculate what should be the expenditure on the arts. Far more important, I believe in local government as the right democratic instrument through which the arts are to become a normal part of our life.
Under the 1972 Act, for all its defects, they now have for the first time a chance, a freedom, to spend on all aspects of local arts patronage, and that is what they must be persuaded to do by those of us who are enthusiasts for the arts, organising ourselves perhaps in local arts councils, as has happened all over London and in many
194
parts of England and which is now recognised by a new National Association of Local Arts Councils which will help local arts councils to learn from each other how to put pressure on councillors and infect a neighbourhood with the desire, and the recognition of the possibility, to enrich life, with each community becoming more of a community through the arts.
This is particularly true, I believe, in most parts of our country—the inner cities, for example—which the Government are determined to aid. I hope the contribution which the arts can make in solving the problem of deprivation all around will be recognised not only in the hearts of the cities the Government will select, but of so many of our cities; indeed, there is hardly a city where there is not an inner centre, where the social service of an arts development in the community could not to advantage become available.
Lord RAGLAN: My Lords, I was not clear from what the noble Lord said whether he was in favour of making it mandatory for local authorities to spend money on the arts. I know he is in favour of asking them if they will spend more, but is he in favour of making it mandatory?
Lord REDCLIFFE-MAUD: My Lords, my faith in local government leads me to believe that the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, was wrong when he dismissed councillors and suchlike people as being incapable of becoming the kind of enlightened persons which nationally we have done in treating the Arts Council with the arm's length principle. I believe that local governors should and will learn over the years what I call the general art of public patronage, which somehow manages both to involve the councillors in the crucial decisions which only they can make—how much money can be spent on the arts in each place, and holding to account those who have the money to spend, giving them a chance to select the directors who will direct the plays or the concerts, keeping out of the council chamber and leaving to the board of the theatre or the orchestra concerned the decisions which are strictly artistic but, of course, in the end having to agree or disagree with the verdict that their constituents will help them to make

195
on how far they have been successful and, if so, phasing out, continuing or increasing the grants that they have made.
This arm's length principle is something that is very little understood in local government circles. In particular, I should like to say here and now that the last thing that I mean by it is keeping the councillors away from the arts. On the contrary, I want them to become more and more involved with and enthusiastic about the arts on behalf of their constituents, but finding a way, as we have done nationally through the Arts Council, of leaving the artist and the art organisation the freedom without which we shall not get value for the money that we put into these enterprises. I shall not say more than that at the moment.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge): My Lords, I should like to be absolutely clear on one point. I understood my noble friend Lord Raglan to ask the noble Lord whether he believed in a mandatory amount in rate support to be given by the local authorities. I am quite sure that the noble Lord does not, but I want to hear him say so.
Lord REDCLIFFE-MAUD: My Lords, I must apologise: I did not hear the first part of the question of the noble Lord, Lord Raglan. I must repeat—because it is plain in the document and in what I have said before—that I have disappointed many of my friends by rejecting the mandatory idea and definitely asking the Government, when the time comes to, as it were, release local government to increase its expenditure, whether they will leave local government to have its expenditure increased through the pressures of the community as an act of democratic decision rather than asking for the acceptance of some diktat from the Mother of Parliaments.
I have already spoken longer than I meant to. I would end simply by saying that the regional arts associations which exist throughout England and Wales, and which have been fostered both locally and by the Government, and the Arts Council furnish a magnificent opportunity for the Arts Council to do what we know it wants to do, which is to devolve decision-
196
making as far as possible from Piccadilly out to the places where the arts will actually be practised and enjoyed. It is an act of faith. The regional arts associations vary very much in their history, in their strength and, in particular, in their finances and, therefore, in the quality and number of the staff that they employ.
Over the past year, the Arts Council has been dealing one by one with each regional arts association and with the directors together, working out in detail how more of the decisions which are at present taken in Piccadilly to subsidise a regional theatre or orchestra or arts centre, can be devolved to the regional arts associations in such a way that the "clients" agree that they should be so devolved, rather than protesting that they want to remain, as it were, at Nanny's apron-strings. This is a very difficult problem and the change cannot be made at a stroke of the pen. That is why, in this period while we cannot expand our expenditure and make the progress we should like, there is so much that can be done that does not cost money. The Arts Council is doing it and the regional arts associations are responding. I had the pleasure of being in Yorkshire, where the noble Lord, Lord Feversham, is the chairman and, there, one had the chance of discussing the report with leaders of local government and with the organisations themselves. I am sure that this is a technique which we are rightly using in England and Wales—the technique of devolution to a regional arts association.
I myself do not believe that the regional arts association is rightly thought of as a little Arts Council. I know that it looks like one but it is essentially different. It is a consortium of the democratically elected local authorities comprised within the region, and this makes the problem of the arms length principle all the more difficult to learn. However, it also means that the decisions of the regional arts association are more deeply rooted in the community than they would have been had these regional associations been creations of the Arts Council as, for example, in New Zealand. There, the Queen Elizabeth II Arts Council, which corresponds to our Arts Council, has regionalised itself and created three regions with regional committees throughout New Zealand. I hope that that will be a great success in New Zealand; but it is infinitely

197
better, as the Arts Council disposed of its regional offices many years ago, that it should not have to recreate an artefact of its own but can use something that has been a spontaneous creation in the region.
I must end by expressing my faith in local government. I know that many people will share the view of the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, that we are asking too much of local government. I do not believe that it is asking too much. I feel that local government which, since the war, has lost its gas, its electricity and now its water, should not pine nostalgically after sewage disposal but should turn itself to the delightful prospect of rivalling Munich, Cologne, Paris and other cities of Europe in gradually, over the years, responding to the desires of a community which seeks its prestige as well as its delight in opera, music, the community arts—in something in which all the citizens will take part. It was rightly said by, I think, the noble Viscount, Lord Esher—the Director of the Royal College of Art—
"Artists are not a special kind of person, but every person is a special kind of artist".
Viscount NORWICH: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us roughly how long he envisages that the process he describes will take, following which all the local authorities will be educated? I suggested a generation. I do not believe that it could be very much less.
4.28 p.m.
Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH: My Lords, it is well said of old maids that the longer they leave it, the more nervous they become. I am no exception to that rule but I should like, in addition to craving your Lordships' indulgence for these first words of mine here, to say how very grateful I am for the tremendous welcome and freely proffered assistance which have made this occasion so much easier and less anxious than it otherwise might have been.
The noble Lord, Lord Feversham, has kindly agreed that we may extend the scope of the debate this afternoon to include the affairs of Scotland and I am most grateful for that because, as the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, has said, a report was released only yesterday called The Arts in the Scottish Regions
198
by Anthony Phillips. This report deals with many of the same matters as are dealt with in the report of the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, Support for the Arts in England and Wales. I must say now what an immense support it was to us in Scotland to have two visits from the noble Lord and Anthony Wraight in which, as it turned out, we found so much common ground.
We followed a slightly different course with our report, in that, though we adopted the same course of asking an outsider to conduct the inquiry, we felt that it would be helpful to have some Scottish Arts Council members taking part as the thinking was proceeding. We therefore appointed a regional committee consisting half of Scottish Arts Council members and half of people from outside whom we felt—and who indeed proved to be—immensly valuable to our thinking. The report went to the council last autumn, and it took some time to obtain agreement for the recommendation that we should appoint a regional development director, but John Murphy joined us in this post only last Monday.
It might he helpful to indicate some of the recommendations of Anthony Phillips's report and the action that the Scottish Arts Council has already taken, and intends to take, in the future.
First, the report endorses the action that the Scottish Arts Council has taken over the last three decades in assisting those who have come forward over this period to build the present range of arts availability in Scotland: seven repertory theatres; the continuation of assistance to the Scottish National Orchestra, which of course is of much more ancient origin than the Arts Council; the birth, and tremendous development, of Scottish Opera; the Scottish Philharmonic in its three combinations to serve the Opera, the Scottish Ballet, and for smaller concerts all over the country; 175 music clubs and other arts promoting societies; as well as a very great range of arts exhibitions, visual arts, tours and assistance to writers and to artists.
The report goes on to say that not only are these organisations essential but that they will die if they are not permitted to grow in a natural way, and they will perish if standards should be sacrificed.

199
However, the report goes on to consider at some length the problems which prompted us in the first place to commission the inquiry. One of these is the lack of any easy access for much of the Scottish population, scattered as they are over so wide an area, to professional performances; and, secondly, the continuing low percentage of the national population who make use of Arts Council subsidised activities. We must face up to the fact that the growth in the percentage of people who attend Arts Council activities is less than, I think, many hoped some decades ago. This applies even in the Central Belt of Scotland, for instance, where so many arts events of the very highest quality are within easy access.
The committee considered these questions at length, and gave some indication of what it described as the rich mixture of different art forms, styles and motivations which should be present in a healthy ecology of the arts. But most vitally it was felt that engines of local initiative must be found, fuelled and started, if there is to be a healthy art life in the remoter and indeed also in the more central localities. The report said—and the Scottish Arts Council agreed—that there should be no question of the Scottish Arts Council imposing a cultural policy from Edinburgh; that there should be no question of providing offices or representatives to serve the many regions and districts. We do not have the money, and even if we did, it would totally unbalance the present organisation to which I should like to refer very briefly because it differs necessarily in some respects from the Arts Council of Great Britain, with its much greater territorial and population responsibilities.
We have much the same number of council members in Scotland, but every one doubles up on a specialist committee to go through the gruelling work of receiving and considering the many different applications that we have, and finally deciding on the 600 or so grants that we make every year. We meet in full council, and in other groupings, to consider policy on a longer term, but it means that these people, together with the one or two officers only who staff each department, know each other very closely and are able therefore to understand very closely the problems each
200
committee has. If we were to try to graft on a larger organisation, we should lose the advantages that we think we presently have of a small organisation.
Now we come to the very focal recommendation, to which the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, has already referred. We thought in 1971, when the tremendous explosion of interest and growth in regional arts associations was occurring in England, that we should surely be doing the same in Scotland. Then along came local government reform, with its concurrent powers for regions and districts to assist the arts. We became less certain. Then we reflected that the Scottish population is in fact smaller than the population served by the larger English regional arts associations, and perhaps, after all, we were uniquely fortunate in having already not simply a regional arts association, but a fully fledged Arts Council. The noble Lord, Lord Feversham, said that we were jolly lucky and that we could stop worrying about it. So we decided—and we thought about this in great detail during the progress of this committee—that it was correct that we should not attempt to sow the seeds or to suggest to others that they might start regional arts associations at this time, though of course we should be very ready to help any such nascent organisation that might now come forward with local authority support.
We then went on to say that for this assistance, which we know only too well is required now and will be required in the future in very large sums of money, we must look increasingly to democratic local government. I have heard the reservations expressed this afternoon; I have heard them expressed many times outside. I share them myself, and we are all aware of particular occasions which do not indicate in certain cases that all local authority councillors are necessarily sympathetic to the arts. I came in from London Airport yesterday with a very distinguished and knowledgeable person, whom I immediately asked to help me with what I might speak about in this debate on the Lord Redcliffe-Maud Report, and he said: "Oh, that's the chap who produced this ludicrous idea that local authorities should support the arts. I can't imagine anything more stupid." With the aid of a half hour journey and two traffic jams, I at any

201
rate silenced him because I believe, and the Scottish Arts Council believes, most firmly, that this is the right way forward; indeed, the only way.
The reason for saying that is that the sums we presently require—and I must endorse everything that the noble Lord, Lord Feversham, has said about the critical state of the arts in terms of under-funding at the moment—are too large to cone from anywhere but central Government, with the assistance of local authorities. Much has been done—and we welcome it—to help businesses who have an interest in that direction, to decide in what ways they might most usefully assist the arts. But as the Minister for the Arts, the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, has, I think, said somewhere, so rightly, this will supply only some jam, and it is very clear to us that it would be quite wrong for any arts organisation to find itself depending to a great extent on business patronage for its bread. That is not sensible.
The other reasons have already been touched on, and the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, has referred to them in his report. One of these is that 50 or 100 years ago, I am sure, as the noble Lord, Lord Feversham, has said, the same remarks were made about local authorities in respect of public health, schools, and libraries. But I think we are right for another reason (which I think has not been mentioned today) which is in connection with this vital arm's length principle. The arm's length principle is vital —six years have convinced me of that. But we must not look upon it as totally impregnable. On that ground it would be quite wrong to load the entire responsibility for funding the arts in this country on to the Arts Council. For one thing, it would not last. As we all know, there is in many quarters a certain dislike of nominated bodies, and to suggest that the entire responsibility for funding the arts should remain with nominated bodies is not, I think, realistic. Furthermore, these nominated bodies, in so far as my own council is concerned, would not welcome that at all. After all, the Royal Charter which provides this arm's length principle gives immunity, or at least some degree of protection or excuse, for a Minister who comes under violent attack because somebody does not like something
202
which has happened in the arts. He can say, with relief, "It is the Arts Council's responsibility". The Arts Council, on its side, is confident of its immunity from such political pressures in the short run. It is, however, only in the short or medium run. A Minister could turn the whole policies of the Arts Council upside down inside two years by refusing to appoint anybody to the Arts Council except those who shared his views or were prepared to follow his instructions.
A point that I think many people miss is that, although I have not counted it up, the number of people who have served on the Arts Council since its origin must be truly enormous. Most of the members of the Arts Council leave after two years, so the people who take on this task of listening, learning and helping in the very difficult task of allotting the money pass through very quickly. The Arts Council is unlike local government; it is unlike many other bodies, on which people remain for a very long time. The only long-term safeguard, in my view, is that people all over the country make their local representatives realise that they want the arts; and a sizeable proportion of the funds needed to support the arts in this country must come from this widespread source, where, once it has been established, it will be immovable and can only grow. In local authorities we do not, I understand, any longer debate the question whether we should have public lavatories: we debate how much more ought to be spent on them this year.
In summing up, may I say that we are all very well aware that to talk about increased funds from local authorities at this time is unfortunate in terms of their present financial problems. But, if I may come to the question that was asked just before I stood up, I believe that what we have to look to in terms of this partnership with local government is success measured in decades, rather than in years. It will take time; and the arm's length principle, which has been suggested as being at hazard, will also be learnt. The gentle art of public patronage, as the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, referred to it, will be learnt in its many forms. A colleague of mine spoke of how very difficult it was to explain to heads of local authorities that it really was not terribly wise or comfortable for them to be chairmen of their local repertory companies.

203
When there was a shout or a protest, the electric shock galvanically moved straight up to the Lord Provost, which made him jump, which he found most uncomfortable. We managed to persuade some of them that it was really much nicer to be able to sit on the sidelines and say, "We have appointed an independent board and have given them a great deal of money, but it is up to them to decide what they do; and if in the long run we do not like it, we shall of course tell them and possibly their grant will be affected". So I think they will learn; in fact, I am absolutely confident they will learn. It is the only way, and this partnership with local authorities is one which we now propose to develop.
Finally, I would say that one thing I have found distressing in the last two years during which this matter has been debated is the endless discussions on relationships —structural relationships, committees, councils and so forth. Nothing, am convinced—nothing whatsoever—will come of these policies and plans that we have put forward except that an individual produces something which is thought to be worthy of support in the arts and that somebody notices it. We hope that it will be us if it is not the local authority; and we hope—and we are, in fact, optimistic—that over a period of time we will be able to persuade local councillors and local officers that this is worthy of support, that it will get that support and that that support will grow. We have, as I say, taken a first step in appointing an officer. It is a small beginning, but I am convinced that his reporting to the entire council is the right way. This is a measure upon which we decided although it was a departure from the recommendation of the Anthony Phillips report, which said that we should have a separate committee.
We adopted this suggestion because we felt that the arts in the regions was in no sense a different thing from the arts that are being subsidised and are the concern of the individual committees. It must be a central concern, and the chairmen must be constantly aware of the regional problem so that, in their individual considerations of grants, they can guide their committees, as I hope they will, in the direction of increasing accessibility to arts events all over the country and in the task of getting a greater percentage of the population to enjoy the privilege, as I think all your
204
Lordships do, of understanding the elation and the greater comprehension of the world around us that comes from enjoyment of the arts.
4.46 p.m.
Baroness LEE of ASHERIDGE: My Lords, it is my privilege to be the first to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, on a maiden speech in which, he told us, he was going to be so very nervous; but we all noticed that the less he was thinking about himself and the more he was thinking about his subject, the more his nervousness disappeared. We have had the advantage, therefore, of hearing a speech from someone of great experience and also, as we know, from someone who is going to do a very great deal for the arts in Scotland in the future. May I claim a little credit? As a fellow Scot, in the 1964–70 period the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and myself anticipated this Scottish passion for independence, and we enlarged the powers of the Scottish Arts Council and (what appeals to Scottish hearts even more) improved the percentage grant which was made to Scotland. That was a beginning, and although we shall go our different ways, we shall have very much in common. It is only right that, whether it is Scotland, Wales, North, South, East or West, we should not have too much standardisation but should have the maximum of flexibility.
My Lords, one thing has struck me so far in this debate. No mention has been made, even by the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, himself, of the long-term possibility of an independent Ministry for the Arts. It may he just as well if we leave that out of our reckoning today. When I read Lord Redcliffe-Maud's proposals, as I have done very thoroughly and with very great respect and gratitude, my blood runs cold at one of them, and that is that we should have an independent Ministry composed of both arts and sport. I just cannot accept that combination. But as it is not on the agenda that we are going to be thinking of in terms of an independent Ministry of any kind, whatever kind of dog's breakfast it might be, whatever bits and pieces might go into it, I will say no more about that now. It would be a Ministry without a muscle; I must just say that. It would not be able to stand up to the great Departments of State.

205
On the other hand, I am concerned to maintain the link of the Minister for the Arts with the Minister responsible for education and science; and, although I disagreed with Lord Eccles, who succeeded me, on quite a number of issues, there was one thing for which I think we can both claim credit. We were jealous of the status of the Minister for the Arts, and we maintained the authority of the Minister for the Arts. During my period I was able to establish a relationship which was in no way derogatory of the Secretary responsible for education and science, but I told him to keep his hands off so far as the arts were concerned, and I dealt directly with the Prime Minister. The reason I did that was because a Minister responsible for education and science has already, not just as much but more to attend to than he can possibly do well. A Minister responsible for the arts has not only to fight for the best possible financial support. It is also a pretty strenuous job going round the country, because it is not for the Minister to sit on his or her bottom in London; they have got to get around. When we talk about involving the local authorities, well, you only involve the local authorities to an increased extent as you involve the schools, the school children and the parents behind the school children. I read with particular interest in the Scottish Arts Council Report the very long passage given to this aspect of things deploring that more had not been done and asking that more should be done in the future.
My Lords, what do I think we could do at the moment? I think that what we have to do is to establish the status of the Minister for the Arts in a way that it cannot be played with as happened during the period of my friend and successor Mr. Hugh Jenkins. I was a Minister of State; the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, was a Minister of State. I think it was disgraceful that my successor should not have been made a Minister of State. He was an able and hard-working Minister who sometimes did not get the credit he deserved. I am not talking in terms of individual Ministers on either side of the House; I am talking about the job. I think that we ought to be quite firm that whoever in the future is the Minister should have the status of a Minister of State inside the Ministry of Education and Science.
206
It may be that at some great future time there will be a new arrangement; but it must be clearly understood that the Minister for the Arts, operating within this large and powerful Department, is de jure a junior Minister and de facto insisting on his own authority. That is how the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles functioned. I ought to have talked to him before this debate; but perhaps I may refer to a report given in the Observer of 27th February of a speech of his. I know that he will correct me if I am wrong. The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, had been one of the most successful Ministers of Education since the war and was not about to behave like a humble junior to Mrs. Thatcher, his technical superior—and note the word "technical". He goes on to say, if he is correctly quoted:
"I struck a bargain with Heath and Thatcher and that bargain was that he ignored Mrs. Thatcher".
That is not in any way being derogatory to the Minister responsible for Education and Science. It is a constitutional convenience that both the Minister for the Arts and the Minister for Education and Science should work within this great Department and have their recognised spheres. It is also very important that the Minister for the Arts should negotiate with the Treasury Ministers and officials the money for the arts.
My Lords, many of you are too experienced in the way of Government not to know that nothing comes easily. And the Treasury never gives in. I find in December 1967 that I am still being plagued by Treasury Ministers who, of course, want the grant for the arts to be decided as part of the general grant of the Ministry of Education. There is too much secret diplomacy in all this when secrecy is not necessary. I make no apology for reading a short paragraph from my reply to my friends, colleagues, comrades, in the Treasury. The suggestion was that money for the arts should no longer be dealt with as a separate item. In my reply, I say:
"I am wholly opposed to any change in the present arrangements for the obvious reason that promotion of the arts is a new field of Government responsibility and therefore must have separate consideration if it is to be meaningful. I can see a real danger that in a vast Government Department with heavy pressures for all kinds of existing commitments, there will be no real livingroom for this part of the work ".

207
That was a battle which had to be fought and won. It was fought and won and during the period of the first two Ministers, myself and the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, we got what I think was the right relationship inside the Department of Education and Science.
I am not suggesting anything so nonsensical as that every Minister of State in all Government Departments should be able to deal directly with the Prime Minister and directly with the Treasury Ministers and officials. That would be nonsense. In the nature of the job that many of them do, it would be a double nonsense; it would be chaos. But when you are trying to do something new it is impossible to get over all the hurdles, all the prejudices and resistancies of every kind unless there is a special arrangement made.
It is well known that the Department of Education and Science at a time when its budget was something in the region of £1,500 million, refused to give the newly appointed Minister for the Arts £8,000 in order to maintain the National Youth Orchestra. Why was that? Was it because our colleague, the late Anthony Crosland, a close friend of the Minister and myself, was a crude illiterate fellow? Of course not. He was so fully preoccupied with his other jobs that he left it to his permanent officials.
When I got the answer, I called a conference. There we were, all sitting round the one table, and they could not find me the £8,000. I had taken the precaution of having a talk with the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and I knew that faute de mieux we could get our hands, through him, on £8,000. But having said so, I got a note saying that I could have the £8,000 that year but that I must be clear about it that I could not have £20,000 the following year to keep the National Youth Orchestra going.
My Lords, can you imagine a situation in the House of Commons where a newly-appointed Minister has to go down to the House to say that he could not even keep the National Youth Orchestra in existence! I would have been savaged. And rightly so. I see one of my old battle-mates on the other side of the House, the former Miss Irene Ward. I hope she will forgive me; I do not know her present title.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: Never mind.
Baroness LEE of ASHERIDGE: My Lords, I know that I would have been savaged from all sides of the House. I am making this point because it shows that it is just not possible for a Minister responsible for Education and Science also to be the Minister responsible for the arts; but it is possible when you are trying to do something new to have both working within the framework of a great Government Department.
My Lords, one thing that gave me great pleasure was that when the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, was appointed, he got himself out from under physically and raised his standard in Belgrave Square. I congratulate him. He was taking over my old Open University premises. I had the same experience with the Open University. I had to get out from under and I had physically to get from under. That is why we got a house in Belgrave Square and furnished it nicely, because otherwise I should not have got the top brass that I wanted from the academic world. But that is another story.
It is another story but it is related and quite relevant to what I am now trying to say. If you want to do something new, then it has got to be helped and special provisions have to be made. I deplored the fact that my colleague Hugh Jenkins was not given the status which he ought to have been given. I deplored also the fact that the present Minister, with all respect, should have allowed himself to be taken back under the same roof, even though it is in a new building, because I think the Minister for the Arts ought to have his own special ambience and ought to have his own special roof. After all, people are coming from all over the world. It is part of our shop window and part of the dignity of the job. I hope we shall get round to the fact of putting our Minister for the Arts under his own independent roof. He can work quite well in the foreseeable future within the Department.
My Lords, another reason why I am eager to maintain contact inside the Department is represented by a whole flow of reports on the teaching of drama, the visual arts, music, the use of museums and galleries throughout our schools that

209
I initiated. I was horrified when I began the job to find that no such surveys had been made. We had lonely people here and there who were doing a wonderful job in some of our schools, getting little credit and no encouragement from the centre. In one of the documents I was most proud about, one of the ablest inspectors, Mr. John Allen in the DES, produced the report on drama throughout our schools.
It is a poor person who does not know enough about children to realise that they are natural actors and actresses. They love acting. They can be taught their reading, writing and arithmetic, the basic things, more effectively through drama than in any other way. Also, it is a good comprehensive principle because one child may be good at making the scenery or the furniture, and another is the poet. For those reasons, I feel strongly that we must pay careful attention to the status and authority of the Minister for the Arts. I agree to differ with our present Minister who has every virtue except one, he is far too modest. He thinks that it is perfectly all right for the Minister of Education and Science to put his case for him in the Cabinet. If there is a disagreement between the Minister of Education and the Minister for the Arts, I think that the Minister for the Arts ought to state his own case. We must agree to differ on that.
We know that our Minister is the soul of courtesy; and I read somewhere that the meek shall inherit the earth. In spite of my Scottish upbringing, I was never much impressed by that particular part of the Good Book. I always felt that the meek would inherit the earth when they ceased to be meek. When you are fighting for something that you care about—and this includes those of us here who care about the future of the arts—you cannot afford to be too modest and you cannot afford to be too meek. I do not take the point of view that in the present financial situation we must not ask our Government to do more than mark time. If one looks at the situation quite coldly, the arts are a great source of income to the Treasury as well as expenditure, and we can quite properly claim that a percentage of the revenue which is produced because of the attraction of the arts from the tourist trade should be taken into consideration. The difficulty
210
is that the Arts Ministry is still so new it has not yet found its proper level.
In terms of the priorities of a civilised Government, it is deplorable if we cannot maintain the ground that we have won. One cannot maintain the ground unless one has broken new ground. That was one of the things which the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, said. There is no such thing as standing still. We either go backwards or we go forwards. If we want to go forward, we need more money. Maybe we ought not to have given Scotland or Wales a great opera company. We were under criticism at one time for the money that we spent on Covent Garden and the rest. But the philosophy behind it all was if one sustains the standards of the centre, one can build it up on the regions. That has happened. I entirely agree with everything that has been said about encouraging local patriotism, civic pride. Scotland said "We are not going to have an inferior opera company", and they have their company. Wales said the same. But one cannot establish those companies without funding them. One cannot fund them properly on the present amount which is spent on the arts.
My Lords, I apologise for talking at some length; I want to make one more point about museums and galleries. There is much that can be done there that I suggested in the statement of the Labour Party on museums and galleries. We should make it part of the contract of anyone who is employed to serve in the museums and galleries that they should be prepared to work the hours that suit the public. One cannot run a railway system, the hospitals or transport if people are going to say: "We cannot work on Sunday morning; we have to get home for our Sunday dinner". It is not a case of asking every one to work every Sunday. But for me it was incredible that we had our museums and galleries refreshed, invigorating, seeking to attract more people, young and old, from abroad, and I was defeated. I failed to get our museums and galleries open on a Sunday forenoon. And they are still closed.
The Victoria and Albert Museum very bravely tried it for six months and had an enormous public response. But at the end of six months the custodians and others said: "No, we are not going to

211
continue the experiment". They wanted to go home for their Sunday dinner. I am all in favour of free choice; but if one is not prepared to work, a shift system, as most industries have to work, if one is not prepared to work at least one Sunday in four or five, one ought to look for another job. I can say that the senior officials of the unions and the trustees, were all at one, but we were defeated by the people on the floor who said, "No" This is ridiculous; we have people coming from all over the world—many people coming from the Continent for the weekend—families who can only visit museums and galleries on a Saturday or a Sunday morning. It is nonsense that the opening hours should not be made to suit the public. This is not a minor matter, it is important.
Even at this time of serious shortage, financial difficulty, there is a great deal that we can do to put our house in order. We are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, for his painstaking report. If I can help it, I am not going to see the Ministry for the Arts combining with sports, but we need not quarrel over that today. In every other respect we have a wide field of agreement. This never should have been and never could he a Party matter, and I hope that speakers from all parts of the House will express thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Feversham, for introducing this debate and will also express thanks for the report that we have been discussing. Our truest thanks would be that we are going to be determined to sustain this most important and vital part of our national life.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed by the Lord Chancellor.
Viscount ECCLES: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, may correct an impression that she gave? The noble Baroness achieved an enormous amount when she was Minister for the Arts, in spite of the fact that she was within the Department of Education. To say that nothing new happened, I am sure is not right. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, was responsible for starting the National Theatre, and if that was not a new venture with an enormous new annual grant I do not know what was. The fact is that it depends on
212
personalities. In one set of Ministers it may be difficult for the Minister responsible for the arts to be within the Department of Education. In another set it may depend on whether he or she gets on well with the Secretary of State for Education. They may never be able to get inside No. 10. The truth of the matter is that the noble Baroness was very good at going to No. 10. When I was Minister I was extremely grateful for the way in which she had secured resources. The noble Baroness should not run herself down in that way, because she did a very good job.
5.10 p.m.
The Earl of GOSFORD: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have welcomed me here. Unfortunately, I am still nervous but I shall go straight into what I have to say. As a practising artist and current chairman of the Artists' Union, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Feversham, for the excuse to discuss the arts. I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, for the work put into his analysis of the present functions of all the bodies relating to the arts. I should also like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lee of Asheridge, for making her points concerning the Minister for the Arts.
I shall concentrate on certain areas, as the structural implications which make up the majority of the report will have to come out of serious debate at all levels. Also, concentrating on these aspects from the visual artist's point of view may help to clarify how these structures should be reshaped. I should therefore like to highlight a few points which have been underplayed and perhaps neglected, or at least misconceived, and draw the attention of your Lordships to the plight of living visual artists. To quote from the report:
"We still pay artists badly. We still get our arts cheap, and we expect to go on doing so because they have been cheap in the past. The amount of public help Britain gives to the arts is small when compared with that given by countries with populations smaller than ours (Sweden or Holland, for example) and minute in comparison with other sectors of government spending. Our artists are still amongst the worst paid of the labour force, and they therefore claim with some reason that it is they who largely subsidise the arts. Certainly they now demand what they think proper payment, and some of them, but not all, are now organised to get it".

213
But what does this really mean, not only to the artists but also to the public? Children are conditioned early. By the time they want to be artists and arrive at art school they start thinking of what they are going to do after art school. That means that they tend to produce work for private galleries, because the structures at the moment favour those who eventually will become "super stars".
Unfortunately, the private galleries admit only very few artists per year. I suspect that is a financial consideration: the fewer artists there are around in private galleries the higher the prices that can be achieved. This is a form of censorship. There is no code of practice for private or public galleries, no artists' agreement, no hanging fees or wage structure; and that means, as the Maud Report states, that artists have to go out to work for cash in order to exhibit. That means that the artist is subsidising the public. The private galleries are not accessible to the public. They are mostly in central London and I think they represent to a lot of people the same kind of conditions as banks. Many of these galleries cater only for dead artists.
I should like to point out to your Lordships where I think that public institutions such as the Arts Council and regional arts associations have failed. The amounts of money that they are given mean that they can produce only a small number of awards and prizes. The report states that the main argument put forward in favour of the trusts is that they provide a multiplicity of funding sources so that if an applicant fails at one he may succeed elsewhere. I suggest that is irresponsible. I do not know whether your Lordships realise that if an artist has to take his work to a certain place, leave it there for it to be perused, come away, take it home again and take it out another day, we have to ask the question: When does he do his own work?
Of the Arts Council's current budget of £42 million, 5 per cent. goes on visual art and 1·7 per cent. to artists. That £42 million is a huge sum. Recently, the only thing the Arts Council could do was to send out a questionnaire to 365 artists. A similar questionnaire in Germany went out to 12,000 artists. We do not know at the present time how many living, working artists there are in this country. An
214
artist cannot question Panel or Council decisions: neither can the public. Artists have no accountable representatives on the Arts Council. I think artists are amazed by the number of people who think they have the right to speak for and about artists, as artists themselves are really the only ones qualified to do this. In Finland, the Finnish Arts Association, which is made up of unions of all the different disciplines in the arts, negotiates through its committee directly with the Minister of Culture. There is no Arts Council, and grants of up to £300 a month are the norm.
A recent experience on the Visual Arts Panel of the Greater London Arts Association, where the Visual Arts Panel had a small amount of money to spend to try to reach and help individual artists, produced a scheme in which 600 artists sent in their work. Out of that, 24 artists received awards. Those awards were either £250 or £500. I believe you can buy a spraygun for £250.
The constitution of GLAA has led to bad treatment of artists and Panel members, and this can only lead subsequently to bad treatment of the public. This is public money. These artists have been waiting all year for the exposure programme that was promised to them. Extended discussions took place in the Panel to make certain that this art was shown to the public in the best possible manner. A year later, a couple of weeks back, the artists, the Visual Arts Panel members, received a letter saying that this exposure programme was now cancelled. There was no consultation with the Visual Arts Panel or with the artists.
What do the artists do—all those who fail to get these awards and all those who fail to get into private galleries? Unfortunately, I do not have the TUC report on the arts here, but there is an exceedingly good quote about how disillusioned and ill an artist, or anyone, can become if he cannot work.
I should like to clear up a misconception in the Redcliffe-Maud Report, that artists pick up unemployment benefit. Most artists are not self-employed at the moment; they are unemployed. They can pick up benefit only if they take a job outside their art work, and then become redundant or get the sack from that job.

215
Art is in great danger in this country. Serious artists, making important statements about society, are treated in a frivolous manner by the media. Progressive administrators and art critics cannot speak for fear of losing their jobs, and even good ideas for change cannot be taken up.
Art is many things. It is not only decorative; it is also designed to cause debate. Through the centuries, artists have fought the injustices of society. Look, my Lords, at an artist like Goya. When is this society going to support artists? Any country, which tries to practice the form of financial censorship that is currently being carried on in this one, is in very grave danger. I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, when he said that we need much more information about the artists' present economic state and it is to be hoped that the forthcoming Hoggart inquiry will deal with just this.
I should like to think that local authorities will be able to take up the cudgels to help the arts, the artists and the public to come together. They were given a chance to do so under the Local Government Act 1948, and, has been stated earlier, quite a large sum of money is spent. But I suspect that it is spent only when there are people in authorities who have a particular interest and enjoy the arts. Therefore, I suggest that if the people of this country want to see and take part in the full range of what is going on in the arts, then a mandatory rate, such as is suggested in the Labour Party study group report, should perhaps be levied by local authorities. I should like to make one more remark, which is about the TUC discussion document. This is a stimulating piece of reading which I recommend to your Lordships, and I am sorry that I have not had time to quote from it here.
5.23 p.m.
Lord COTTESLOE: My Lords, we have just listened to two notable maiden speeches. I should like to join with the noble Baroness, Lady Lee of Asheridge, in thanking and congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, on giving us in this debate the benefit of his knowledge of the affairs of the Scottish Arts
216
Council which fall outside the ambit of the report of the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud. It was very helpful to know what he said. But, in particular, it falls to me to congratulate and to thank the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, on a most interesting and valuable contribution to this debate. It is of great value to have what I think nobody else who is taking part in this debate can give us, which is the experience and the knowledge of a practical, practising artist. That is something from which we benefit, and I am sure that the Minister who is to reply will see that the points put forward from that source will have the most careful consideration. They are of great importance.
We must all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Feversham, for having put down this Motion, and more than grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, for his report, commissioned by the Gulbenkian Foundation, that gives rise to it. It is a report that embodies the results of a great deal of evidence and research, to which the noble Lord has applied, with his enthusiasm for the arts and for education, a vast amount of wide and balanced thought and his brilliant clarity of exposition. It seems to me a model of what such a report should be, but hardly ever is.
We have recently discussed in this House various aspects of our artistic heritage—historic houses and their contents, with particular reference to Mentmore; the effects of taxation in accelerating the export of works of art, and the limitations of existing export controls; the inadequacies in the resources for display and for conservation of objects, in provincial collections particularly, and the misuse, or rather the non-use, of the National Land Fund, which we shall be discussing further next week on the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Reigate. But this report really deals, in the main, with matters that fall outside the ambit of those discussions, and that is why we must so warmly welcome the opportunity which the noble Lord, Lord Feversham, gives us of discussing the report.
First, the report draws attention to the remarkable progress made by the people of this country since the war in the understanding and appreciation of the arts on the one hand, and in the standards of their practice on the other. This

217
country has always held an honoured place, an international place, in the field of literature, but in music until recently we have been complacently insular; in painting, with some notable exceptions, internationally second-rate, and in sculpture negligible.
All that is now changed, partly as a result of the 1944 Education Act of the noble Lord, Lord Butler, but more, of course, as a result of the greatly increased opportunities for travel and communication, now so widespread. As has been said, broadcasting has been a major influence. We are no longer the nation of insular Philistines that, in the early years of the century, we were secretly, perhaps, rather proud of being. Our younger generation have an enthusiasm and an understanding that is something new, and we have in this country not only the most eminent sculptor of the century, Henry Moore, but a whole school of sculpture such as has never before existed here, or anywhere else. We have musicians of international acclaim. Benjamin Britten, whose death we mourn, produced, with much else that is well-known and valued on the continent of Europe as well as here, the War Requiem which I think would be generally accepted as being the greatest piece of music written here since Handel, and that was a few years ago. We have, on the whole, painters who can hold their own in any company, and in drama and in music our actors and executants now lead the world. We have, in fact, a good deal to be proud of.
Of course, the Arts Council, founded during the war with remarkable, farsighted vision by Maynard Keynes, "to increase the knowledge of the fine arts", if I correctly remember the words of the original charter, "and to raise the standards of performance", has played a great part. Its initial grant from the Government was derisory. I think it was about £250,000. But it was enough to get it off the ground. It grew in esteem and in cost, and it continues to grow. But, like the arts in general, it suffers from the shortage of money that Lord Redcliffe-Maud points to as the great limitation on the continued progress of this country in the arts.
I suppose the arts in this country will always suffer from a chronic shortage of money. I am sure that the report is right
218
in saying that in the present economic climate the Government cannot be expected to do much more than keep pace with inflation—if, indeed, that; that private patronage on any great individual scale is killed by taxation at its present levels; that trusts such as the Pilgrim Trust and the National Art-Collections Fund and bodies of Friends, excellent and helpful as they are, are strained to the limit; and that local authorities will have to shoulder more if the performing arts, the living arts, are to flourish and to progress.
The Government, successive Governments, whatever their faults, have not, after all, done too badly by the Arts Council. When I went there as chairman in 1960, the grant for the year was £1½ million. When I left in 1965, 12 years ago, it was £3¼ million. This year it is, I think, £42·7 million. That is a rate of inflation not to be sneezed at. I am without any doubt that we get, conspicuously, value for money from the Arts Council grant. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Selwyn-Lloyd, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said to me that he felt that he could give more pleasure to more people for a smaller sum of money in the field of the arts than in any other field.
So far as the Government arc concerned, the worst feature of the arrangements is really the change that was made in 1965, when the Treasury said, not unreasonably—I think really inevitably—that the cost of the arts (which included, of course, the National collections as well as the Arts Council) had reached a level at which they could not go on administering them direct and that they must be transferred to a Department. They were handed over to the Department of Education. That change, the dangers of which I pointed out at that time, was inevitable, but it has done much damage to Government support for the arts.
Until that time the chairman of the Arts Council, or of one of the National collections, could, if he was in a difficulty, always go direct to the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Financial Secretary and make his own case. Not only that, but the Treasury civil servants were, so to speak, on the same side. The arts were their own baby, in whose well-being they took a pride.
Baroness LEE of ASHERIDGE: My Lords, I know how much the noble Lord loved Treasury negotiations, but does his fondness for the Treasury stand examination when, at the same time, he tells us of the paltry sums he had to work with, compared with the very much greater sums that were made available once the arts were under the control of an Arts Minister in the Department of Education and Science?
Lord COTTESLOE: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness. Since the change, the Minister responsible for the arts has been a junior Minister—some less junior than others—in a Department on which there are other, and greater, claims for education and science. Nor is that Minister in the Cabinet. He has to make his case to the Treasury through his Secretary of State, and of course the Treasury officials are now on the other side of the fence—watchdogs who are concerned to resist any increase in costs.
This did not so much matter in the first years after the change, when the noble Baroness, Lady Lee of Asheridge, with her irresistible force, was the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, was in charge of the Arts Council. We then saw the solution of the old conundrum: what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable osbtacle? The obstacle is overcome. But things have not been the same since, and I am sure that Lord Redcliffe-Maud is right in saying that the arts, perhaps with leisure generally, should have direct representation in the Cabinet if they are to progress as they should. There might be a good deal to be said for the Lord President of the Council having the arts directly under his wing, or something of that kind. I do not know.
As to private patronage on any great scale, we must accept that it is a thing of the past. John Christie, who incidentally taught me science at school—it was nothing like science, but it was very stimulating and enjoyable—was a unique phenomenon, in his way a genius. They say that genius is akin to madness, and certainly no one in their senses could have imagined that a small opera house in the depths of the country, at Glyndebourne, playing to the highest standards, and unsubsidised from public funds, could be a practicable proposition. But he
220
brought it off. That is something which could never happen again. Though the miraculous Sir Robert Mayer, who has done so very much to spread the enthusiasm for music among the young, still lives—one of the wonders of the world for whom we cannot be too thankful —we shall never look upon his like again.
No, Lord Redcliffe-Maud is right. The only real source for the injection of more money into support of the arts in the long term is the local authorities, through the regional arts associations. Those are the associations which the noble Baroness, Lady Lee of Asheridge, did so very much to foster during her time as Minister. That is the place to which our efforts must be directed. The report makes various realistic proposals to that end, in general and in detail, which I strongly support. I support, too, in particular Lord Redcliffe-Maud's emphasis of what he calls the arm's length principle, which I regard as unequivocally vital, despite the reservations of the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich. I think it is of the essence, if the arts are to prosper, that they should be administered on the arm's length principle. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, when he comes to reply will tell us that the Government not only accept in principle the general tenor of the report, but will do whatever they can to implement it.
5.40 p.m.
Lord VAIZEY: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, on his maiden speech and for coming down all the way from Scotland to make his valuable contribution. I should like also to thank the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, for his maiden speech, which was vigorous and thought-provoking, and in the course of my remarks I hope to refer to it in greater detail. At the moment I should like to thank him for stimulating us so much.
Like other Members of your Lordships' House I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Feversham, for giving us the opportunity to debate this valuable report. The fourth "vote of thanks", as it were, is to the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud. The noble Lord has had a most distinguished career, with an enormous width of experience and great

221
depth of knowledge and a certain natural exuberance. All three characteristics show themselves in this interesting and thought-provoking report, although I am not sure that I follow him every inch of the way.
I suppose I should declare an interest since my wife is a member of the Arts Council of Great Britain; and I must admit to the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, in fear and trembling, that I am a vice-president of the Greater London Arts Association, but that does not mean that I agree with every one of the more bizarre steps it occasionally takes.
Stimulating as is the enthusiasm of the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, for the local authorities—and I have been a member of a couple of those, too—I do not wish to comment on them now, sharing to some extent the feeling of the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, in regard to their lack of enthusiasm for the arts. In any event we are in a period of "no growth" in the arts, and it may be that after that period of "no growth" fresh and stimulating ideas, such as those in the greater part of the Redcliffe-Maud report, will be needed. At the moment I must confess that in my view it is time for consolidation rather than for new juggling with the machinery of administration.
However, the Redcliffe-Maud report draws attention, particularly in one valuable section, to a further series of reports which the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation has commissioned, with some of which I have been connected. One has been published and referred to (and I am pleased to say it was wholly endorsed by the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud) on training for the drama, which was called Going on the Stage. We hope that in September further reports on the training of professional musicians will appear; and, again, we hope that in November there will be a report of the committee whose chairman is Mr. Peter Brinson, a director of the Gulbenkian Foundation, on training for the dance. I think thus the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation will have covered, in an exhaustive investigation by means of expert committees, the whole field of training for the arts, especially when the report referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, by Dr. Richard Hoggart,
222
is complete. That report is on the training of visual artists.
I hope, my Lords, that next Session we shall have an opportunity specifically to debate training for the arts. It is a most important subject, and I think the achievements of the arts, to which the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, and other noble Lords have referred today, are largely due to the extraordinarily high quality of the training which now takes place in British schools of music, of drama and of art. However, I want to raise the subject today because it is absolutely essential to a great deal of what the Redcliffe-Maud report is concerned with, and I think we are now in a position to make some specific proposals for actions by the Government, by local authorities and by voluntary bodies—action which will be of great benefit to the young people involved in training to become artists and to their audiences and, not least, to the hard-pressed taxpayers.
At the moment the arrangements for financing training for the arts are in a mess. I could think of stronger words, and indeed such words are frequently used by people trying to raise money for those who wish to become practising artists. It does not necessarily matter in some cases that arrangements and administrations are in a mess. Sometimes over-tidy arrangements may well be inimical to the creativity and spontaneity on which the arts flourish. That being said, the fact that arrangements for financing training are in a mess has itself led to so serious a distortion of the training process that the result is a dangerous diminution in the strength of some of the best institutions in this country today. We are in grave danger of losing the very facilities that have produced the outstanding creative artists and executants on whom rests the reputation of this country in the arts.
It also means that we are probably spending too much—not too little—on training, and we are getting less good results than we might if we spent less but spent it more effectively. I appeal to the Government, through the person of my noble friend Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, to do something about this, and I shall conclude my speech with a quite specific proposal of which I have given the Government due notice.

223
The position is that there is no doubt in the minds of those who have studied the matter that the excellence of our actors and directors, of our musicians, of our artists, derives not only from their native genius but from the growing excellence of their training. I was surprised myself, because I thought the ability to act was something one possessed and that one was not trained. I have been convinced by the evidence that that is not true. The excellence of the London stage at the moment is almost entirely due to the excellence of the training offered. Up and down the country, but especially in London, there are training institutions which are world famous: LAMDA, the Royal Northern College of Music, the Royal Ballet School, to name but three. They are surrounded by a number of institutions, often very good of their kind, which are less well known but no less excellent.
At the moment some of these drama and music schools fall within the public sector and rely entirely upon the public purse for their support. For example, the Royal Northern College in Manchester is an excellent institution which is entirely financed by public money. Others, like the Royal College of Music in South Kensington, get deficiency grants; that is to say, they have a budget and if their income falls below a certain level then it is made up by the Department of Education and Science. Others, like LAMDA, which is an excellent college for training in drama, depend entirely upon fee income.
In view of the Gulbenkian inquries to which the Redcliffe-Maud report refers, the well-established colleges deserve no less a guarantee of financial support than do the universities or the polytechnics. At the moment, in many of the institutions training actors and musicians, the staffs are ill paid, their premises and equipment often need renewal and extension; and we have a model of a well-equipped and well-established college in the public sector in the new Welsh College of Music and Drama which is in a lovely setting on the edge of Cathay's Park in Cardiff, or in the Royal Northern College in the heart of Manchester. We should like all our colleges to be like those, but unfortunately those which are not financed out of public resources are frequently in a much worse state than those which are financed from the public purse.
224
To improve the physical quality and to improve the pay of the staff and the conditions of the staff in the private colleges will cost money. I freely admit that. But in our view—and I speak, I think, for the committees with which I have been connected—we can save money by having fewer rather than more places at the moment for people in training, and I will explain why. We would rather that public money was concentrated on excellence than dispersed over a wider range of institutions not achieving excellence, and that is the position we are getting into at the moment if we are not careful.
I think there is a further argument to enforce this view and it is this. At present, if you are admitted to a degree course at a university or polytechnic, you get a maintenance grant and your fees as of right—what is called a mandatory grant—subject to certain conditions, such as you must be a British subject, and so on. But grants which are given to students who go to places like music schools are at the discretion of the local authority; they are discretionary grants. The result is a double blow to the private training institutions, because the most indifferent student who reads for a degree in music or drama at a university automatically gets a grant, while even a young Myra Hess or Laurence Olivier who wants to go to an appropriate course at the right college for him or her may very well be refused a grant on quite arbitrary grounds by his or her local authority, because it is a discretionary grant.
The pressure, therefore, is to turn all the courses at all these colleges into degree courses, which leads to a great deal of over-academic flummery instead of getting on with the real work. And the best colleges of their kind cannot always admit the best students because those students do not necessarily get the grants. The local authority, quite properly exercising its discretion, may say, "We do not agree. We do not want you to go to that college". I know the Secretary of State is looking into all this complicated question of grants, and I am sure she will look into it very hard and thoroughly. If we could have fewer places, with all those places carrying the right to mandatory grant, then there would, in my view, be a saving of public money and a guarantee of the survival of the best institutions having the best students in

225
them, which is really what the survival of excellence in the arts is going to be about.
That brings me to the difficult question of how many students there should be. This point was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, speaking in his capacity as chairman of the Artists Union. Obviously success in the arts, like success in sport or in politics, is a matter of luck as well as of talent. If you embark on a career, let us say on the concert platform, you know you are taking risks about your career and your income that a civil servant does not take. You may get great rewards or you may fail utterly. But at the moment the ratio of failure to success of those who go on to the stage or take up other artistic professions is so great that it is hard to deny that far too many people are being encouraged to train for the stage or for the other arts in relation to the likely jobs that are going to be available.
The same is certainly true of music at the moment, though to a lesser extent than it is of acting. With the closing down of job opportunities for teaching in the schools—a situation which is arising because of the fall in the birth rate—a great many students in all the arts are just not going to have that which in the end they all fall back on, teaching; the fallback has gone because of the fall in the child population. So the situation in the employment field in the arts at the moment is desperately bad; it is really a tragedy. The position is becoming very hurtful to many people, blighting their lives, and it is spreading alarm and despondency throughout the arts.
We have reached the ridiculous situation where the Arts Council is being urged to support theatres not because the public is clamouring for more drama, but so that actors can get jobs. I think that is a silly situation. It seems to me that that is what the economists—after all, Lord Keynes was the first chairman of the Arts Council —call Say's Law, a law which Lord Keynes spent the greater part of his adult life refuting, that supply creates its own demand. It is no more valid in the arts than it is in economics, that just because you want to act somebody wants to watch you.
In my view, it is essential that young people should be advised properly about
226
the prospects for their careers in the arts. To this end I ask the Minister most seriously to consider that the Government Statistical Service should begin to monitor the state of employment and of pay and of conditions in the artistic professions. At the moment it relies on ad hoc inquiries conducted by people like myself, by the Musicians Union or by Equity. It would not cost very much, and it can be done with tremendous skill by the Government's Statistical Service. It would let us know what the real facts are about employment in the arts.
That factual information will provide the necessary basis for employers, the unions, like Equity and the Musicians Union, and the training institutions to get together to try to provide some clement of stability in the training system. In the absence of such arrangements, what we shall see is either the closed shop with a vengeance—no jobs for newcomers, however talented, so that existing actors have work—or a steady deterioration of employment prospects through a flood of newcomers in which, paradoxically perhaps, many of the best actors will leave the stage, because they have other talents they can use in other professions, and so the quality of acting will decline.
We have already established the National Council for Drama Training for precisely this purpose. It is representative of the employers, of Equity, and of the Conference of Drama Schools, and it is under the chairmanship of a very talented and able Member of another place, Mr. William Van Straubenzee who is doing a great deal to bring the parties together in this field. The National Council looks ahead to see what job prospects are, and in the light of this plans to move forward to try to bring supply and demand into balance and to try to put good and effective training on a sound footing. Your Lordships will note that this model, the National Council for Drama Training, is closely related to the industrial training boards, and I was most interested to hear that the Training Services Agency is considering the problems of training in parts of the economy where there are not official bodies already existing.
Judging from our experience in the theatre and what we have already learned of music and drama, it is most urgent that serious consideration be given to

227
the establishment of a training board for the arts. Its financial needs will be trifling. By reducing the numbers of those who come forward with no real hope of a job, it would almost certainly make a net saving of public expenditure as a whole, and it would save a great deal of heartache, which is much more important. I note with pleasure that this seems to be one of the aims of the well argued report of the TUC Working Party on the Arts, and I hope that the powerful support of the TUC will commend the idea to the Department of Employment and especially to the Training Services Agency, from which the pump-priming grants and support must come. I believe the effect will be to make the total level of public expenditure on training less than it now is and make it much more effective.
If I may, I should like to turn from training to ask the Minister a direct question about something else. I have not given him notice, so he need not give a reply. It is about Public Lending Right. Time and again my noble friend Lord Willis has piloted such a Bill through this House and one such Bill is now stranded in another place. As we all know, the other place has nothing else to do apart from dismantling the Finance Bill. We are told time and time again that the Lord President is an extremely keen supporter of Public Lending Right. I am not quite sure whether that is good or bad news. Is there any reason why the Government, with the support of the Liberal Party, now represented here in very great numbers, cannot pilot the Bill through another place in this Session with the Whips on? I hope that my noble friend Lord Weidenfeld, with his vast experience as a publisher, will address himself to this subject when he speaks to us later. Frankly, I think the situation has now become ludicrous. I should have thought it would commend both the Government and the Liberal Party to the nation as serious bodies if they were able to pass this little piece of legislation.
6 p.m.
Lord GIBSON: My Lords, I should like to begin by adding my thanks to those already given by other noble Lords to the two maiden speakers this afternoon. The contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, was
228
particularly heartening to me because we have worked together in great amity, he as chairman of the Scottish Arts Council and I as chairman of the Arts Council of Great Britain for the last five years. I have been particularly fortunate in my two colleagues, the chairmen of the Scottish Arts Council and of the Welsh Arts Council, Lady Anglesey. They have been marvellous colleagues and a major factor in the smooth running, which I think we have achieved, of the Council. I hope that the noble Lord, having waited several years to come here, has now been encouraged by the warmth of his reception and will come more often. He is always a model of clarity, good sense and good temper.
May I also congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Gosford. I sympathise with his frustrations as an artist and with those of many of his artist friends who do not receive what they should from the system. His criticism that the Arts Council is rather short on artists is perfectly well-founded. I personally would be opposed to their being there in a nationally representational sense, but we should have more artists on the Arts Council and as there are a number of vacancies I am sure that that is a matter very much in the mind of the Minister.
A number of speakers today, in this Jubilee year, have looked back over the last 25 years and summed up the position of the arts as being the one area in which no one can say that we have declined—that our knowledge, practice and understanding of the arts, to quote from the Art Council's Charter, are better, and the arts are more accessible today than they ever were before. I have recently retired from the Arts Council after a five-year stint as its chairman, and that has been our particular objective. We know very well that we have gone only' a very small part of the way towards it. However, in the last 25 to 30 years a good start has been made. Of course, it is possible by careful selection to support an argument, as a recent writer in the New York Times did, to depict the arts in Britain as being in a pretty parlous condition. He gave examples such as the decay for want of funds of our churches and cathedrals, and they are perhaps the richest artistic heritage that we have. He pointed to the piecemeal sale of the Evelyn Library, to

229
the failure to snap up the bargain of Mentmore, to the economies and the Friday closure forced on the Victoria and Albert Museum, to the deficit in the finances of the Royal Academy, to the sale of pictures by the Dulwich Gallery, to the weak purchasing power of our museums compared with their overseas rivals, to fears that the four London orchestras might not survive, to the bleak future of cathedral and church choirs, to the cuts at the BBC, and so on. Yet though most of these things were individually correctly reported—not all of them perhaps, but most of them—as I read on through the depressing list I became increasingly irritated by the totally unreal picture which it presented of our situation.
At the end of the spectrum, in the schools and in adult education of this country there is more artistic activity—more people who enjoy creative activity themselves—than ever before. If that is the situation at the grass roots, as it were, look too at the other end where we find four national companies of international standing surpassed by nothing of their kind in the world, and incidentally, despite their large subsidies, earning from the box office a far higher proportion of their revenue than comparable companies in other countries. When I compare the situation today with music, theatre and exhibitions which were available when I was a boy, before the war, I realise that the provision of the arts has been transformed.
As the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, said, there are three main reasons for that improvement. He mentioned the Butler Education Act and its effect on the cirricula in schools, and the duty which local authorities have had since then to provide facilities for further education. The second reason—although I think it is much the most important reason—is that the BBC has brought enjoyment of the arts continuously and at a very high level into every home ready to accept it. Finally, there is the acceptance by the Government of a duty to provide funds for the arts on a scale which, though many of us think is still inadequate, none of us would have dreamed of 25 years ago.
So we now have an Arts Council of Great Britain, supporting opera companies, ballet companies, theatres, festivals and orchestras which has made London a leading artistic centre in the world, and has
230
led to the establishment in most areas of the United Kingdom of resident theatrical companies, touring companies and so on. In sum, the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, said in his report:
"the arts are not a field in which Britain's claims of excellence in quality and extent anyone can deny".
But as the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, said, the record could very easily be undone. At this point things could go either way.
Five years ago, when I took over the chairmanship of the Arts Council, following the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, we were still making considerable progress. In the Council's early days it had rightly concentrated its relatively small funds, which in 1952 were little more than £500,000, on raising standards. Its motto in those days was described by the then Secretary-General as "few but roses". Then came the great expansion in the 1960s, associated for ever with the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Lee of Asheridge, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and a real surge in providing for the arts began to be felt right across the country. In my first two years this process of trying to spread to the whole country what had been concentrated in London was continued and things looked good. The arts were promised an increase of 10 per cent. in real terms and we had at last established, with the agreement of the Treasury, a triennial planning system. We were able to do a little more for Scotland and Wales; we brought more opera, ballet and theatre to the regions, mainly through increased touring; we developed the regional arts associations, greatly increasing their grants and so forth.
However, in the winter of 1973–74 this process came to a halt with the economic crisis, and in the last three years of high inflation and economic recession there has been no real increase in spite of the substantial monetary one, and no planning has been possible. So far from being able to plan on a three-year basis, when I tell noble Lords that the amount of the 1974–75 grant was told to us in January 1974, the grant for 1975–76 in February 1975 and, unbelievable though it may seem, the 1976–77 grant not until March 1976, they will understand (hat under those conditions policy-making is a bit of a farce. All we have been able to do for the last three years is to hold things together.

231
There have been a few sad casualties and we have simply had to do the best we could.
It should be acknowledged and applauded that the Government, which have had to cut other things, have tried not to cut the arts. In each of those years they have given us an allowance for inflation which has certainly kept abreast of the general increase in the cost of living. Our particular difficulties have stemmed from the specially high cost increases, from various other circumstances in the arts, with which I shall not trouble your Lordships and, of course, from this late notification. My successor, Mr. Kenneth Robinson, who has a great deal of experience of administration, politics and the arts, and whom I am certain will make an absolutely first-class chairman of the Council, takes over at a time when planning has been restored—but planning only for stability, not for increase. Therefore, I fear that, like us, he will suffer the same difficulties for the next year or two. We must all hope that the last years of his period of office see a blossoming expansion of the arts.
If noble Lords believe, as I believe, that the true artist is no mere entertainer but someone who sees things more clearly than the rest of us, then they will believe that he should have priority over everyone else and will not want to wait for economic recovery. I believe that if we were really civilised we would not wait for economic recovery. The first thing that the Viennese did after the war, before rebuilding their economy, was to rebuild their Opera House.
But whatever those of us who take this view may feel, we had better be realistic and accept that the majority of our fellow citizens are going to take a lot of persuading; it will be a long haul. So it is only realistic to accept that in the short term there is not going to be much of a move forward in the arts, and we had better use this pause for thought about the next stage. During this pause Lord Redcliffe-Maud's comprehensive report, which appeared last summer, provided an admirable basis for public debate and reflection as to what the form of patronage of the arts both in the short and longer term should be.
May I say first about his report that he does pay some attention in it to the posi
232
tion of the private patron, and I am very anxious that in our concentration on the problems of public patronage we should not neglect the private patron. I am a great believer in what one might call "person to person" patronage. I do not believe that artists necessarily do their best work in a vacuum. Much of the greatest work that artists have done has been in response to a commission. Trying to please a patron does not necessarily prevent an artist from creating a great work—the reverse has often been true—indeed the individual creative artist responds sometimes to a sensitive patron and there could be a positively creative tension between the two. History gives plenty of examples of it.
So I want there always to be a place for the private patron, partly because I believe in the intrinsic artistic value of his role and partly because I want anyway to see patronage diffused as widely as possible. If we could have available to us in this country something like the tax concessions which are available to individuals and corporations in the United States (though not necessarily on the same scale), we could at least ensure that in an age of high taxation not all patronage is exercised through public authorities or agencies.
But of course we have to accept that those authorities and agencies will have to be the main patrons, simply because of the scale of finance required. Exhibitions of valuable pictures are now immensely costly, freights and security are expensive, and with mounting values, insurance especially so, and without a Government indemnity such as is available to the Arts Council it is becoming more and more difficult to afford exhibitions of famous works of art. When we talk about Government support for the arts it does not appear in the grant, and one should recognise how invaluable this indemnity is. As for opera, ballet and theatre, though individual productions may be privately sponsored the main costs, and all the overheads, will inevitably fall, so far as box office income falls short of costs, on the public purse.
So what are the possible patterns for public patronage? There are three main sources. They have all been mentioned, and they are obvious. Let us take a quick look at them, and I shall have most

233
to say about the Arts Council itself, for obvious reasons. There is the Government, through the Arts Council; the local authorities, and those phenomena of recent years the regional arts councils. The Arts Council: is its work capable of much expansion Personally, I think not. Over 30 years the Council has gathered an expertise and a capacity for judgment which, after close acquaintance with it and its staff, I have come greatly to admire. I believe it does what it is doing extremely well, but that it cannot be indefinitely extended. It already has difficulty in providing a really thorough assessment of the activities it finances, particularly in the theatre. There are well over 100 theatre companies receiving direct financial support from the Arts Council and the task of the few drama officers (and available members of the Drama Panel) in trying to keep in close touch with the work of those companies and assess their quality as it should be assessed is becoming more and more difficult.
The tendency, therefore—and this is a view widely if not universally held in the Arts Council—must be to devolve functions, where it is feasible to do so, rather than to add to them. What the Arts Council needs is more money to develop the quality and standards of its present type of beneficiary and not, in my personal view, more money to add greatly to its present scope. I would make one exception to this. I believe the links with education authorities need strengthening and that this process needs impetus from the centre. This is a role, incidentally, which the Arts Council's present Secretary-General is exceptionally well qualified to perform, with his long and distinguished experience of further education.
Perhaps I could interject at this point that I very much agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, when he says that it was really a matter of who the personalities were. I do not think it matters very much whether the Arts Council comes under the Department of Education and Science or the Department of the Environment, or any other great Department. I take the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Lee, that the Minister for the Arts should be a Minister of State. What he needs is the standing and personality to have direct access to the top. Incidentally, that demands also some
234
potential response from the top. He must have that personality and standing, and if he has got it I do not see that it matters very much under the wing of which great Department of State he (or she) comes.
Therefore, when I say that I want to strengthen links with the education authorities throughout the country, I am not arguing necessarily for it to remain under the Department of Education and Science because I do not think that in the Ministry is where the strengthening will take place; it will take place through the action taken by the Arts Council itself. When I say that I do not think that the Arts Council should be extended, I hope that no one will think that I am lukewarm in praising it. I am a fanatical addict of the Council, and a believer in it. Its prime value is as a buffer between the Government and the Civil Service, on the one hand, and the arts, on the other. As has been said by a number of other speakers, this system is the basis of the freedom which has led to a period of considerable vitality in Britain in the arts since the war.
Of course mistakes are made and will continue to be made, and I would go so far as to say that if accidents do not happen then you can be sure that something is seriously wrong, because it will mean that the system is being too tightly controlled for fear of making mistakes and having accidents. I think that the accidents that we sometimes have are a small price to pay for the benefits brought by the free system we have operated.
However, I should like to make one plea for the Council which has not I think been said publicly before, and I say it as someone who has just laid down the chairmanship. What it needs, in my opinion, is not only to continue its present role and to maintain its political independence; it needs also administrative independence, and this is something it does not have. I am not going to suggest anything to diminish its accountability. What I want to suggest is this: the Council does not have the advantage of the interchangeability among departments of the Civil Service which being part of the Civil Service would bring with it. It is not possible for the Council to enjoy that advantage since its staff, being specialists,

235
could neither be easily recruited from the Civil Service, except in rare cases where indeed they have been, nor appropriately transferred to other positions in the Civil Service on leaving the Council. But not having this advantage of flexibility within the service, it is in my view wrong that the Council should have to suffer the disadvantages of its staffing arrangements being controlled by the Civil Service.
The Council is not free to create or abolish senior posts without permission (not easily obtained), nor is it free to compensate people for the loss of their jobs if for any reason they become unsuitable to continue in them. The Council is therefore not free to establish a fully efficient administrative machine. I would prefer the Government to tell the Council not to spend on administration more than a certain percentage of the grant in aid (or state an absolute figure for administration in any one year which must not be exceeded) and then leave it to the Council to organise its staff as it sees fit, subject to periodic reviews of its arrangements by the Government. I believe the community would get the best results this way. However, in spite of this handicap, which I think serious enough to draw to your Lordships' attention, I think the Council does its work remarkably well and I am certainly not suggesting that its functions should not be extended because of any doubts about its efficiency.
If we accept that the Council should not extend its functions but only be able to finance more adequately those it already performs, we shall have to rely for the expansion of arts patronage on either or both the local authorities and the regional arts associations—and of course, as has been pointed out, the conclusion of Lord Redcliffe-Maud's Report is that the local authorities must play the major role as patrons. Many of them play a biggish role already and the question is how much further we can expect them to go.
I hope they will go very much further. I am nervous about their approach in the vital respect which has been mentioned consistently this afternoon; many of them do not yet accept the principal condition on which Lord Redcliffe-Maud would assign them their role; namely, that they
236
learn the gentle art of patronage, as national Government have learned it. The Association of Metropolitan Authorities, in a memorandum on the report, do not approve the limitation which Lord Redcliffe-Maud invites them to accept on their direct influence on the artistic policies of the organisations they subsidise. Nor do they even agree that they should entirely keep their hands off the day-to-day administration of such organisations.
I am sorry that they cannot accept this. National Government accept it and the Arts Council embodies its acceptance of it, and the Arts Council has this continuous relationship with arts organisations which they need from their principal sponsors and which I do not think political bodies can give. The reason for it is that an artistic enterprise can flourish only if its support is not precarious and if arts policy is not liable to change with political changes in the composition of Governments or councils.
Some councillors argue that their ratepayers require them to exercise this direct control and involve themselves in the management of everything on which they spend rates; taxpayers do not require it of national Governments. Of course, I understand that ratepayers are closer to their councils and to the arts in their localities than are taxpayers to national Governments and the nationally-supported arts, but if this is so and continues to be so—in other words, if ratepayers continue not to accept that the arts must be allowed immunity from day-to-day control by their representatives, by the politicians—I should be drawn reluctantly to the conclusion that local authorities would not be suitable as the principal arts patrons of the future. The task therefore is to change the climate of opinion in the country both about the arts and about local authority representation on these organisations. This will not be quickly or easily done, but we must set our minds to try.
The third possible patrons, the regional arts associations, are also considered at length in the report, and most perceptively. Their present role was described by Lord Redcliffe-Maud and I will not refer to it now; it is clearly set out in the report and he referred to it in his speech. The report sees this role as changing when the local authorities have finally become the

237
chief source of local support. The arts associations will then retain some grant-aiding functions wherever they cannot be devolved from the centre to each and every local authority, and of course they would continue to provide a means for local people who want to support the arts to do so directly, through membership of their association and not merely as ratepayers.
If the local authorities learn the gentle art of patronage in the manner prescribed in the report, this pattern for the arts associations seems to me a very sensible way for things to develop. If they do not, then more will have to fall on the shoulders of the regional arts associations themselves on a permanent basis. Therefore, I would advise adopting no fixed policy for the next few years, until we see how things develop, until we see if the local authorities, after a time, do not come to consider the implications as they have been expressed this afternoon of arts patronage, and until the basis on which they are going to develop that patronage is clearer to us all.
Meanwhile, Arts Council policy for the regional arts associations should in my opinion be to devolve where they sensibly can, as they are doing, and to appoint representatives to those associations, as recommended by Lord Redcliffe-Maud, wherever they usefully can, and above all to help them to develop their expertise in the arts by funding adequate salaries for their staffs and financing the courses in arts administration which can best provide the basis for future recruitment. We are very short of these people and they have to be trained.
If the local authorities do not decide both to support and yet to distance themselves from the arts, I would favour, but very much as a second-best, the regional arts associations being developed over time into full-scale regional arts councils. There would of course have to be mergers between the arts associations for such a purpose, and they would then either receive funds direct from national Government on some agreed and fixed basis-in which case the members of their executives would be appointed by national Government-or they could receive their funds (this would probably be more satisfactory) from the Arts Council of Great Britain and they could be appointed by their council. However, I emphasise that I would regard that as absolutely second-best and something
238
to be fallen back on in the distant future only if we find that local authorities fail to develop as we hope.
I have spoken rather too long on what is a difficult subject but one can advance no easy solution. We must feel our way forward and I have indicated the lines of approach that I would hope to see adopted.
Lord FEVERSHAM: My Lords, I hesitate to prolong the debate, but I must raise with the noble Lord a matter over which he skipped rather quickly. I got the impression that although he said that the Government had the intention of providing funds to the Arts Council to keep pace with the inflation that has taken place in the arts, they had not actually achieved that objective.
Lord GIBSON: I am glad to answer that question, my Lords, because it is very important. I applauded the fact that the Government had not actually set about cutting the arts—which of course many local authorities have felt bound to do—and that they had given a special position to the arts in this respect and had given the arts a monetary increase equivalent to the rise in the cost of living. I went on to say that that left us with very special problems because inflation in the arts was much greater than inflation in the cost of living.
Baroness LEE of ASHERIDGE: In other words, we should get a bit more, my Lords.
Lord GIBSON: Yes, my Lords; we should get a bit more.
6.27 p.m.
Lord WEIDENFELD: My Lords, I wish at the outset to pay tribute to the two maiden speakers, and as this is only my second intervention in your Lordships' House I feel I can congratulate them with a sense of shared relief and lingering solidarity.
In pleading the case of the serious writer and contending that he is among the hardest hit victims of the economic crisis, and that literature is one of the stepchildren of art patronage, I am not unaware that I am doing so in the face of three very striking paradoxes. First, sales of books and numbers of titles published each year are on a rising curve. Secondly, the literary market-place has an articulate

239
structure, a multiplicity of proven channels and outlets and is mightily stimulated and supported by all the mass media. Thirdly, as the Redcliffe-Maud Report points out, local authorities and central Government spent about £120 million in one year on subsidies to libraries, twice that given to the arts as a whole.
However, hardly ever, since the days of Gutenberg, has it been more difficult for the serious writer or the talented beginner to make ends meet. The brutal reason is the phenomenon of polarisation. Just because production costs have escalated, publishers and writers, to meet the soaring expenses and high break-even figures, must favour the commercially predictable, widely-based product. The cult of the best seller is the order of the day and is powerfully nurtured by the media. By contrast, the unknown writer, novelist or poet suffers the pains of Tantalus, for as costs escalate sales shrink or stagnate, but they never catch up.
At the other end of the spectrum, the scholarly writer of monographs, which need research, travel and time, finds that neither commercial publishers nor even the university presses are sufficiently funded to support some very deserving works of specialised knowledge. Polarisation here too means that books on subjects of wide appeal find a readier market than ever before, so that while one may have six, eight or ten hooks on Napoleon all finding an eager market, the one outstanding work on Marshal Ney would have great difficulty in finding a publisher. The academic author may have the advantage of relative security of tenure and may not need a literary income for his subsistence but he, too, is prevented from making valuable contributions through lack of financial support.
What can be done to help? I have great respect for the earnest and sincere attitude of the present Government towards the arts, and I am particularly aware of the sympathetic understanding of my noble friend Lord Donaldson. I am also mindful—as who would not be? —of the constant pressures of other economic priorities, so, if I turn to some possible remedies, I so do with diffidence as well as conviction. The independent writer is, by any standards, at a grave fiscal disadvantage compared with, say, the self-employed business man. I suggest that
240
the "spreading" provisions—that is to say, the right to spread income tax over several years—are quite inadequate. They certainly compare most unfavourably with those practised by other countries in the European Economic Community. It would be a great pity if, in the context of our fiscal system, much real talent were to be diverted. At one end of the scale, the unknown writer might be driven out of the profession; at the other end of the scale, the famous writer might be driven out of the country.
Public lending right legislation, if enacted, when enacted, once enacted—and we hope that it will be enacted through the co-operation of all men of goodwill in all Parties—could, in time, prove a powerful help, particularly to those writers and scholars whose books are highly priced and depend upon library sales. The report cites at some length the example of Sweden, where a public lending right system is in use and is working extremely well. Sweden is also considering legislation to subsidise the publishers of experimental books and serious works of scholarship, provided that the result of the subsidies is passed on to the consumer in the form of lower prices.
The sponsorship of literature through private enterprise, business corporations and charitable foundations is obviously of the greatest importance. The new Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts might, one hopes, turn its efforts increasingly towards the encouragement of literature. Travelling fellowships, direct grants, and research bursaries enabling important works of investigative and innovative writing to be undertaken could well fall within its terms of reference.
In the United States there are many foundations that specialise in this field. For instance, the Guggenheim Fellowship is responsible each year for a number of outstanding works of literature and research in the humanities. In Germany there are at least a dozen impressive organisations of this kind. I, for one, would like to see a provision, however modest, devoted to the encouragement of literature, in the advertising and public relations budget of most large British corporations. Here, I pay tribute to the very welcome prizes awarded by such organisations as Booker Brothers, Whitbread and the Wolfenden Foundation.

241
By helping such organisations as the National Book League, the Government have acknowledged the significance of popularizing—I would almost say "dramatising"—the cause of literature and its importance to the nation. I should like to see very much more done in this respect. I am not unenvious of the example set by France, where the Government hold the writer in the highest esteem; where the Press and other media give literature paramount attention; where, each December, the great literary prizes arc front page news; and where men of letters and the cult of language and literature are the pride of the whole nation.
As someone who, in his profession, specialises in the international exchange of literature, I can sincerely state that British authorship is held in the highest esteem all over the world. In certain fields such as history, biography, imaginative reporting of current affairs and social conditions, British writers are probably more respected than any others in the world. To encourage excellence and experimentation and to help the British author is not only an acknowledgement of a cultural debt but, I would submit, a very shrewd investment and an act of genuine self-enlightenment.
6.35 p.m.
Lord MILFORD: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, on his maiden speech. I cannot help sympathising with him. When one makes a speech in this House of a calibre and content to which your Lordships are not generally used, it is a very awe-inspiring moment.
This debate is on a very important subject. Its importance has been shown in that three different reports have come out recently—the report that we are debating, the TUC report and a Labour Party report, all trying to solve the question of how to spread the arts and enrich the people of this country through the arts. We must get it across, in our schools and everywhere, that our future civilisation will be shaped by the way in which we resolve this question of how to achieve a society that can appreciate and absorb what the arts can give to us all in all their forms.
242
These three reports also show how difficult it is to find the right constructive answers to the way forward. They all differ. Because of our present disintegrated society, we repeatedly come up against all sorts of snags in our search. In discussions with different people connected with the arts, I have found that there are vested interests. There are political interests. There is envy, there are feelings of grievance and accusations of élitism, so many unpalatable truths have to be faced. At present, only a small minority have the education, the leisure and the money possibilities to attend and appreciate all forms of culture—the exhibitions, the theatres and the films. Our aim must be to expand this possibility so that the vast majority have the power and the time for appreciation.
The Arts Council of Great Britain has done a wonderful job for many artists and has given opportunities for us in the Provinces to see and hear wonderful, exciting new art. Unavoidably, the Arts Council has had to select the artists, the theatre groups and the musicians whom it thinks most worthy of help. That has naturally led to envy, criticism and, probably, some mistakes and injustices. I agree with the TUC report and the Labour Party that it would be a good move to bring on to the Arts Council's panel through proper democratic machinery instead of mere appointment, a greater variety of artists and more people connected with culture of all kinds from the Provinces. The Arts Council may consider that, in art, one should not be too democratic. It may feel that it should consist of very high specialists aloof from regional elected councils and so on. By taking this view—and I feel that it does—I believe that the Arts Council is contributing to the lack of interest and cooperation of the provincial elected local authorities. Seen from the Provinces, this suspicion of "we are holier than thou" creates a desire not to co-operate.
Among local people intensely interested in the arts, and among many artists themselves, there is an image about that the Arts Council is a group of purists, elitists, undemocratically appointed all-powerful bureaucrats. In discussions at the dinner table and in other places with other artists, questions of this kind come up: What is the Arts Council? Who composes it?

243
Who controls it, since its powers to make or neglect are so huge? What is its policy? I quite agree that that is unfair to the Arts Council, but I think that the Arts Council is to blame a little because it does not put across more propaganda about itself. It has difficulties, I think also through its fear of politics. There is its "long arm at all costs" attitude, which many people feel is making it aloof, and its apparent shrugging of its shoulders at the mention of democracy, and it has given itself an image of hautiness. I am only explaining what it looks like from the other end of the artistic ladder, looking up towards the Arts Council, as so many people are doing from grass roots level. We have to clear this up before we get the two ends to meet.
I have worked on local councils at the other end of the ladder, and I can feel that this situation which I have been describing has created a great feeling of irritation towards the Arts Council and prevented many taking up their share of the problems which the Arts Council is trying to give them. Surely the key to all that we are discussing this evening is to find ways of doing more to bridge the gap between the huge public and the few creative artists. Alas! at the moment many of our young, promising artists find themselves forced to aspire to become somewhat élite because the people have never had a chance to learn about their art, to understand them, and so the people are labelled by these young artists as philistines. These young artists are forced to chase the market, to drag around posh commercial galleries who only want to make money out of them. They have to act against their own integrity. The young artist can have such a wonderful gift to give us. The art schools should stress this point strongly to the students, and fire his ideals. But this should involve not only the art schools. Art, and the social importance of art, the enriching of life that it can give, should be at the heart of the curriculum of all educational organisations.
We have all agreed that the money for the arts should not be cut, but how do we get it across to the ordinary person, to the ordinary trade unionist, living in a provincial town, that there are to be cuts in education, in housing, in health, but that the arts must not be touched? I agree that the arts must not be touched, but how is one to get this across to the ordinary
244
person who is not thinking about the arts? Despite radio and television and the expansion of education up to now, the word "art" still evokes among so many the reaction: "Oh, I know nothing about art; it means nothing to me. It is all right for those who understand." The local authorities, wanting to appear successful and benevolent to the public, understandably do not want to do anything about art; they want to do more about swimming pools and sports grounds.
So the problem for us of getting this question from the Arts Council, from any arts organisation, down to the councillors is very difficult, and it is, I think, our main job to try to get it going up the other way. As people earn shorter hours and they will and as they get more leisure, this is what we must feed with culture and art. We have to get the people into a position in which they are hungry for it. At present I do not think that television and radio are doing the job really well enough; they are not feeding this hunger, they are not creating this hunger. One sits in front of the "box" and looks at an art programme, but it does not make one think, "My God! I should like to do that myself", and so get down to that creative instinct which we all have. Everybody has a creative instinct, if only one can dig it out and this is where education and television can play such an enormous part.
As I say, there is this tremendous desire among everybody to have a go at something. I have three examples that I should like to give your Lordships. Last year the organiser of the Cheltenham Literary Festival advertised that a prize of £100 would be given to the best poem sent in before the day of the literary exhibition. Thirty thousand poems came in to that wretched organiser's room from all over England. Does not that show the number of people who long to do something, but have not dared do it? As the entrance fee in that exhibition was 50p, the 30,000 50p fees paid for the whole festival, and the organisers did not have to go to the Arts Council at all. They are doing it again this year, and the poems are pouring in once more.
When I was on the Cheltenham Trades Council, I initiated the idea of trades councillors and trade unionists having an exhibition of pictures. We had an enormous number of entrants. We were given

245
the local park in which to hang them—thank God! it was not raining—and the public came. Afterwards so many trade unionists said, "This has given me a new kick". I believe that this is very important. This is what we have to pull out.
I turn now to another little personal illustration. I was a farmer who painted, and I had an exhibition in a gallery in Cheltenham. A small farmer whom I had never seen before walked in and stood in front of one of my pictures, which happened to be of a seagull following a plough. He stood there, and he stood there, and then he asked, "How much?" I referred him to the gallery. He said, "I haven't got that. Would you take a load of hay?" I said, "Yes"—and that was a terrific thrill.
So we have to bring the arts out of the high places, out of the expensive buildings. I believe that the Arts Council is doing a very 'good job in this way with the fringe theatres, the pop festivals, poetry readings and bands. All of this is so tremendously important. We have to stir the mind forward to wanting to do things, and, as I say, in some of these matters the Arts Council is doing a very good job indeed.
My conclusions are that both the Arts Council and the local authorities must get over their suspicions of each other. Through education the children will demand of their parents more arts and culture, and the parents will have to push the local councils. I also think that the Arts Council must be, or must at least appear to be, more democratic, less élitist, less fearful of the popular ballot box at local elections. I congratulate Lord Redcliffe-Maud in seeing local communities, through local government at all levels, as the only long-term way to extend effective patronage in an increasing egalitarian society. He recognises that the process will be slow, but I congratulate him on the way he faces it with realism.
My Lords, we are not debating the TUC report or the Labour report, but their stress of the need for more democracy, up and down, is, I think, very important for getting the confidence and the co-operation of the many. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Lee, has left, because I did not quite understand why she did not demand, as I was going to demand, a Minister of Cabinet rank
246
for the arts. I think the Labour Party report and the TUC report suggest this. As she did not seem to be in favour of it herself, and as she knows much more about it than I do, I do not put that demand forward, but I should like to ask her privately whether it is a good idea to have a Minister of Cabinet rank for the arts.
6.51 p.m.
Earl HAIG: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Feversham, for agreeing to widen this debate to include the report of the Regional Development Committee in Scotland. A reference to that report has been made by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh, who is chairman of that committee, of which I was a member. He was as good a chairman as his excellent maiden speech would indicate. My only complaint is that I have a strong suspicion that he spent most of last weekend up a ladder dealing with his roses when he should have been writing his speech, and that his speech really got written only between lunchtime today and the beginning of this debate. The result is that much of my speech has been very well covered by him, and I have had to alter mine considerably. He has explained the report very well, and I can only add that, in my view, the report was a good one, and I find myself virtually in agreement with everything in it. The committee was broad-based, and the topics of debate became enormous. Sometimes it was very difficult to get a word in edgeways. On the whole, our individual views have been properly and reasonably well represented in the report, which was very well edited by Mr. Anthony Phillips.
References to the Arts Council, kind or less kind, have been made here this afternoon by many noble Lords of varying political hues and from various backgrounds. The problems that we have to discuss rather centre round finance, and we have to ask ourselves the question: How well has the taxpayers' money which has been channelled through the Arts Council been spent? For myself, I would say that, broadly speaking, available money is being spent in the populated areas wisely and fairly, so that the standards are being maintained. The distribution of money through the regions has not been so fair, and some remedies for that situation are suggested in our report.

247
But, speaking as a practising artist myself, I would say that there are grounds for criticism in our country, in Scotland (perhaps I ought not to be saying this as a past chairman of the art committee, but there are criticisms), about the choice of exhibitions in the visual arts sphere. Great care is given to the planning of exhibitions in our main gallery in Charlotte Square, in Edinburgh, by an extremely competent art committee and art department staff, but in my view too much emphasis is being given to work which one might call work belonging to the conceptual art movement, to work shown in photographic form, and not enough to work created in terms of sound craftsmanship. There is a strange discrepancy between work which is being produced in the art schools in Scotland and the work by many of the artists who are chosen to exhibit in the Arts Council's galleries, where few traditional artists are asked to exhibit.
The Redcliffe-Maud Report raised the question of standards of judgment; the power to distinguish genius from the phoney. My own experience tells me that standards can be set, and are set, by the Arts Council. There has been increasing competition for our favours in recent years, with not enough cake to go round. Long hours are spent by the committee adjudicating over what organisation to support, what bursaries to give to whom, and so on. When it comes to buying works, the matter is more subjective, and members of the committee take turns to buy from the exhibitions they go to see. My Lords, I must emphasise that the artist needs to sell his work. It is true that in some circles there is a preference for bursaries rather than sales. From my experience as chairman of the art committee, this is not generally so. What artists really want is for their work to be liked enough for somebody to buy it, even if the purchase price is in the form of a load of hay, as reported by the noble Lord, Lord Milford. The great thing is for artists to find someone to put their picture or sculpture in their home, or perhaps it can be bought for a hospital or public building. It is terribly depressing to start a canvas knowing that in the end one will have to reach for a tin of primer to erase the painting because of lack of demand.
248
As the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, has put it, the majority of artists live at a level lower than the national average, and many nearer the level of poverty. Too many artists are being trained, and few of them with any preparation for the outside world. Several of the noble Lord's recommendations deserve response: the stepping up of awards and bursaries, the purchase and commissioning by local authorities of works of art, the removal of VAT from contemporary work, and so on. The report stressed the need for more exhibition and studio space. One way, I think, to satisfy this need would be to make use of some of the spare space in country houses. Whenever opportunities occur which provide facilities in country houses, advantage should be taken of them. One opportunity of this kind which would afford space for temporary exhibitions alongside a very fine collection of old master paintings and furniture has been recently offered to the Scottish Arts Council. I am strongly hoping that this opportunity will not be lost because it would bring great benefit to the South-East of Scotland, where this particular place is situated, which has a great need for more exhibition space.
I should like to ask the Government to introduce new fiscal legislation to help owners to deal with this problem in conjunction with the Arts Council and other bodies, like the National Trust, the Tourist Board and the local authority. I should also like to give qualified support to the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, that more artists be employed as teachers in schools. If that recommendation is accepted, it is vital that the artists who are chosen should be true artists—artists who are able to help rather than hinder. It is important to look at the aesthetic influences in an artist's pedigree, because it is those influences which will be used to fertilise the creativity of the community if that artist is appointed.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, the noble Earl is on an interesting point. May I ask a question? Who should find out whether an artist is a true artist or not? This is a great problem.
Earl HAIG: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is asking a question which in

249
the few remaining minutes left I am going to try to lead up to. Perhaps he will accept that what I am going to say may explain my attitude, which, of course, is a subjective and personal one, for art is a very personal matter. Indeed, to choose the right artist is as important as choosing a sire for a herd. In these days, when influences and traditions are many and complex, it is important to be selective. Noble Lords will remember art teachers in their old schools as much for their artistic theories as for their personalities. The selected artist must be in tune with the tastes and nature of a community. Although it would be wrong to be dogmatic about anything as personal as art, it is nevertheless possible to predict that an artist will thrive as a teacher better in one situation than in another. It is probable that an artist whose aesthetics derive from Celtic roots will do better in one region than somebody whose roots come from Nordic sources. Dalbeattie was for John Maxwell what Temple was for Gillies and what Dedham was for John Constable, who defined painting as:
"The sound of water escaping from mill dams, old rotten planks, slimy posts and brickwork … Painting is with me but another word for feeling".
My Lords, there is an awakening desire on the part of the British people to enjoy landscape painting. The vast queues of people who come to see the Turner and Constable exhibitions have shown the extent of their interest in this subject—in a school which is native to Britain, thanks to our light, our hills and our rivers. If that is what moves them, then the painters going out to teach must be able to identify with their pupils and with what is close to their hearts. At present, there is a wide gulf between the outlook of the layman and the outlook of members of the artistic world.
There is among modern painters a bias towards the abstract—and I am not criticising that bias because it is all part of the evolution of modern movements. There are among their ranks many young artists who have been launched, in my view too soon into work of an abstract nature which involves the study of basic form without understanding any of the routine which enables painters to absorb inspiration from natural beauty, and without being told how to cope with or understand the rhythmical complexities
250
of line, colour and tone in the world around them. Those are the aspects which the average young artist is less equipped to teach.
I am not talking about the primary schools where much is done to heighten creativity by encouraging self-expression with chalks. It is at a later stage, when the inner, more contemplative, more spiritual side of the personality is awakened, when it is vital to have the true artist appointed to schools so that the level of art teaching is high and based on truth. I have dwelt at some length on this subject because I feel it is important that we get some return from any support which we give to artists when we appoint them to schools or communities.
My Lords, I should like to touch for one or two minutes on the subject of our regional report. My view is that in Scotland, as soon as any regional enterprise comes up for assistance, it is vital to send down necessary liaison personnel to find out the facts, and then to make the necessary plan to get the enterprise off the ground or to keep it in being with the help of the local authority. The present intention is for the Finance and Policy Committee to take on this responsibility. In my view, having been a member of it, that Committee is already overburdened with work and it would be wise to bring a new regional art committee into being with limited funds at its disposal.
I understand from the statement made in April by the Secretary-General of the Arts Council of Great Britain that he hopes to bring more finance to help stimulate the activities in the regions. In his words:
"I would hope that in the next year or two, given the economic climate, more money would be available".
Given that climate, let us hope that an extra grant will be made available for the Scottish Arts Council to spend in thinly-populated areas. With the help of regional art officers acting as liaison officers, grants made by the regional art committee would assist local authorities in their task of shouldering the burdens placed on them; and advice and information could also be shared.
As the report makes clear, we realise that, certainly to begin with, the Committee would have little money of its own

251
to dispense and grant-aid would have to be channelled through the existing art-form committees. In the words of our report:
"For this reason it is extremely important that the Scottish Arts Council give careful consideration to the best means of ensuring that the remit and problems of the Regional Committee are successfully integrated with those of the Art Form Committees".
The present system of promotion in the regions, which, as far as it goes, is highly efficient, should not be impaired. The art exhibitions, the concerts and the opera companies which tour the regions must go on under the aegis of the Scottish Arts Council art form committees. New developments where funds and advice are needed will be within the sphere of influence of the regional committee which would have to work with flexibility, always sensitive to what is happening in the art form committees and in local government departments. They will be a fertilising agency, with their own director and the regiona art offices buzzing to and fro like bees.
My Lords, the influence of the regional committee will be of major importance, and I should not like to see too many other advisory bodies being set up to counteract that influence—bodies like the advisory associations suggested in Ian Croal's Arts and Indoor Sports Study in the Borders Region, which was recently published. This kind of multi-arts form advisory body could interfere with the present system of Arts Council grant-aiding. If local advisory bodies are set up, they should have a specialist membership and intention, and be able to give practical advice on behalf of local specialist interests to the relevant Arts Council or local authority officials.
Many of Ian Croal's recommendations were sound, and I was specially interested in his emphasis on the need for better transport in order to improve Borderers' participation in the arts. Like other investigators, he saw the dawning of a new era in which the local authority will have the main responsibility for the arts. As we approach this era, as we say in our report:
"Our hope is that the machinery of public support for the arts can be designed, installed, and fuelled so that it is ready and available to back up precisely those individual initiatives which cannot be planned in detail in advance".
252
On the success of this operation will depend the future level of civilisation in this country. If it fails we will remain a people involving, as the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, has put it:
"only 5 per cent. of the population in active enjoyment and personal participation in the arts".
Finally, my Lords, may I apologise for having to leave now, before the end of the debate. I do so to attend the exhibition by my old friend, Paul Mayes, on his 90th birthday which is being celebrated in this way. He started me painting at about the age of ten and I feel that he will appreciate it if I attend.
7.10 p.m.
Lord AMPTHILL: My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Fever-sham, for the opportunity to debate support for the arts; we are indebted to the two noble Lords who made splendid maiden speeches; and we are also indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, to whom I would wish to pay respectful tribute for the immensely thorough investigation of public attitudes to the arts over the past 30 years which he has conducted.
However, a modicum of dissension is about to break out on the Cross-Benches, for I find myself uncomfortable with some aspects of his approach and conclusions. While recognising that 95 per cent. of the population has no contact with the arts, and rightly seeking to remedy this sad state, the report attempts to indicate ways in which the creativity in everyone can be tapped, mostly by means of education. It must be with considerable diffidence that anyone nowadays advocates élitism; but I believe that art is nothing if not élitist, and I was unable to discover upon which side the noble Lord, Lord Milford, was coming down when he raised a similar point.
This principle has been partially recognised in the provisions which are made for children specially gifted in music and dancing within the otherwise comprehensive educational system. I do not think that true artistry can be taught. Technique, yes; but art is obviously far more than that. People are moved to create a work of art because they are inspired, not because some worthy lady has taught them embroidery or pottery at school.

253
The emphasis throughout the report seems to lie in devoting all the money we can afford to the social policy of teaching worthwhile pastimes for people's leisure hours, from which it is hoped some appreciation of the arts will rub off, even to the extent that thereafter—and I quote from page 65:
"a growing proportion of our society will consent to the forcible extraction of more money from their pockets in the form of rates and taxes".
Few of your Lordships relish the prospect of further inroads by the taxman, though most would probably welcome greatly increased Government patronage of the arts, but rather at the expense of whatever is individually regarded as a gross extravagance.
There is little dissent—and there has been none this afternoon—with the policies pursued by the Arts Council under a succession of brilliant chairmen, in almost every instance admirably abetted by admirable Ministers. The imaginative good sense with which they apportion the inadequate sums allocated to them is commendable: before abusing the Council for minor aberrations, such as letting loose on the populace a couple of chaps with a pole tied between their heads, critics should themselves try the difficult task of divining from a written proposal how an artistic endeavour will materialise. We are blessed with this splendid body whose guiding principle is—and I quote:
"to concentrate on the professional rather than the amateur".
Yet the report elects to place heavy emphasis on making funds available for the education of the amateur. This is an excellent social policy, but is it helpful for the arts?
Lord RHODES: Yes!
Lord AMPTHILL: My Lords, I defer to a different view. In my view, the report seriously weakens its own case: in Appendix 3 there is a dispiriting account of a visit to Sweden by Mr. Anthony Phillips. Following a list of the leaden goals of the Swedish National Council for Cultural Affairs, the plethora of institutions, boards of managements, research organisations, advisory bodies, national and local authorities, are described. But Mr. Phillips came away with the feeling—and I quote from page 183:
254
"that the results very often do not match up with the planners' ambitions, and certainly this was true of the disappointing artistic productions of whatever genre that we were shown".
This surprises me not a jot, yet it is the direction in which, with considerable modifications, the noble Lord's report seems to wish to head us.
My own main enthusiasm for the arts centres on the theatre and I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I concentrate on this aspect. I should declare an interest in that, after managing a couple of West End theatres and producing a great many plays, I some years ago abandoned that pursuit (largely on the advice of my bank manager), but I still remain a director of a company which runs one of London's larger theatres and invests in productions. The report pays scant attention to the so-called commercial theatre, on what I fear are the erroneous grounds that it can take care of itself. Indeed the only plays mentioned are "Oh— Calcutta!", "Hair" and "Pyjama Tops"—three pieces which share the distinction, if that is the word, of the cast prancing around without their clothes on. This gives a grossly unfair picture of the balance of the fare on offer in London, even if it might be said that the quality is lower than it was 20 years ago.
I believe the watershed years to be the early 'sixties. Popular belief has it that the wider quantity and better quality of television was the cause, and in the case of the decline in cinema attendances, and therefore output, it probably was. Television has had a side effect on the theatre in its absorption of so much writing talent, but the main blow to the commercial producers came at that time from the ever increasing subsidies given to the National Theatre, the Royal Shakespeare Company and others. In no way do I wish to carp at the generosity of the handouts: indeed the reverse, for the subsidised companies have a long list of magnificent achievements to their credit. But if you are going to make public money available, the necessary controls will automatically breed an ever expanding bureaucracy and what a commercial manager would regard as some degree of extravagance.
The late Mr. Hugh Beaumont, probably the greatest producer of this century, administered up to a dozen plays at a

255
time with one partner, three technical assistants and a couple of secretaries. Though it is a subjective judgment, I think the quality of his productions equalled that of the National, who apparently need an administrative staff incomparably greater, though the repertoire system, much loved by actors who do not have to do the same thing eight times a week, less appreciated by the public, contributes much to the higher cost.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, may I remind the noble Lord that Binkie Beaumont received quite big subsidies quite often for some of his productions.
Lord AMPTHILL: My Lords, from which source the noble Lord is referring to, I am not sure. Private sources?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: The Arts Council.
Lord AMPTHILL: In the latter part of his career perhaps that is accurate, but he was in business for a great many years before the Arts Council was set up.
Lord REDCLIFFE-MAUD: My Lords, may I interrupt to say that Mr. Beaumont's subsidies were definitely from the Arts Council of Great Britain. It was doing exactly what the noble Lord is suggesting should be done more now to the commercial theatre. That is a most interesting point.
Lord AMPTHILL: I thank the noble Lord. My Lords, this early extravagance of the subsidised branch (of late there has been substantial pruning) had dire repercussions on their commercial brethren, principally in the vast escalation of production costs it has brought, and also in their operating expenses. None of us is so naïve as to doubt that taxpayers' money is spent more prodigally than one's own, and over the past 15 years production costs have more than quadrupled, way above the general rate of inflation, and for this the subsidised theatre companies must accept some of the responsibility.
The number of commercial producers willing to take the financial risks is dwindling, to the extent that in the past
256
seven years only four new ones with reasonable staying power have come on the scene. Your Lordships may wonder if it matters too much if the 37 theatres in the West End should disappear or be put to less palatable uses. I profoundly believe that it would be a tragedy: those responsible for encouraging that biggest of foreign currency earners, the tourists (who make up about half the audiences in the season and probably a quarter the year round), would agree. We are the theatrical capital of the world, but can only remain so if the ingredient provided by the commercial theatre remains viable.
Without it, we unquestionably lose much else besides, most importantly a greater supply of good actors than any other country gets near to generating. Noel Coward directed his advice to Mrs. Worthington not to put her daughter on the stage, for the reason that the dear girl could not act to save her life. If she had talent, it needed her urgently, then and now, and so does television where, if she utters her lines back to front, the situation can be rectified at the cost of a few feet of celluloid and some irritation to her colleagues.
So what, my Lords, can be done? I do not wish to weary the House with a repetition of the strong arguments in favour of relieving the live theatre of the imposition of value added tax, but this is unquestionably the first and most important step to be taken. The Inland Revenue might also look more kindly on the private investor, whose gains are taxed at his full rate, whereas his losses are not deductible.
The next move should be to make a substantial addition to the Theatre Investment Fund. As your Lordships will know, this fund was set up 10 months ago—thanks mostly, as so frequently, to the good offices of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. The idea was conceived seven years ago when I was still a member of the Executive of West End Managers. The million pounds contemplated then became the reality of a quarter of a million last year, only £100,000 of which was public money via the Arts Council. The Fund is intelligently administered by Mr. Patrick Ide, guided by a distinguished board. He restrains himself from putting more than a few eggs (usually 10 per cent. of the capital) into any one basket. If

257
he did otherwise, the whole tranche could be blown on a couple of small-scale musicals or seven or eight straight plays. But about 60 productions are required each year, so the shortfall is obvious. Though it is very early in the life of the Fund to form a judgment, I fear that it will not be able to achieve its purpose unless very large sums indeed are added to it.
With a great degree of reluctance, I am forced to the conclusion that the only remaining solution may lie in taking the West End theatres themselves—the bricks and mortar—into public ownership. I float this concept with great trepidation, for further nationalisation is as abhorrent to me as to the majority of your Lordships. The notion at first instance is uninviting to some of my erstwhile colleagues who, in most cases, run their theatres with far greater efficiency than is likely, from existing experience of other industries, to be displayed by a public board. But the time may not be too far off when it will be the only way of preserving this vital part of our heritage, and certain advantages could accrue.
It would guarantee that no further theatres would be lost, for while we cannot presently tear one down—a situation greatly helped by the admirable Theatres Trust Act piloted through your Lordships' House a year ago by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls—there is no means by which their owners can be compelled to prevent them crumbling away. It would enable some very necessary improvements to be made to the facilities of these uniquely suitable structures which the present outlook inhibits. It would allow public funds to be involved only at the later, and therefore safer, stage when productions are already in existence and shown to be worthy of support, rather than the more hazardous judgment which has to be made by the Theatre Investment Fund. It would bring into the nation's ownership that most tangible of assets, real estate; though it has to be recognised that it is an asset which, by the nature of business, is only revenue-earning for about 20 hours of each week. It would be in line with what has already had to occur in the Provinces, where at this moment only 8 per cent. of the theatres remain in private hands. The cost would be considerable and although
258
the Government might like the idea emotionally, they would presumably feel that we cannot afford it. A Government of a different complexion would probably prefer any solution rather than this, but I believe they would be hard pressed to evolve one.
Since long before any of us were born, it has been continuously said that the theatre is a-dying. I do not believe that we have a terminal case on our hands, but the arteries are hardening and urgent remedial action is called for if the nation is to preserve one of our most priceless assets.
Lord REDCLIFFE-MAUD: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I could read into the Record that not the only references in the report to the commercial theatre were the ones he mentioned—in connection with "Hair" and "Oh! Calcutta!". I quote:
"Long-standing plans for the establishment of the Theatre Investment Fund for use by the commercial theatre should be implemented without delay. By this and other methods we must seek to combine public and private patronage of the threatre and ensure that each complements the other and avoid wasteful duplication".
Lord AMPTHILL: My Lords, I entirely accept what the noble Lord said, though r hope he will agree that they are the only plays that he actually named.
7.26 p.m.
Lord RHODES: My Lords, I was so interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, had to say and in the answer that came from the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, that I almost forgot to get up. I think we are indebted to the noble Lords, Lord Feversham and Lord Redcliffe-Maud, for the parts they have played in today's debate. I recall that Lord Melbourne was reputed on one occasion to have said that God helped the Minister who meddles with the arts. I do not know whether or not God helps the Minister, but if He does it is not on account of his having meddled with the arts but it is because of his having assisted them.
We are very fortunate in having him as Minister. He asked a very pertinent question of the noble Earl, Lord Haig, across the Floor of the House. He asked: how can you find out whether or not an

259
artist is a true artist? My mind went back to when I was a little lad and used to accost an old man coming from the local foundry. The game was to ask him what he did, and he always replied: "I paint all colours black" I never found out the profundity of that remark until I lent one of my Lowry pictures to the Tate and, following it up to see whether they had given it a proper place in the exhibition, I came across three panels painted black—and then I understood that the old man was not the village idiot at all: he was a forerunner of what was to come.
We have had plenty of argument today and plenty of talk about what we should do about the arts. I am going to agree briefly with several points. I would agree that at least the real value of public grants should be maintained. We must not let inflation erode them. I think that the arts cannot be self-supporting. The Arts Council in its day has done a good job, and this afternoon it has been very fortunate that we have heard a speech from Lord Gibson, the ex-chairman of the Council. It is about time that a tribute was paid to that gentleman for the way he took on that job, following a genius (shall I say?) in the art administration world, in the person of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. The Council, under Lord Gibson, has done a unique job too, in that it has provided money to public organisations without undue suggestions that the recipients will be subjected to political or public pressures. That has been very important indeed. No country has manged to do this as satisfactorily as we have.
I believe, too, that love of the arts cuts across all political boundaries. The Arts Council has been very right, in the policy which it has pursued on grants. of adopting no more than an advisory role when giving money to an institution, except for ensuring that the institution used it for the purpose for which it was given. I think that that was a very wise policy.
We heard from the noble Lod, Lord Gibson, this afternoon about the mistakes that have been made, and in all probability he was then referring to what has been commented on in the North where masturbation, was shown in the Institute of Contemporary Arts as a piece of theatre.
260
That was a mistake if ever there was one. But the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, admits that one cannot always be right on this, and if things were tightened down so that direction came from the centre it could be even worse than what we have experienced.
In general, the Arts Council had to be satisfied that the people to whom it gave its money were respected in their own localities. First, they should be people with good knowledge of the art forms concerned, who are capable of maintaining an independence of spirit. To Governments, I would say, "Do not cut the arts as you would cut institutions with vastly more money, which are so well entrenched that they can weather a few lean years". This is not in the same category. If we cut the arts, then the basic pattern of patronage which we have built up will wither and will prove extremely costly to replace in a few years' time.
Another point I would make is that we must stop pitting the regions against central Government. It is a futile exercise. It is about time that this was stopped. I do my best, as the President of the North-West Arts Association, to stop it. For instance, the English National Opera Company, the Royal Shakespeare Company, the National Theatre and Covent Garden all work on a level which cannot be created anywhere else in this country, because it is so top-level. We are very glad that the National touring companies which have come to us in Manchester during the last year or two have had such a high level of attainment. So we thank you very much for having organised it. That is my first point on what the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, said about the Arts Council.
I now come to local authorities. Local loyalties are important in this field, and never mind about the professionalism of the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, in this connection. The arts will not flourish without a buoyant loyalty for local things. The Government who put into operation some of the ridiculous groupings in the 1974 changes in local government are responsible for many of the present attitudes of local authorities in connection with the arts. We are reaping some of the seeds of trouble sown in the 1974 arrangements. For example, all one needs to do

261
is observe what has happened in Manchester. The Greater Manchester authority and the City authority are still daggers drawn about the arts. It is well known. They are finding it difficult to speak to each other, and if they do speak it is in very strained circumstances.
The local authorities are treating the regional art authorities as post boxes, and nothing more. Local authorities want their money returned to their areas—it is as crude as that—plus a due proportion of the Arts Council grant. So that a lot of education and patience is necessary. Furthermore, most local authorities expect a due proportion of seats on regional authority association committees. So I very strongly support the recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, who said, "Do not let us have any fixed policy at the moment. Let us wait a bit and let it simmer. Let some of this local authority antagonism die down for a few years". But we do not want to be too despondent about it either, and some of the miserable remarks that have been made this afternoon about our accomplishments were misplaced.
I come to my last point, which is really an extension of the three points made by the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, as to what people can do for themselves. Here I come to the amateur, but not in the same way as the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, or the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, because Lord Vaizey was frightened about the unemployment that would ensue. I would rather have in a district first-class amateurs with a following and some enthusiasm, than third-rate professionals who had been found jobs simply because they were out of work.
Patronage takes many forms. Most of the patronage that we have been talking about this afternoon is money. You make a mistake if you think that money can do everything, because it cannot. But dedicated people can do a lot more than money, and although there were a few smiles when the noble Lord, Lord Milford, was talking this afternoon, he made one of the best speeches we have heard today. He introduced some earthy, grass roots arts when he talked about what they are doing where he lives. I can do the same, and will for a couple of minutes.
262
Every few years, we have a festival which began from humble beginnings. For that week we can now take the best artists in the world. All kinds of institutions have been associated and founded from it, and I will read out one or two for your Lordships to be going on with. Our district has 18,000 population in seven villages. It is not many, but when we have a festival 2,000 people are involved. It is a question of leadership. We have involved all the institutions which have the well-being of our community at heart. There are mixed voice choirs, male voice choirs, the WI Historical Society, the Artists Association, brass bands, schools, the Civic Trust, dramatic societies, operatic societies and the Chamber Concerts Society which gives six concerts a year, every one of which is by an international professional group.
We do not owe anybody any money, and we have not asked for much yet. Then there is the contribution of manufacturers, that body of people who sometimes are reviled by the élite, although they are part of our heritage and our art. We held an exhibition of what people do at work. It is no use having an arts association that puts on exhibitions unless you reflect what people do at work as well as with their leisure. At our last festival, 10,000 people walked through that exhibition of manufacturers' materials and their work. That was out of a population of 18,000, although all of the people did not come from our district.
The noble Earl, Lord Haig, spoke about literature and books. Our last festival produced a book which dealt with the Saddleworth heritage and contained a description of the history of our ancient buildings, illustrated by a national artist. The result was that at the Design Centre's last exhibition only a few months ago, commemorating the invention of printing, that book was on exhibition as one of the fine achievements of present-day printing. The historical society are now considering the publication of a book on emigration of Saddleworth folk to America in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries—a challenging task. However, I hope that the book will feature the work of all the famous illustrators of the period. This could not be done without leadership, and always we have a ready response. We have the editor of the local paper; a banker; two manufacturers; an artist and

263
an accountant who always says, "No". Therefore we have the pleasure of overruling him. He always gives us the energy and enthusiasm to stretch ourselves to the limit.
When we speak about the arts, for Heavens' sake! let us stop whining for public money and get on with doing a bit ourselves. If it means that we cannot give public money to support the private theatres of London, at any rate let us try to do something better ourselves in the Provinces.
7.44 p.m.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, I had another engagement this afternoon which I thought I might keep, but I have been so interested in the debate—and I am so grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Feversham, for initiating it—that I cut the other engagement and have listened to nearly all of the speakers. The hour is late and I hope not to detain your Lordships for very long. With that in view, I intend to confine my remarks entirely to one subject, the education of young musicians, since that is perhaps the only subject upon which I am entitled to speak with any kind of authority.
I have been a member of the governing bodies of a large number of musical institutions. As its name implies, most of the debate has been concerned with the provision of money for the arts and the extent to which that provision rests on the Arts Council, central Government, local Government and so forth. I shall not be dealing with that part of the subject. It has been said, absolutely rightly, that standards in musical education have improved enormously in the last 30 years. To anybody who knows anything about it, this is very true. In fact, 50 years would be a better period to take, because it is now 50 years since the Royal College of Music in London founded its junior department where talented young musicians, after a searching audition and usually supported by their local councils, gather on a Saturday morning and learn, under distinguished musicians, to play their instruments and join orchestras. I mention the Royal College of Music, simply because I know rather more about it than I do about the other colleges. However, I think that the Royal Academy of Music, the Guildhall School of Music,
264
Trinity College and some of the provincial colleges also have their junior departments.
Most speakers have referred to the fact that in times of economic difficulty one cannot expect new and costly ventures to be started; there may have to be a lull. Some speakers have gone so far as to say that we must not let present standards fall; but not a single speaker whom I have heard has told your Lordships that standards are falling very seriously. This is the point that I want to bring to the attention of noble Lords. Local education authorities are told to save money, and very often they leave it to the individual school to decide in what way money can be saved.
Teachers of music in primary and secondary schools are, nearly always, part time people who can be disposed of, whereas the permanent staff cannot be sacked quite so easily. "Oh, it is all right they say," but in future the children's parents will have to pay for their lessons whereas previously they were provided by the school". Half of the parents either will not, or cannot, pay for the lessons, and in that way quite promising pupils are dropping out from their early education in music. At the same time, music teachers are finding it even more difficult than it was before to make a living—and then it was difficult enough.
Although I was very interested in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, which touched on this subject, I did not agree with him when he suggested that we ought to teach fewer people but perhaps at a rather higher level. I personally think the level is just about as high as we could reach at the present time. I do not mean that every small child who first handles a violin will reach a high standard; a large number of them drop out in any case. But I do not like the idea that you tell them that music is a very difficult profession in which to make a living and you advise them not to take it up. I think there is so much joy in learning and in playing music, even if you never reach professional standards, that it is a great pity to cut it down in that way. It may be I have overemphasised the point which the noble Lord was making. When one looks around other spheres of education, after all people do take degrees in politics, philosophy and economics—and end up

265
in the Foreign Office. They do not have to end up as philosophers or economists, but nevertheless they seem to think that kind of education is of some benefit. I know a large number of good amateur musicians whose real work is in science, mathematics or commerce or something of that kind.
To return to the training of youth, the standards among youth orchestras now are incredibly high and, as I have just said, most of the colleges in London and in the Provinces have their junior departments where talent can be detected and trained. But they are suffering too. Since 1975 the grant from the Department of Education and Science to the Royal College of Music in London, and presumably to other colleges as well, has changed to a deficiency grant and can no longer be used for students of school age. There is therefore no support from that source for their junior departments, which in a way are the most important departments of the school. I think this is a tragedy and it should be brought to the attention of the Government in no uncertain terms; and that is the gist of my speech.
Local authorities supporting young musicians, giving them bursaries—or exhibitions, I think they are usually called—to join the junior departments of the colleges, are withdrawing their support and are saying: "Well, the parents can pay for it". In some instances—authenticated instances—the local authority has withdrawn its support for a student halfway through a course, and all this when costs are rising to an enormous extent. A 'cello which I bought 18 years ago for £125 is now insured for £2,000. That gives some idea of the costs of running an orchestra—even a school orchestra—which need not have a 'cello of that quality.
Another instance I should like to put before your Lordships is of a certain youth orchestra, which I will not mention by name because I do not want to be accused of special pleading, who came out top of the youth orchestras of England, who played in the Schools Prom. and has now been invited to the International Congress of Youth Orchestras in Aberdeen in August, and is the only English youth orchestra which will appear there. It has no support whatever from any source
266
except what it can scrape up itself and what the parents can afford towards sending the children to Aberdeen.
Finally, I should like to point out that this is a serious social defect, and that in a time of a Socialist Government we are tending towards a situation in which those who can pay for it can go on with their musical education and those who cannot pay for it will have to give it up.
7.55 p.m.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, I, too, would like to repeat, like other noble Lords before me, the thanks that we all realise are due to the noble Lord, Lord Feversham, and the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, and I think particularly to the Gulbenkian Foundation because one of the subjects we are discussing today is how important it is that there are foundations like that and that there are other sources of money to help us with the promotion of the arts in this country. I should also like to offer my contratulations to the two maiden speakers, whom we certainly hope we shall hear again. Of course if the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, thinks that was an uncontroversial speech I long to know what will happen in this House when he makes what he considers to be a controversial one. It was certainly most interesting and I look forward most probably to crossing swords with him on some future occasion.
A lot of the attention that is now being paid, both in terms of reports and in other ways, by bodies like ourselves is, as has already been said, due to the financial crisis—the financial crisis which I think was most succinctly stated in the Scottish Phillips Report published yesterday. It says:
"The arts are peculiarly disadvantaged in an inflationary situation for two main reasons:
On the one hand, consumers have less disposable income to pay for what they regard as less essential items, and so ticket price increases have to be kept below the level of increase in real costs. On the other hand, the live performing arts are highly labour intensive and have virtually no opportunity to increase productivity by taking advantage of technological advances. Central and local government is under great pressure to reduce, or at least not to increase, support for the arts in favour of other programmes whose credentials to be regarded as indispensable are better established".
As a result of this crisis we are now beginning to turn our attention much

267
more to what we are to do about the situation and how we are to safeguard what has been achieved. In the past political Parties virtually did not have policies for the arts. They remembered Lord Melbourne's famous dictum:
"God help the Minister who meddles in art",
and they thought it was quite sufficient to say, "Give more money to the arts", and to call that a policy. Well, it is not. So now there is some thinking, and I believe it is true to say that we are getting some thinking along the lines of the philosophies of the various people concerned.
For instance, I have in my hand a document entitled, The Arts—a discussion document for the Labour movement. This is the Renée Short document and I think it shows the sort of philosophy with which some people approach the arts. I quote from Section 9, which says:
"we must streamline the organisation of arts administration and cut away the unnecessary bureaucratic layers".
I imagine that is something we would all agree with. It then goes on to say how it is going to do that:
"Local authorities will be required to establish arts and entertainment committees at district and county levels… These arts and entertainment committees will be obliged to co-opt half of their membership, which will have full voting rights and will be composed of representatives chosen by the entertainment unions, subsidised Arts Management and other relevant bodies.
They (the local arts and entertainment committees) will send elected delegates to a regional conference held every year where they will debate arts policy and elect delegates to a National Conference, again to be held annually. This National Conference will also provide a forum for discussion on arts policy and every three years will be eligible to elect one-third of the membership of specialist panels who will advise the Government and local authorities on matters of policy and will administer Government funds… These panels will then elect a chairman and vice-chairman, who will form the membership of a new National Council for Arts and Entertainments".
In the name of streamlining the organisation of arts administration and cutting away unnecessary bureaucratic measures, I think that takes the biscuit!
My main argument tonight will be along the lines of dispersal of arts patronage, and to a certain extent—and I hope your Lordships will forgive me—following in the footsteps of the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, who said so much with which I agree. I am sure it is necessary that we
268
encourage more and different patrons, that not everything is channelled in the one way. I know everyone is aware of this, but I think we need to take specific steps. What I think we must do is to get over two barriers. One is the barrier of saying that we cannot make tax concessions to industries and bodies and individuals who help the arts. I see no reason why we should not do this. I think partly it is Treasury obstinacy, and secondly the defence is always put up that the Americans did it and there were a great many gaps in it and it was misused. That is never an argument. I am absolutely sure we can adopt someone else's policy and put right what was wrong with it.
The second thing we might well consider doing is tying the arts more closely to what they are seen to achieve in economic terms. I do not think we should be too pure about this and say that art must not be commercial in any way. I refer, of course, to tourism. There is no doubt that the arts in this country contribute enormously to the amount of money which is brought in. I see no reason why we should not have specific tourist taxes at a fairly low level, which would not deter in any except the most marginal way the inflow of tourists. I plead once again, as I suppose I have pleaded all my life, and I am sure will plead for the rest of my life because the Treasury will never give way, that we finally get rid of this bugbear that you cannot attach the proceeds of certain taxes to certain good purposes which you wish to achieve. We must get over that. But even if we do not get over that, the identification in the public mind of the money we earn from tourism with the arts, which so much stimulate that, would be a very good idea.
So I see the way forward as one which tries to say that the Arts Council must not grow any bigger. It is a very fine body. It must, of course, be kept abreast of inflation. I think in fact it probably needs to be re-fashioned a little. This is only if you can get the alternative methods of patronage. If you cannot get them, then the Arts Council must go on doing all that it is now doing. If you can get the alternatives, I think the Council should concentrate initially on three things. First of all, it should concentrate on the high arts which, on the whole, cannot be subsidised other than through Government—grand opera,

269
et cetera. Secondly, it should concentrate on the very experimental art and nurture that. Thirdly, it should concentrate more than it has on infrastructure services. The kind of thing I mean is the machinery for helping some of our great theatrical productions to travel round the country more than they do at the moment. There is really great wastage of talent and ability here which could be available to a great many more people.
With regard to the idea that control at local level should be more and more in the hands of the local councils, I tend to agree with my noble friend Lord Norwich that this, for the time being anyway, is a hit of a mirage. I know times are moving on. The time has gone when, if there was a daring statue, the Lord Mayor could say: "Art is art and you cannot do anything about it, but the modesty of the Lady Mayoress must be preserved". We have moved on, and there are a lot of local authorities and councillors who take all this seriously. But you have only to look at the size of the arts rates at the moment to see that we have not moved very far.
There are many ways in which councils can expand their help to the arts. I would mention two things in particular. One is something in which I must declare an interest as president of the British Federation of Film Societies. I am very sad that more money does not go to film societies. It is probably the area where local authorities could help most, because a little money goes a long way; £50, which is nothing to a local theatre, can be the saving of a local film society. I think also there should be a concentration on helping those cooperatives of artists who are trying to help themselves. I refer particularly to bodies like Space and Air, which many noble Lords will know about. Where there are municipal buildings suitable for the activities of such bodies it is not at all improper that real concessions of rates and rents be given. I suggest this is something to which many bodies, including the Greater London Council, ought to turn their attention.
My Lords, before I conclude I want to pick on one field which has been neglected and to take up a couple of points raised in the course of the debate. The field which has been largely neglected today is the field of film. I think this is an area where
270
something can be done. The film industry of Britain, unlike the other sections of the arts we have been discussing, is in a terrible way. The films it produces are, on the whole, not good. As a film centre London does not begin to compare with Paris. The reason for the basic sickness of the industry is that it is ground, in a way typical of today, between, on the one hand, the oligopoly of the distributors—well illustrated by their totally unnecessary action taken against the admirable Derek Hill in his attempts to bring good and interesting cinema to London—and a really tough and almost monopolistic union on the other.
I do not put any faith whatsoever in the proceedings which are going on at the moment to solve the industry's problems. We had a Working Party which produced recommendations, some of which were good but very few of which reached the heart of the matter. We have now got, a year later, an interim action committee. We may sooner or later get an action committee, but whether we ever get action is highly open to doubt. In the meantime, first-class suggestions which have been put forward by the Association of Independent Producers, and which have met with a stony reception from both those two other bodies, should be seriously considered, and any weight and influence the Minister has in this direction should be applied as promptly as possible to try to support their very useful initiative.
My Lords, perhaps I may mention two minor points. First of all, I take on board the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, about public lending right. I have already discussed this with my honourable friend in another place, Mr. Clement Freud, the spokesman for the arts, and I will be talking to him again; let us see whether we can lean a little in the right direction on the right people, some of whom, I know, would welcome it. I should also like to say a few words in defence of commercial art galleries. Some unkind things have been said today, not least by the noble Lord, Lord Milford, on this subject. On the whole, although there are a few bad apples, the art galleries in London do a very good job; they look after their artists extremely well and in a very sensitive way. If one says that they make money out of it—yes, they do, but that is how they live and many of them also make money

271
for their artists. It is absolutely right to say that we would not have the reputation we have at present in this country for producing good artists and sculptors if they had not only been helped by bodies such as the Arts Council but by sensitive and discriminating commercial galleries. On the whole, that is the right way of looking at it, and they certainly should not be condemned out of hand.
I also want to say a few words about the ICA, which has done a magnificent job over a long period of time. It receives all the stick; it is always being abused, quite often for things that it does not get right. But what really annoys me—it infuriates me—is that so much of the criticism comes from people who never go to see its successes when it has them and who would not understand them if they did because they would not be prepared to devote the time and energy. There will always be good, simple art, but good, simple art also needs complicated advanced art as well. One can tell that because it is art to which other artists pay attention. Although the artistry of the Carl Andres and Richard Longs of this world may seem simple—so simple that it looks to some people like the emporer's new clothes—they are in fact dealing with highly complicated concepts which are very much appreciated by their fellow artists.
I should like to return to my main point because it is the main point of my Party's thinking on these matters. It is the need for diversification. We do not want the arts to become like the river in Egypt, where the Nile flows through the middle, like the Arts Council, and patches on either side are irrigated but there is a desert beyond. I do not mean this geographically because I know about going into the Provinces. Giving money helps to popularise the arts—where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. People should be allowed and encouraged to help. Rather than the picture of a Nile running through the desert, I should like to see many smaller rivulets of patronage encouraged so that the whole garden can be irrigated.
8.13 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I am grateful, as is
272
everyone else, to the noble Lord, Lord Feversham, for calling attention to this report; he is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, for having produced it. We have had a very interesting debate. A great many ideas have been advanced and my great problem always is not to spend the next hour commenting on them. I shall try very hard not to be too long, but there is a certain amount to say and I find it impossible to skip the lot.
I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh—whose hospitality I enjoyed so much in Edinburgh—on his maiden speech. I have admired his chairmanship of the Scottish Arts Council from a distance for many years and, as a noble Lord said, one can tell that he has been a very good chairman from the quality of his speech, which was extremely wise and in places extremely witty. He made two or three points which were new to me. For example, I thought that his consideration of the number of people who must have passed through as Arts Council members was an interesting idea which I had not thought of before and it is worth dwelling on. This is not a stereotyped, hard and fast. dug-in, self-electing body; it is a body which changes very rapidly but which, on the whole, has supported its administration loyally through several generations. The noble Lord admitted, which Scots do not always do, that up there they have a smaller population than we have—in fact, smaller than many of the regional arts associations. He also admitted that the percentage of Scottish people interested in the arts is probably lower than ours, which is interesting. That is a great problem which, if I have time, I should like to comment on later.
I should like to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Gosford. However, I thought he was asking a little for the moon. I do not want to become involved in a long argument about this, but it is very difficult to decide when an artist is an artist except by the commercial fact that members of the public are prepared to buy or at least borrow his pictures. A great advance is being made in this area in various places in the country by libraries and art galleries lending out pictures. Yesterday, when I was in Sheffield, I went to the art gallery and saw a not particularly well-dressed man borrow a picture. All the pictures

273
lent out at that gallery are by living artists. I asked this man how long he had been borrowing pictures and he said for about two years. He said that he changed them about every two or three months and that it is marvellous. He pays £2 a year. It is in that sort of way that living artists want to be encouraged, rather than being paid to paint pictures which no one wants to see. The noble Earl was not allowed to be controversial so I shall not be either. I congratulate him on his speech. It is worth noting that in the last six months I have seen two exhibitions financed by firms. The last one was by Tolly Cobbold which I saw yesterday in Sheffield; it is giving quite large prizes for artists from different areas and running exhibitions for them.
The noble Lord, Lord Feversham, was rather hard on us in places, but as his was the first speech I do not resent that. He made one particular comment about which I want to speak. He said that we ought to have a prolonged campaign to try to get the public to support the arts in a proper way. I am involved in a personal campaign, and I hope that all noble Lords present will become involved in the same one. I go into the country at least once a week. The noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, said that he had visited 67 local authorities. I cannot go quite as high as 67—I have visited over 50. When one talks to the people on the ground it does a great deal of good. There are always two groups. There is the finance group, which is thinking of the rates; and there is the arts group, which is thinking of the arts. The arts group always wants support against the finance group. People like us can give such support very well. That is very important and is something real that we can do; it is not something that we can spread very wide. Those of us who have local roots can really do something about that.
I shall not take up the points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, about the heritage, because we have just had a debate on that. I wish to make only one point. I am very glad that he referred to the £3.000 million in private hands. He said that he thought it was more. I got the stick from what is technically known as a "heritage buff" for mentioning it at all. He said it was disgraceful for a Minister for the Arts to say such a thing.
274
We agree that at least it is true, even though perhaps one should not always speak the truth. I am appalled by his reminder—which I heard when I was in America—that the Getty Museum has an income of £30 million a year spending money.
The Earl of GOWRIE: Potential.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: That really raises problems, and I shall not attempt to deal with them. However, it is very shaking. Among other things, the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, asked for quinquennial valuations. The reason that we ceased to have triennial valuations was that we ran into a 30 per cent. rate of inflation and it was quite impossible to do. Every one has agreed, not least the Treasury, that as inflation is reduced we should go back to triennial valuations as soon as possible. I shall not say anything about the speech of my noble friend Lord Redcliffe-Maud because the whole debate is about it, except that he hoped that regular information on arts spending would be available. My information is that this is being continued and that it will be available.
I was naturally very bucked to be described by my old and noble friend Lady Lee as meek and mild. I always try to give that impression but am not sure that I always succeed, so it came as a great pleasure to me. However, I am not so meek as to be able to refrain from telling her that I think she is absolutely wrong in what she said and I think I am absolutely right, and I think we will leave the argument there.
I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, mentioned Glyndebourne. This has been an amazing triumph of a personal individual and is carrying on wonderfully. I was there two nights ago and it was very fine. The training for the arts, which the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, talked about is something which we must debate in the next Session. It is frightfully important. The noble Lord, Lord Platt, and various other noble Lords spoke about it. Curiously enough, I talked about it the other day at Coombe Lodge near Bath, where there was a further education conference on the arts and

275
further education. I made a number of Lord Vaizey's points, not because he told me but I suppose because we went to the same sources, and one of them was the danger of too much vocational training instead of training for general appreciation.
One of the difficulties is that people who are trained to become highly skilled in something expect necessarily to get a job in it. As the noble Lord, Lord Platt, said, people sometimes go into the Civil Service even if they are philosophers, and I think musicians, for example, have got to consider this. We all felt that Lord Gibson's speech was very revealing. I did not find anything in it I differed from. I shall look very carefully—and I have already told him this—at the lack of flexibility he complains of and the Council's rather difficult relationship with the Civil Service when it comes to appointments. I do not know what can be done, but it is an important matter to look at.
He referred to tax concessions, as did the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. The point about a tax concession is that from the Treasury's point of view it is simply cash. If you ask for tax concessions they say, "How much will it come to? and you say £7 million, so they say, "Well, you are asking for £7 million". This does not help at all, if you see what I mean. I should love to see tax concessions, but people speak as though in some way it was not money that the Treasury would not otherwise have.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, I entirely agree with Lord Donaldson's point. Perhaps I was galloping a little. The point I am trying to make is that when the time comes to expand again, beyond just keeping up with inflation, rather than just put more money into the Arts Council let us then start giving that money through tax concessions.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I think that that is a perfectly sensible idea. As a form of cash this would be worth considering. The noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, and others spoke about PLR. May I leave it by saying that I was in a train to and from Sheffield yesterday and only heard the political developments late last night and I have had no time to reopen this
276
question. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has and I think there is a question to be reopened, but I would not say more than that.
The noble Lord, Lord Milford, will have to look out for the Truck Act if he is going to sell his pictures for hay. I think we have to be careful about that. Otherwise I thought what he said was extremely interesting. The noble Earl, Lord Haig, has gone. May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, that I am very worried about the commercial theatre, and I think so are we all. Nobody quite knows what ought to be done. It is easy to say, "Take off VAT", but we all know the arguments on the other side and they are very difficult to deal with. I have not any particular remedy to offer at the moment. The Theatre Investment Fund is doing something. I hope it does not come to taking over the West End theatres. I think it would be rather a terrible thing to happen, but I do not think that it will happen. My noble friend Lord Rhodes cheered us all up very much indeed by showing what you can do for yourselves in different localities. I think that the involvement of 2,000 people in a festival of the kind referred to is extraordinary. I intend saying another word about festivals.
There are three things which I think are outstanding to discuss tonight, and on two of them there has been a large measure of agreement. The first is that the Redcliffe-Maud Report has accepted from the word go that this is a time not of cutback but of holding back and a time of waiting and survival rather than for vast expansion. Generally speaking, though a number of noble Lords have said what many of us feel, that we ought to have more, I think that on the whole it is accepted—and I think it is accepted by the noble Earl on the Front Bench opposite—that this is not a moment to make too much fuss about getting a great deal more. The thing to do is to try to hold what you have got.
The second thing on which there has been absolute agreement is the arm's length principle. We are all satisfied that this is the right way to do things. We do not want the Arts Council telling people what to do, and we do not want the Government telling the Arts Council what to do, so that is very satisfactory.

277
The most controversial and difficult part of the report—and I think in many ways the most important—is the idea of gradually handing over the major role in the arts to local authorities outside the Metropolis. The report says:
"We must look to local elected councils at district and county level to become chief art patrons of the long-term future".
This is a crux suggestion which we have to take a lot of time thinking about and, as various noble Lords have said, not rush into but have fairly clear intentions as to where we want to go.
At the local level, local authorities are already important patrons of the performing arts in addition to the strong support which they give to museums and galleries, and indeed of course libraries, with the qualification that the level of support varies considerably from place to place. A recently published Arts Council Report, which has been referred to already, estimated that they spent about £26 million in 1974/75 and about half of this was on the arts and the rest on museums and galleries. We have not got any later figure, but I do not suppose that local authority spending in the current year will be very much less, and this is about the figure, £19 million to £20 million, that the Arts Council is spending of its grant outside the Metropolis.
Whether the local authorities can maintain their support at the steady level that so far we have succeeded in doing remains to be seen, but unless they do the local authorities will manifestly disqualify themselves from the role that Redcliffe-Maud has mapped out for them. Local authority budgets are bound to be sensitive to local political pressures, and it may prove to be the case that only the Government, through the Arts Council, will be able to secure that steady and reliable measure of public money which is so important to the planning of artistic activity. This is something which may be true today, but with really careful work and steady education of the public I think that this can be altered.
There is a further and more fundamental consideration. If local authorities are ever to become the principal patrons of the arts it will be because the Arts Council's
278
role as a patron has been diminished. Before we can contemplate that we need to be sure that the detailed application of the transferred funds should not be decided by local councillors as immediate or direct patrons of the arts. It would be a retrograde step if the money which national politicians have rightly declined to distribute directly should come to be so distributed by local politicians.
Funds made available from the Arts Council's allocation should, if possible, be distributed in detail by a separate body which stands between the local politicians and the artistic client. This of course was the intention of the Redcliffe-Maud Report through the Regional Arts Associations.
On such a body the local authorities could well have the dominant voice. This is the case now with more than half the Regional Arts Associations. But experience already suggests that these associations work best when they have the same independence in their local aesthetic decisions as does the Arts Council in its national aesthetic decisions, and in that situation we have a happy blend of the financial wisdom and prudence of the local authorities with the aesthetic verve and initiative of local artistic directors and enthusiasts.
To build up a regional arts association based on this happy relationship is not easy, as I have suggested. It will take a lot of work from all of us and it may be even harder to maintain that relationship when we have got it. Of course it varies very much from one place to another. It would be quite wrong for the Arts Council to force its clients to look to Regional Arts Associations rather than to the Council. The Regional Arts Association must be seen to have proved itself as a patron and, if it has, the clients will come to it.
Although they vary in their origins, experience and constitution, all these associations derive their actual or potential strength from the fact that they are voluntary bodies committed to the arts. They prosper when all those who work in and with them, including the local authorities, build on their inherent vitality and commitment. Regional arts authorities have a much better chance of whipping

279
up local money than the local authorities themselves, and this is a very valuable function. I talked recently to all three of the local authority associations and I think that what I have said is in line with their thinking; they are not opposed to this kind of approach, so I hope we can get somewhere there.
In his opening speech Lord Feversham asked what had happened to the Lever Report. He will be aware from the Prime Minister's Statement on 2nd December last, that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made his report to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister was able, as a result, to confirm in his Statement that there would be no major changes in the Government's policies towards the arts which are generally on the right lines. He dealt with a number of important issues which have also been raised in this debate. It is sometimes advantageous and in the interest of a frank appraisal if the report made to a Minister by a colleague is treated as a private document. Each Minister has to decide how far such a report should be communicated to others and the Prime Minister has made his decision, which is all I have to say on that topic.
Lord Feversham referred at the beginning of this debate to the TUC's own report on the arts which was published in 1976. This endorses what it described as the emerging three-tier system of arts administration whereby the Arts Council sets the broad outlines of national provision and maintains national art institutions, local authorities provide directly for the cultural needs of the people in their locality, and the Regional Arts Associations cater for regional needs and assist in co-ordinating the work of local authorities in their regions. The report also recommended that live music should be extended, that more should be done to ensure that radio and television meet their responsibilities to the performing arts and that the industrial sponsorship of the arts should be encouraged. The Working Party said that the latter should never be regarded as a substitute for public spending. I think that has been endorsed by nearly all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate; that the main contribution will have to be public. As one noble Lord said, ABSA and the business sponsors will provide the
280
jam, we having provided the bread and butter.
I must comment on the question of spreading the arts, which is much the most difficult problem, philosophically and practically, that is before us. People say that there is no policy for the arts, but in fact there is a very strong policy for the arts. This and previous Governments have taken the John Stuart Mill rather than the Bentham view about the quality of pleasure. The Government have taken the absolutely clear view that pleasure differs in its value; they may be right or wrong and Bentham thought they were wrong. But that is the view we have taken, and that is what we are spending some £90 million a year on—and good luck to us! There is, therefore, a policy of a perfectly specific kind which it is worth pointing out.
As for the international excellence in the arts which we have achieved in this country and in seeing that more people enjoy the arts and take some active part in them, it has been suggested that these two things are incompatible. I am quite sure they are not, though we have a lot to learn about enabling people to see the best of the arts through television; it is improving, but it is often very unsatisfactory. We must also develop further the touring of the national companies, which is not an easy task but for which I find an avid desire as I tour the country. We must have more touring and I think the national institutions will recognise their duty here if facilities can be improved. I have just got into very hot water with a local theatre for supporting a geographical co-ordination of touring which in the end must lead to better results, but which in this case deprived a local theatre of a visiting company for which they were working up a good audience. This is the sort of difficulty that one cannot but occasionally run into.
Do not let us underestimate the value of local festivals of the kind the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, was telling us about. The enthusiasm and variety of the few I have been personally concerned with this year—Bath, Chichester, Malvern, Guildford and King's Lynn, to mention a few—are infectious in the nicest possible sense of the word and there arc now about 20 regular major festivals in this country, not to mention the major one North of the Border. The Arts Council encourages them quite generously with money and

281
much very sound advice. In addition, there are another 180 or so festivals involving professional artists and some 300 amateur festivals which come on from time to time. This is one of the important ways of spreading the arts; festivals have an immediate and infectious effect which is very valuable.
Redcliffe-Maud suggests that the best way to help the individual artists is by employment in education as full-time or part-time teachers or as visiting performers at schools, universities and so on and in industry and commerce as designers. This is true, provided the artist can maintain his artistic output, but the national Government and local government can employ an artist directly only so far as the taxpayer and ratepayer respectively will permit. Otherwise this is for the private sector, and the Government can only exhort them to adopt a sympathetic and enlightened attitude to the economic worth of the artist.
The practice of employing an "artist in residence" is growing. I have seen it at work in a hospital in Manchester and in the new town of Milton Keynes, where I understand there are two, and I believe this is spreading; I think that North West Arts are paying for one of them and the Gulbenkian Foundation are paying for another. This is a very important concept, in that these young men stir up the hospital marvellously, practise their art at the same time and get a reasonable living for it.
A good deal is going on abroad, and the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, referred to this. I received a letter from our Ambassador in Paris only this morning describing how France is being submerged in what one French newspaper called a "tidal wave" of British culture—the Henry Moore exhibition at the Tuileries, backed up by an exhibition of his prints at the Bibliotheque Nationale, in Bordeaux a major exhibition "From Gainsborough to Bacon" a travelling exhibition of David Hockney, another of Ben Nicholson, another of Richard Hamilton, the National Youth Orchestra, the Glyndbourne Touring Company and others. We must all pay a warm tribute to the British Council for what they are doing in this respect. We may starve the countryside here but we are doing jolly well over there!
282
Lord Redcliffe-Maud referred to the inner city problem. We had a most interesting speech from my noble friend Lord Llewelyn-Davies in the last debate on this subject in which he developed this idea quite widely, and we might all have another look at what he said; it is too late tonight to tell noble Lords exactly what he said. There is no doubt that my colleagues, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for the Environment, are working on this and that there will before very long be a White Paper, which I hope will have something to say along the lines in which we are interested.
My Lords, it is late now. I could go on almost indefinitely, but I shall not. We have had a very interesting debate. I am most grateful to everybody. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Feversham, is pleased with the result that he has produced. I certainly am.
Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I, at the same time as thanking him for his too kind remarks to me personally, correct a misapprehension which I have unfortunately placed in his mind? The reference I made to the fact that we believe that the proportion of people who enjoy Arts Council functions is far too low was intended to apply to Great Britain as a whole and certainly not to Scotland alone.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I take the point.
8.41 p.m.
Lord FEVERSHAM: My Lords, I have no intention whatever of prolonging these proceedings more than necessary, but I should like to start these very brief concluding remarks by thanking all those noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. It has certainly been a broad-ranging debate, and I hope that those noble Lords who have taken part will feel that it has been successful. In particular, I should like to join in congratulating the two maiden speakers upon their excellent speeches.
I started the debate by suggesting that the future of support for the arts faced two great difficulties; one was the immediate one of the economic crisis,

283
and the second was the difficulty in the future of overcoming public apathy towards creativity. The point has been made that at the moment the French are lapping up the products of British artists: of course, the French have a much better attitude to the arts, on the whole, so they enjoy the work that we produce rather more than we appear to do.
What I feel—and I always tend to feel this whenever we debate the arts in this House—is that we spend quite a lot of time saying how successful we are and congratulating ourselves. Of course, we have been jolly successful and I think that there is cause for congratulating ourselves. Nevertheless, I feel that we should not spend too much time doing that, for I believe that difficulties exist. I was very interested in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, who, though he said that the Government were to be congratulated for keeping the level of support for the arts up and that the increase in the cost of living was being met by the Government, admitted that that was not maintaining the level of support for the arts because the rate of inflation in the arts was above that in the cost of living. So we have a problem there. We are talking about small sums of money. The margins are on the whole very small, so each year for the last two years, in real terms, we have been getting a cut-back in support for the arts. That is the kind of thing that worries me. We have to overcome the difficulties that we are facing as a result of the economic situation.
I do not want to be harsh. The Minister accused me of being a little harsh upon him. I had no such intention; I wanted to draw him out of his modesty. I merely wanted to give the Minister as much ammunition as possible for his negotiations with the Treasury. I do not think that at present we are keeping pace with inflation in the arts. We are slipping back there.
I was very interested in the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, in which he described the difficulties that faced the visual artist. The Minister himself mentioned the difficulties with regard to the State employing visual artists. Many artists survive through part-time work, but much part-time work has been lost in
284
the education cuts, so there are more difficulties facing artists. There are difficulties facing the arts in this economic climate and I am not at all sure that enough is being done. I am not entirely satisfied, from the Minister's reply, that enough is being done to counter those difficulties. Also, the noble Lord, Lord Platt, mentioned that he felt that there were definite problems of falling standards.
So there are problems. I do not feel that we should be complacent but, having said that, I think that I should thank everybody very much for taking part in the debate and sit down. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

SHREWSBURY AND ATCHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL (FRANKWELL FOOTBRIDGE) BILL
Reported with Amendments.
  OFFENCES OF VIOLENCE STATISTICS
  OFFENCES OF VIOLENCE STATISTICS
  WATER CHARGES EQUALISATION SCHEME
  WATER CHARGES EQUALISATION SCHEME