Sitting of 22 June 1978

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  SHEFFIELD GENERAL CEMETERY BILL (By Order)
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered upon Thursday next at Seven o'clock.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Agricultural Land
    Mr. Dudley Smithasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to preserve the maximum amount of good agricultural land in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Gavin Strang): In accordance with the planning procedures local planning authorities are required by article 15 (1) of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1977 to refer to my Department all proposals which could result in the development of 10 or more acres of agricultural land. These references are made only where the proposals do not accord with development plans.
    Mr. Smith: Is the Minister aware that every five years agricultural land covering the equivalent of a county such as Warwickshire goes under concrete, and that more and more we are losing part of the precious heritage of this country? Does the Minister not think that it is time that there was much more co-opera-
    686
    tion among Government Departments to deal with the massive amount of derelict land which still exists in urban areas, so that it can be used rather than building being carried out on good agricultural land?
    Mr. Strang: It is the Government's policy to minimise the loss of agricultural land. Co-ordinated with that is the policy which encourages authorities and private individuals to make the maximum use for development of land which does not have a high agricultural potential.
    Mr. Speaker: May I appeal for shorter supplementary questions so that we may cover more Questions?
    Mr. Ronald Atkins: Is it not true that since the Second World War between 40,000 and 50,000 acres of agricultural land have been lost every year? Is my hon. Friend aware that in spite of the regulations this trend continues? Does he agree that it seems that we are less careful today than we were just after the Second World War?
    Mr. Strang: We must keep this matter in perspective. The annual rate of loss is under 0·3 per cent. per annum. My hon. Friend will be the first to admit that many of the developments that take up new land are extremely valuable. They enable families which hitherto lived in tenements to occupy houses with gardens.
    Mr. Charles Morrison: Given the very proper emphasis on inner city redevelopment, and given population trends, which will show a fall or certainly a stabilisation in the population, may we be assured by the Minister that he will react very strongly against the references that are made to him which fall outside structure plans?
    Mr. Strang: I clearly have to consider each case on its merits, but I am glad of the hon. Gentleman's support for the Government's policy on the inner city areas.
    Mr. Welsh: Does the Minister agree that preservation of good farmland also means the improvement of existing farmland? Will he therefore reintroduce the lime subsidy, which produced great benefits in terms of productivity and land improvement?
    Mr. Strang: I know that a number of farmers would like the subsidy to be reintroduced. Good farmers, however, will apply lime because they take an interest in their land. Under the farm and horticultural development scheme it is possible to have a programme under which lime is subsidised.

    Sheepmeat
    Mr. Gouldasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied with the developments in establishing a sheepmeat régime.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Silkin): It is too early to express an opinion.
    Mr. Gould: Why do we need a sheep-meat regime? Would it simply not push up the prices to something approaching French levels and mean the virtual disappearance of lamb from the British dinner table? Why are the French not being made to dismantle their illegal system of quotas, rather than being permitted to promote a scheme which would be so damaging to the British consumer and to our traditional supplies?
    Mr. Silkin: The "we" about which my hon. Friend asks is a bigger "we" than just those of us in the United Kingdom. It includes New Zealand, for example. The difficulty is that the Commission takes the view that if there were a total free trade, which could or might be the result of the French action in the European Court, there would be high prices in the French market and lower consumer prices here. The temptation would be for producers to sell their lamb in the French market, bringing up the price of lamb in this country. That is the danger that the Commission sees. It needs a great deal of examination. It begs a number of questions. I would have thought that the French market would simply saturate itself at a particular level.
    Mr. Peter Mills: Will the Minister confirm that, approximately, for every 1 per cent. rise in the price there is a 1 per cent. decrease in consumption, which can be very serious indeed? In his discussions and negotiations in Brussels, will he seek to urge that the French Government deal with the problem of their own sheep-meat production, as it is a social prob-
    688
    lem, with perhaps grants under the less favoured areas scheme?
    Mr. Silkin: I think that the hon. Gentleman has more than one point with which I might agree in the course of negotiations. That is why I say that it really is too early to express an opinion. What I would say is that if there is the likelihood—it may be through legal action; I do not know—of our being forced into having some sort of a regime, the regime must, it seems to me, contain a number of elements for the protection of our own people—to protect our own consumers and producers, and to protect New Zealand. For this purpose, I think that one would need a very long transitional period anyway, and one would need to watch it very closely indeed.
    Mr. Raphael Tuck: Does my right hon. Friend think that Mr. Gundelach's recent assurance is reliable—namely, that the introduction of a Community regime for sheepmeat will not involve curbing British imports of New Zealand lamb and butter?
    Mr. Silkin: What the Commissioner was talking about was the GATT binding, which ensures that New Zealand lamb comes into the Community. Effectively, it comes into the United Kingdom, as we know, with a 20 per cent. tariff. The only way, says the Commissioner, in which one could get rid of that—he would say that this is reassurance to New Zealand—would be by offering an alternative. The only alternative that one could reasonably offer the New Zealanders is to take more butter or more cheese, and neither of these does the rest of the Community want.
    Mr. Peyton: Is the Minister aware that his statement of objectives, which he produced only in his reply just now, is perfectly acceptable to me? But what worries many people is that once a regime is established there is no need for unanimity in order to change it. This would be a source of very great anxiety both here and in New Zealand. I hope that the Minister will take every opportunity—I am sure that he will—to remind the Commission that the real objective of the European Community is to strengthen the free world, and that this should not be lost sight of. Hon Members may laugh, but there is nothing ridiculous in

    689
    this. This fine objective should not be lost sight of in rather muddy bargaining.
    Mr. Silkin: I think that saving the free world is a little outside my departmental remit at present. I think that it is enough to try to save sheepmeat if I can.
    I share the right hon. Gentleman's worries. I think that he is on to a good point. As he knows, there are ways and means by which one can say "No", even if one is one of nine. On perhaps one matter, anyway, I think that I have his support. I agree with him that it is a very difficult question. I am very conscious, too, that I shall not always be there. I might have successors.
    Mr. D. E. Thomas: Will the Minister accept, on the subject of saving, that he should consider now, in the negotiations, the fact that the guaranteed price system which has operated so effectively for both consumers and producers in the United Kingdom should not be replaced in negotiations on a Community regime?
    Mr. Silkin: The guarantee has played a very strong part and I understand it very well. That is why I said at the beginning that it was too early to express an opinion. There are so many facets to this matter and there is so much that we need to save.
    While on the subject, perhaps, I may re-emphasise that the main reason for this is that we have more sheep than anybody else in the Community; indeed, more than the whole of the Community put together—and, incidentally, more than the United States and Canada put together. So we have an interest in the matter.
    Mr. Stoddart: I am encouraged by my right hon. Friend's remarks, but is he aware that I would have much preferred it if he had made a firm statement that he would not agree to a sheepmeat regime in any circumstances? Does he realise that if a sheepmeat regime were introduced it would adversely affect not only our consumers; it would be devastating to New Zealand farmers and to 30 per cent. of the population associated with sheepmeat, and to shippers and insurance people as well?
    Mr. Silkin: I have always had very much in mind the interests of New Zealand as well as those of our own produc-
    690
    ers and consumers. I have said many times in the House that the debt that is owed to New Zealand is not just one of history; it is one of kinship and of principle. We have to see that that debt remains paid.

    Farms (Letting)
    Mr. Farrasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the number of farms made available for letting in the latest year for which figures are available; and what was the comparative figure five years earlier.
    Mr. Strang: No information is available on the number of holdings offered for letting in 1972 and 1977, the latest years for which figures on agricultural holdings are available.
    Mr. Farr: I cannot thank the Minister for that reply because it was really a nonevent. However, will he take steps to look into a survey which was conducted very recently in the Border regions, which shows that out of 121 tenancies that expired only four were reoffered to would-be tenants? Will he look at the whole question again and see whether recent legislation on this subject is having a serious impact on the continuance of the valuable role of the tenant farmer in Britain?
    Mr. Strang: The hon. Member must recognise that the legislation that provides for a succession of the sons of tenant farmers has the effect of protecting many tenancies which would otherwise be lost. I also point out that inevitably other considerations, such as fiscal ones, are affecting the availability of land for letting. Indeed, this trend has gone on for a very long time.
    Mr. Watt: Will the Minister take steps to put an early end to the farm amalgamation scheme, a scheme that is now ensuring that what were once viable farms are being added to neighbouring farms, thus reducing the number of holdings that are available for let or purchase?
    Mr. Strang: Clearly, the whole question of the availability of farms for letting, rents, and everything else, is a matter of concern. That is why my right hon. Friend set up the Northfield Committee, which is giving all these issues very deep consideration.
    Mr. Jopling: Will the Parliamentary Secretary understand that his first reply gives the impression that he has a blind eye? Is he aware that it is widely known in agriculture that there are now far fewer tenancies? Has he been told of the most helpful initiative that has been taken jointly by the two sides in this problem —the Country Landowners' Association and the National Farmers' Union—in forming a joint committee to try to deal with the problems of shortages of tenancies? Will the Government give an undertaking that they will give sympathetic attention to whatever conclusion that committee might come to whilst the present Government still happen to be in power?
    Mr. Strang: What I shall not turn my blind eye to is the fact that, prior to our recent legislation, a man might have invested the bulk of his working life, and the earnings from that working life, in a rented farm, only to find that when his father died he had no rights whatsoever to continue farming that farm. I shall resist any attempt being made by the Opposition or anyone else to make the succession legislation the whipping boy for high rents or anything else in the industry.
    Mr. Wiggin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Pig Production
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the returns being achieved by producers in all sectors of the pig industry.
    Mr. Peter Millsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by how much the pig industry has declined, expressed in numbers of breeding sows, since the Government came to power.
    Mr. John SitkinIn April 1974 the United Kingdom breeding herd was 899,000 but was declining sharply and the Government introduced a temporary producer subsidy. Following a recovery in the herd in 1976 a further decline set in last year. The Government introduced a temporary subsidy and has secured
    692
    improvements in the basis of calculation of pigmeat MCAs. In April the breeding herd was 830,000 and no longer declining.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: May I press the Minister to give an absolute assurance that in his view the pig breeding herd will not decline again this year? Is he aware of the hardship felt in the heavy hog sector of the industry?
    Mr. Silkin: On the second part of that question, I am afraid that it is noticeable that even when there is an upsurge in the other part of the industry, the heavy pig sector seems never quite to benefit as much. This needs a good deal of looking into. I take the hon. Gentleman's point.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Peter Mills.
    Mr. Silkin: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I had not finished; I was just pausing for breath.
    On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, of course I cannot give that unqualified assurance. I can only give an assurance that I will do my best to watch it and see that the herd is preserved.
    Mr. Peter Mills: Whatever the Minister says, he must realise that the record of the Socialists in this area is bad. Before the end of July, he must make repeated efforts to get the situation right in Brussels, not only for the pig producers but also for the many thousands of people who work in the processing industry. He cannot be content with his record on this.
    Mr. Silkin: I am tempted to ignore your instructions, Mr. Speaker, and speak for rather a long time, but I shall control myself. I took the precaution of looking at the record of two Labour Governments —one in Denmark and one in Germany. I found that the pig herds had increased considerably there—by an average of about 13 per cent. I then looked at two countries with Conservative Governments —France and Italy—and found that the pig herds there had declined. So this is not altogether a matter of political control. I sympathise with hon. Members who do not listen to what their hon. Friend says. He put the emphasis on Socialist Governments, not just this Government. [HoN. MEMBERS: "This

    693
    one.") Then there is no need to use the word "Socialist".
    If we are in the position that we are over the pig breeding herd, this is due partly to our old friend the pig cycle, but also to the fact that the pig cycle which existed in this country is now part of the European pig cycle—a kind of European bicycle, if you like. If the hon. Gentleman examines the matter he will find that the real villain here is the wrong calculation of MCAs, which the rest of the Common Market insist on our keeping.
    Mr. Stoddart: Will my right hon. Friend take it from me that people working in the bacon curing and pigmeat manufacturing sector realise perfectly well that he is doing a good job on their behalf and that they expect nothing from the Conservative Party, because it is so besotted with the EEC? Will my right hon. Friend take into account the real worries of people in the curing and manufacturing industry? Many jobs have been lost, and unless we can get agreements on MCAs, more will be lost in future.
    Mr. Silkin: That is precisely the point —my hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have dealt with the question of the producers. The processors are a different cup of tea. That is why we have been pressing for a change in the calculation of the pigmeat coefficients. That will help the processors much more. I have been shocked to find that the Commission, having promised me that this would be urgently studied, has not brought it forward. My hon. Friend raised this point during the last meeting of the Agriculture Council. I think that he received an assurance from the Commissioner that it would be brought forward very quickly.
    Mr. Shepherd: With reference to what the right hon. Gentleman said just now, will he take a substantially more aggressive approach towards the reopening of this review of the monetary compensatory amounts? The uncertainty to which this will lead in the industry is far from acceptable. Will he say exactly what he proposes to do on this matter?
    Mr. Silkin: That, of course, is precisely what I have done. I am in a slight quandary. I have sometimes had my knuckles rapped for taking an aggressive attitude. I have been told that all I have
    694
    to do is smile happily at the Danes for them to give me everything I want. In fact, they give me everything they want. We intend to press this until we get a reasonable solution, but I must warn the hon. Gentleman that it will not be as good as either he or I would wish.

    European Community Council of Ministers (Agriculture)
    Mr. Molloyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects next to meet EEC Ministers of Agriculture.
    Mr. John Silkin: I shall meet them at an informal meeting of the Agriculture Council to be held in Denmark next week.
    Mr. Molloy: When my right hon. Friend goes to that informal meeting, will he formally raise the question of the remarkably disparity in, and what seems to many of us the ludricrous disposal of, the Commission's funds for agriculture? For example, £120 million a year is spent on research and investment and £9 million on the food aid programme for the Third World—while storage costs for sugar, skim milk, butter, beef and veal are now running at no less than £900 million a year. Will he raise this matter and express our disgust at the strange behaviour of these people, who are irritating and annoying millions throughout the Community?
    Mr. Silkin: I have several times pointed out in the Council that the figure for storage of, I think, £960 million a year—anyway, it is in the budget—is an absolute disgrace to the Community. However, the only way in which it can be tackled is by seeing that the institutional prices come down in real terms, to such an extent that we no longer have the surpluses. When that happens, we shall indeed be on the way to something like a sensible policy.
    Mr. Marten: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the cost of disposal of the surpluses, most of which are unnecessary, is now £2,425 million a year? How much longer can respectable politicians, and indeed respectable farmers, go on tolerating that?
    Mr. Silkin: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is a point that I have

    695
    made many times. Whatever farmers may think or may have said in the past, I do not think that it is in their interests. Nor do they get the benefit of those storage costs. The benefit often goes to the middle man and the trader, or is simply used as a means of dumping products in competition, for example, with New Zealand or Australia.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: Has my right hon. Friend had any advice, help, suggestions, hints or ideas from the Opposition about what they would do or how they would help? It might be helpful to get some liaison here, if they have any suggestions.
    Mr. Silkin: I have had some advice and hints from the Opposition. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) and the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) told me—I must get this absolutely accurate because I had my knuckles rapped the last time I said it—that they were prepared to advocate the parity of the green currencies over the next two or three years—a parity which, for Europe as a whole, would mean an increase in food prices of about 10 per cent.
    Mr. Peyton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the more deplorable consequences of his Government's policy will be the increasing difficulty which attaches to the parity which we hoped could have been achieved within two or three years? The subsequent decline in the strength of the pound and the lack of any confidence abroad in this Government's rigid policies have made that much more difficult.
    Mr. Silkin: I do not know what difficulty the right hon. Gentleman is talking about. We are talking at the moment about the hints and advice that he has given me. I have never heard him retract that advice. If he wants to retract it now, I shall he delighted to hear him say so.

    Beef Imports
    Mr. Hendersonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the amount of Irish beef imported since 1st January 1978 to the nearest convenient date; and what was the comparative figure for the corresponding periods in 1974, 1975, 1976 and 1977.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. E. S. Bishop): United Kingdom imports of beef and veal from the Irish Republic between 1st January and 30th April in the five years from 1974 to 1978 were 22,000, 36,000, 18,000, 34,000 and 42,000 tonnes, respectively.
    Mr. Henderson: Is the Minister aware that there is considerable concern in the agricultural community about the increase in imports of Irish beef and veal, which come in at a price helped by Ireland's devaluation of the green pound to a greater extent than ours was? Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that our farmers are especially concerned about what may happen this autumn, and will he give an assurance that if there is a larger increase in the import of Irish beef this autumn he will take swift and urgent action to deal with it?
    Mr. Bishop: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should look at the position in full perspective and consider it generally. He will be aware that imports from all sources so far this year are lower than for the same period last year. Imports from Ireland are higher, but the United Kingdom market in recent months has nevertheless remained firm.
    Mr. Litterick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the total estimated net balance of payments cost to the United Kingdom of being forced to buy our food supplies within the Common Market rather than from lower-price world sources is £300 million this year, and this is but one component of the vast net cost of Britain's membership of the Common Market? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that at least this Government recognise their responsibilities?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman sure that he is asking his supplementary question on the right Question?
    Mr. Litterick: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: I thought that it was one which he could have asked on any Question.
    Mr. Bishop: My hon. Friend will be aware of the steps taken by my right hon. Fried with regard to surpluses in trying to get more reasonable levels and also ensuring that the most efficient producer of a commodity produces the food which

    697
    we need. Home production of beef and veal was down in 1977 by about 37.000 tonnes on the year before, and I think that my hon. Friend will therefore realise that imports were necessary to top up our own home market.

    National Farmers' Union
    Mr. Michael Spicerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he plans next to meet representatives of the National Farmers' Union.
    Mr. Temple-Morrisasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next intends to meet the president of the National Farmers' Union.
    Mr. John Silkin: I am planning to meet the president and representatives of the National Farmers' Union next month, but a date has still to be fixed.
    Mr. Spicer: When the Minister meets the president of the National Farmers' Union will he give him a categorical assurance that the Government have no intention of nationalising agricultural land?
    Mr. Silkin: I am meeting the president of the National Farmers' Union and representatives of the union at his request. It will be for the president to ask what he will. If the hon. Gentleman has any influence with him, he will, no doubt, see that that item is put on the agenda.
    Mr. Temple-Morris: With respect, I must ask the Minister to answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer). There has been mention recently in the agricultural Press that the Labour Party is about to come forward with proposals for the nationalisation of land, and wilder and more extreme elements are even hinting that the Minister may have some sympathy with these ideas. I ask him to reassure the House.
    Mr. Silkin: I do not think that this has anything to do with what I tell the president of the National Farmers' Union, unless he asks me, but I shall certainly answer the question, irrelevant though it may be. The answer is simple. The Government have no plans to nationalise agricultural land, because it was not in the Labour Party manifesto at the last election.
    Mr. Torney: When my right hon. Friend next meets representatives of the NFU, will he ask them to tell him of the latest state of affairs in the bacon curing industry? Will he discuss with them the serious unemployment plight in that industry, due to the Common Market policy of allowing import subsidies on Danish bacon, and, further, will he discuss the fact that there have already been many thousands of redundancies and that we are now threatened with the closure of many firms? Will he tell the EEC that we must act unilaterally to save this industry?
    Mr. Silkin: I have a great deal of sympathy with the bacon processors and with those employed in that sector of the industry. In part, the trouble is that, while producer prices have recently been going up—as they have been—that, and the effect of the wrongly calculated Danish MCA's, has caught the processors between an upper and a nether milestone. I think that the change in the MCA rate of about 8 per cent.—£20 a tonne—which, I think I am right in saying, is to come in next week, will make some difference. Whether, therefore, the president of the National Farmers' Union will raise the matter with me, I do not know.
    Mr. Wiggin: When the Minister meets Sir Henry Plumb, will he explain to him why it is now impossible for a young man to find a farm to rent, and will he further explain that, although nearly half the front page of the annual June return deals with the change in the occupancy of farms, his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary still does not know how many farms are let each year? Will the right hon. Gentleman refute the idea that the Ministry does not know, since it does know?
    Mr. Silkin: I greatly doubt that the opportunity will be given to me to discuss that with the president of the National Farmers' Union. But I should say that he and his union have given their evidence to the Northfield inquiry. The first sentence of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question expressed precisely why, a year ago, I set up the Northfield inquiry to find out exactly what has happened in the acquisition and ownership of agricultural land. Nobody knows, save for whatever evidence has already been accumulated by the Northfield Committee.
    Mr. Roderick: Will my right hon. Friend take special note of any representations which may be made on behalf of producer-retailers of milk and on the sale of untreated milk? Will he adopt a flexible approach to this problem, since there are isolated pockets in this country where no doorstep delivery will take place if these people are forced out of business?
    Mr. Silkin: I want to be as flexible as I can on this matter and I have tried to meet the point which I take my hon. Friend to make. I did it by extending the necessary consultations until the end of next month. I wish to put the position absolutely fairly to the House and the industry. If I, as Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, am aware, as I am, that there have been about 384—I think that that is the figure —cases of disease as a result of untreated milk, I am clearly under a duty to examine the matter and say what I ought to do. I have asked for all the evidence I can get. I hope that doctors, farmers and consumers will get in touch with me. That is precisely why I extended the period for the consultations.
    Mr. Wells: I hope that when the Minister meets the president of the NFU part of his discussions will be concerned with horticulture. In particular, will he talk to Sir Henry about the problems of Stratford market, which are uppermost in the minds of many hon. Members who have visited that market in recent weeks?
    Mr. Silkin: I believe that if the hon. Gentleman—he is my Member of Parliament, although he rarely, if ever, gets my vote—were to write to me about that, I might be well briefed to talk to Sir Henry on the matter even if he does not raise it with me.

    Fishing Rights
    Mr. Cleggasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current state of negotiations concerning reciprocal fishing rights with third countries.
    Mr. David Jamesasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will introduce conservation measures under the Fisheries Limits Act 1976.
    Mr. John Silkin: I shall be making a statement about the outcome of this week's Fisheries Council after Question Time.
    Mr. Clegg: We look forward with interest to what the right hon. Gentleman has to say, but may I put to him a question which is not directly concerned with the EEC? There are reports that Argentina has granted West Germany and Japan permission to fish in the waters off the Falkland Islands. As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, that area has been looked to as a possible British resource. What has he to say on the subject?
    Mr. Silkin: The point that the hon. Gentleman raises about the exploitation of the South Atlantic waters around the Falkland Islands was raised in the fisheries debate last week, and I then said that the Government were considering the advisability and technical appreciation of the advantages. I shall look into the reports which the hon. Gentleman has just drawn to my attention. During the course of this week, I confess, my eyes have been on a slightly different form of 200-mile limit, but I shall certainly look into the matter and consider whether there is anything I need to do.
    Mr. James: Since we have been overtaken by events in the past 24 hours, will the Minister tell the House whether, having failed to achieve agreement during his June meetings, he has the firm intention to reach a successful conclusion in July?
    Mr. Silkin: There is always the possibility of a successful conclusion to a fishing agreement provided that our partners in Europe, the majority of whom do not fish in our waters anyway, realise four things. The first is that fishing, to us as an island people, is something that is of far more importance than it is to any of them. Secondly, our partners must recognise that the conservation of stocks of fish is vital if we are to have a viable fishing industry. Thirdly, it must be recognised that, as a coastal State, we must have the means of enforcing the quotas which other members of the Community so glibly throw around the table. Fourthly, it must be recognised that we —as the coastal State which has brought in the largest share of waters containing fish for which Community fishermen as

    701
    well as ourselves fish—are entitled to a preferential share of that fish.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There will be an opportunity for questions following the Minister's statement.

    Fruit and Vegetable Prices
    Mr. Kenneth Lewisasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied with the prices to the consumer of fruit and vegetables; and what plans he has for avoiding large increases in price after these products leave the farm gate.
    Mr. Strang: Prices of fresh fruit and vegetables are determined largely by supply and demand, but the Price Commission monitors both prices and margins in this sector. Its most recent report shows that retail prices of the main fruit and vegetables were down 22 per cent. in April compared with a year earlier; the average retail price of all food rose by 6·3 per cent. over the same period. The Government have no plans to introduce controls in this sector.
    Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that his reply will be regarded as complete nonsense by the average housewife, who knows that the price of food and vegetables in past weeks has been escalating? Is the Minister further aware that it is known that these price increases are not going to the producer but are benefiting those somewhere in the middle?
    Mr. Strang: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear every detail in my reply. The figures that I quoted were to April. The hon. Member is right to say that there have been significant increases in the prices of some vegetables of late, but I believe that these are largely seasonal, due to the late spring.

    Icelandic Fisheries
    Mr. Brothertonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about negotiations with the Government of Iceland on the subject of fishing rights.
    Mr. John Silkin: No negotiations have taken place since a joint EEC Commission/Presidency team visited Reykjavik in June last year.
    Mr. Brotherton: In view of what has happened this week will the Minister assure us that we shall now negotiate bilateral agreements with Iceland and the Faroes so that the British fishing industry is able to fish in the waters it requires?
    Mr. Silkin: I remember that during the passage through this House of the Fishery Limits Act the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) asked me "Why are you letting Mr. Gundelach negotiate for you?" I said that it was because I thought that it was only fair to let him have his head since he was negotiating for a number of countries and it seemed that if we were negotiating separately we might not get such a good deal. As I look back on a year of total futility over the Iceland negotiations I think that I would want to look at my words again to see to what extent I would like to revise them in June 1978.

    Pigmeat
    Mr. Boscawenasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the profit margins being achieved by the United Kingdom bacon curing industry.
    John Silkin: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today to the hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks).
    Mr. Boscawen: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that his lack of sympathy and his insufferable complacency with regard to the pigmeat industry gives that industry no confidence that he is pressing its case as hard as he should in Brussels?
    Mr. Silkin: I am a little astonished by that remark. When I introduced the pig subsidy last year, when I had to fight the various sections that I did have to fight inside the Community because of that, and when I had to try to get the pig-meat MCAs recalculated, "complacent" was not exactly the word being used by the Opposition or by people in Europe. If the hon. Gentleman means that we have to keep fighting for a recalculation of pig-meat MCAs, I agree. He is perfectly correct, and we shall do so.
    Mr. Peyton: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the food processing industry finds itself between the upper millstone of the MCAs and the

    703
    nether millstone of the Price Commission, which often has no knowledge of or sympathy with the problems of the industry? Is he aware that the likely consequence of this process will be the grinding out of an efficient British industry and its replacement by foreign supplies?
    Mr. Silkin: The lower millstone in this instance—to preserve the analogy—is the British producer, rightly so. He deserves a fair return for his products. The upper millstone, as the right hon. Gentleman correctly says, is the wrongly-calculated system of MCAs. This, at least, is one small matter on which he and I have had some agreement this afternoon.
    Mr. Wm. Ross: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if we were allowed to import grain at world prices from our traditional suppliers many of the problems of the pig producer would disappear?
    Mr. Silkin: I have to deal with matters as they are. I try to do the best I can in those circumstances and I shall continue to try to do so.

    PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
    Mr. Temple-Morrisasked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagement for Thursday 22nd June.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.
    Mr. Temple-Morris: Has the Prime Minister time today to answer a question unconnected with statistical entrails? May I put it to him that whether phase 3 ultimately succeeds or fails, it has definitely failed with regard to differentials and the skilled labour force? Is he aware that in this and in his other policies he has let down a large number of his own supporters? Does he agree that the only hope that those people have lies with the policies that will be put forward by the next Conservative Government?
    The Prime Minister: I hope that the skilled workers will not have to wait as long as all that. It is true that when there are rigid systems of pay policy dif-
    704
    ferentials suffer, as they have done on this occasion. I hope that in the succeeding rounds—in the yearly pay bargaining —this position can be improved. We must recognise skill as far as possible.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: May I ask the Prime Minister, if not today, at any early date, to enter into negotiations with the trade union movement and the CBI over the practicability of introducing a 35-hour week throughout Great Britain, as a means both of increasing leisure hours and of significantly reducing unemployment, which, by common consent is far too high?
    The Prime Minister: These matters will, of course, be for discussion with the trade union movement, but I do not think we should assume that there is an easy solution to our problems through adopting a 35-hour week unless a number of other factors go with it. Two factors, for example, would be the need to ensure that unit costs of production do not increase. The second would be to ensure that our European competitors—since we have to sell our goods abroad—would be following the same policy. Apart from that, I think that there is a good case for considering reductions in working hours, provided that they do not just result in more overtime payments.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Now that school leavers are coming on to the employment register in ever larger numbers, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he is still determined to go ahead with his 2½ per cent. extra tax on jobs?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Lady knows, the necessity for this surcharge arose from the amendments for which she voted. It was no part of the Government's original strategy to introduce this tax. We asked the House to reject the amendments which altered the balance of the Budget. However, we have to face the consequences. As to whether we go ahead, the amendments will be put forward when we debate the Finance Bill. The House will have to debate these matters in the usual way. I am sure that the right hon. Lady appreciates that.
    Mrs. Thatcher: There seems to be some doubt whether the Prime Minister will go ahead with this. Does that mean

    705
    that he is prepared to listen to the CBI and the small businesses when they tell him that such a tax would knock jobs, exports and small businesses?
    The Prime Minister: I wish the right hon. Lady had thought of all these things before she voted for the amendments. I would not need to stand here defending this impost if the Opposition had not unbalanced the Budget by their votes. As it is, we have had to find the best way possible—
    Mr. Farr: The worst way.
    The Prime Minister: —to restore the revenue that the Opposition have lost through their votes. I shall listen to any representations that are made. I must say that when I meet the CBI its members do not bay and shout at me as do Tory Members.
    Mr. Wyn Robertsasked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 22nd June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris).
    Mr. Roberts: In view of the impending sharp increases next month in youth unemployment, because of the number of school leavers joining the register, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's choice of a 2½ per cent. increase in employers' national insurance contributions is positively the worst choice that he could have made as far as the employment prospects of these young people are concerned? How will the Prime Minister justify this inflationary tax on jobs to his fellow heads of Government at the July Summit?
    The Prime Minister: If we had really thought that it was the worst choice, I promise the hon. Gentleman that we would not have made it. There is a matter for a difference of opinion here. Because we are seeking to fight inflation, I was myself very opposed to raising value added tax, which was another alternative and which would have had a much more immediate effect than the national insurance surcharge will have, since it would have come into force immediately. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"]
    706
    It is no use hon. Members saying "Ah". We are about to engage in discussions with the trade union movement on what is to happen to pay next year.
    In my view, it really would have been a worse choice to say to the trade unions "We are now going to increase VAT because of the votes in the House of Commons, and in doing so shall put up the cost of living immediately". There is no good choice here, and Opposition Members must accept their full responsibility for the choice that we have had to make.
    Mr. Molloy: During the course of the day, will my right hon. Friend make arrangements to meet the TUC and CBI in order to make very clear that the Conservative Party's interference with the Chancellor's Budget will mean that very well-off people will get more in tax relief than the amounts which some workers are asking for in order to meet the marginal costs in the rising standard of living? This will create a severe and sour atmosphere in industrial relations, and the CBI should state quite clearly where it stands and whether it will aid and abet the Conservative Opposition in their efforts to sour industrial relations.
    The Prime Minister: There is a way out of this dilemma, if the Opposition will undertake to vote for amendments which will return income tax to the position where it was. Then we need not proceed with this national insurance surcharge. Which do they want?

    DEPARTMENT OF MARINE AFFAIRS
    Dr. Edmund Marshallasked the Prime Minister whether he will establish a Department of Marine Affairs.
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's suggestion, but he may assume that I do not intend to make any changes in departmental organisation or responsibilities unless and until I make a statement to the contrary.
    Dr. Marshall: When so many of our urgent political problems associated with the sea—problems relating to fishing, tanker disasters, oil development and hydrography—involve so many Government Departments and agencies, would

    707
    they not be dealt with more effectively within a single new Department?
    The Prime Minister: It is a matter of judgment. I have considered the matter very carefully. In 1976, we made a thorough review of it. The fact that these activities extend so widely over a number of Departments means that they require co-ordination, which is done by the Lord Privy Seal at present. I am not yet persuaded that setting up yet another Ministry would add to the co-ordination, but I want to keep an open mind. If it seemed necessary to bring them together I would not hesitate to do so.
    Mr. Grimond: Without necessarily setting up a new Department, will the Prime Minister look again at the chain of responsibility for dealing with pollution at sea to see whether there should be one senior Minister in ultimate control? What proposals are the Government making internationally to avoid the sort of disaster that overtook the "Amoco Cadiz"?
    The Prime Minister: The Lord Privy Seal has an overall responsibility for coordination where a number of Departments are involved, but basically, of course, this matter falls to the Department of Trade, which is now responsible for our marine interests generally.
    The right hon. Gentleman referred to the "Amoco Cadiz" and other disasters. First, I have asked that a full report should be prepared on the "Amoco Cadiz" disaster and the "Eleni V" incident—although "disaster" is probably better word to use—and when we have considered that report we shall consider whether the matter is best raised through the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation or through the European Council. Either might be appropriate.
    Mr. Hooley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the creation of a 200-mile exclusive economic zone creates a new situation and that the structure of government needs to be revised so that we as a nation can take advantage of the enormous riches below the sea bed which this possibility gives to us?
    The Prime Minister: My previous answer covered that. I am not persuaded that it needs a new Ministry to
    708
    do this. When the 200-mile zone looked as though it were being extended, I reviewed the whole matter and gave an answer in the House, saying what steps were being taken to ensure that there was proper co-ordination so that we could make certain that our interests were properly safeguarded.
    Sir Bernard Braine: Has the Prime Minister yet studied the Health and Safety Report on the terrifying risks of death and injury to which my constituents are exposed, including risks arising from the possible interaction of accidents to liquid gas, oil and chemical carriers and land-based hazardous installations? Has the right hon. Gentleman noted the lunatic proposal of that report that despite these risks oil refinery development on Canvey should be increased? Will he, therefore, take responsibility for these matters out of the hands of Departments which have hitherto been indifferent to the plight of Canvey and entrust them to a new Department?
    The Prime Minister: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern for his constituents, but I do not think that the establishment of a new Department of Marine Affairs would be likely to solve these problems. Perhaps he had better table a Question to the appropriate Minister.

    FAMILY POLICY
    Mr. Michael Lathamasked the Prime Minister whether he intends to take any further personal initiatives in the field of family policy, following his recent speech on this subject.
    The Prime Minister: I have at present no general comments to add to my recent speeches on the importance of family life, but Ministers, in developing the broad range of their economic and social policies, will pay particular attention to the contribution that improved provisions for the family and protection of the family can make to a healthy community.
    Mr. Latham: When the Prime Minister next speaks about family policy, will he remind his audience that when the Conservative Government left office the standard rate of income tax for working wives and working husbands was 30 per

    709
    cent., and that the first thing the incoming Labour Government did was to raise it to 35 per cent.?
    The Prime Minister: All these facts are well known. The hon. Gentleman never fails to seize the opportunity to put them on record. But, to give a balanced picture, I should remind the audience, at the same time, of the considerable improvement in child benefits, which will go up to £3 in November and £4 in April; I should remind it that social security benefits have been substantially improved; I should remind it that there has been a larger increase in the married man's allowance than for the single person; I should remind it of the levelling up of the personal allowances for single parents; I should remind it that we have reintroduced free school milk. I should remind it that we have expanded the health visitor service; I should remind it of the improvement in nursery education. When I had done that, I think that it would have a balanced view of the whole picture.
    Mrs. Hayman: When my right hon. Friend gives that long list of reminders, will he consider also reminding his audience of the broken Conservative pledges to increase family allowances in the past? More constructively, when considering initiatives in family policy, will my right hon. Friend look particularly at the needs of the under-fives and consider whether there could not be better co-ordination between the Departments involved in order to improve services for pre-school children?
    The Prime Minister: There is a great deal that should unite the parties on this matter, and I should regret it if it became a matter of politicisation. The Campbell Adamson report and study set up under the Leverhulme Trust will be of great value. The debate introduced by the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) in March, supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones), is worth reading by all of us, and there is a great deal that we should seek to preserve in the family in trying to put the family forward and amplifying its status in society—and that has nothing to do with politics.
    Sir David Renton: As this is mental handicap week, may I, in a non-party spirit, ask the Prime Minister to do his
    710
    best to encourage all concerned, especially the Secretary of State for Social Services, in the efforts being made to get the older handicapped people out of large institutions and into living a more feasib!. life in the community?
    The Prime Minister: I am much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that suggestion. I shall convey it to my right hon. Friend and see that the right hon. and learned Gentleman gets a reply to it.
    Mr. Sever: In the light of my right hon. Friend's probable reluctance to set up a separate Ministry to deal with these affairs, could he indicate to which Ministry he will wish to allocate further responsibilities for the development of his policy on the family?
    The Prime Minister: Again, this is a matter of co-ordination, because, as I have indicated, the question of families, their responsibilities and activities, stretch over a number of Ministries. We cannot look to any single Minister to be responsible. It is a matter for the Cabinet and for Government coordination generally.
    Mrs. Bain: In view of the Prime Minister's reference to the increase in child benefits, will he look particularly at the case of those lone parents who are totally dependent on supplementary benefits, and are less likely to benefit from the increases than those who are dependent on unemployment benefit and maternity allowances?
    The Prime Minister: I understand the problem, but the Supplementary Benefits Commission must take into account income from all sources, and if child benefits are to be substantially increased, as they are, supplementary benefits must have regard to that. My right hon. Friend is looking into this problem, but I can give no undertaking.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mrs. Thatcher: May I ask the Lord President to state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): The business for next week will be as follows:

711
MONDAY 26TH JUNE—Supply [25th Allotted Day]: a debate on trade and the prosperity of the nation.
TUESDAY 27TH JUNE—Remaining stages of the Employment (Continental Shelf) Bill, of the House of Commons (Administration) Bill and of the Parliamentary Pensions Bill.
WEDNESDAY 28TH JUNE—Motions On EEC documents on contracts negotiated away from business premises, Nos. R/113/77 and R/134/78, on the aeronautical sector, Nos. R / 2461 / 75, R/1860/76, R/222/77, and R/1964/77 and on criminal law, No. R/2043/76.
Motion on the Ancillary Dental Workers (Amendment) Regulations.
THURSDAY 29TH JUNE—Supply [26th Allotted Day]: until 7 o'clock a debate on the problems of pharmacists.
The Fourth Report from the House of Commons (Services) Committee, Session 1977–78, House of Commons Paper No. 472 on Members' Secretaries and Research Assistants (Severance Payments &c).
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed Private Business for consideration at 7 o'clock.
FRIDAY 30TH JUNE—Motions On the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) Order and on the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order.
MONDAY 3RD JULY—Supply [27th Allotted Day]: subject for debate to be announced.
Mrs. Thatcher: May I put three brief questions to the Leader of the House? First, he will be aware of the continuing dispute between the electricians and the Health Service and will probably have seen reports in the Press today about the situation at Great Ormond Street where heart surgery is having to be postponed. Will he undertake that the Secretary of State keeps the House fully informed about the latest developments? Secondly, as we are now one further week on than last week—[HON MEMBERS: "Oh".]Well, it has given the right hon. Gentleman one more week to decide—has he decided whether the limit on dividends will not be reintroduced when it expires shortly? Thirdly, when may we expect
712
the report on police pay and a statement upon it?
Mr. Foot: I cannot say exactly when the report on police pay will be coming, but it will be very soon. With regard to dividend control, to which the right hon. Lady referred last week, the Government have not made a final decision, but we do not believe that it will be necessary to have fresh legislation on the matter. With regard to the right hon. Lady's first question, I shall consult my right hon. Friend with regard to informing the House. Of course, we are aware of the importance of the whole question.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call anyone, may I remind the House that today two short debates are to be initiated, one by the Scottish National Party and one by Plaid Cymru. Therefore, I shall have to limit the time devoted to business questions. In addition, a major statement is to follow, and that will take some time.
Mr. Mellish: Will my right hon. Friend make a statement next week about the salaries of Members of Parliament? As ever, we are the last in the queue. I think that the time has come for the increase. Will he say when? Will he make it next week?
Mr. Foot: We shall be bringing before the House very soon, although not next week, the resolutions required to carry this through. But, of course, the date of the increase will be 13th June, which is a date similar to last year.
Mr. Hordern: Will the Leader of the House once again repeat what he said to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition about dividend control? He said that there would be no need for further legislation. By that did he mean that there would be no further dividend control?
Mr. Foot: I said I did not believe that there would be any necessity for fresh legislation. The Government are still considering the matter, but I am not yet in a position to say how we shall make a statement to the House.
Mr. Greville Janner: Will my right hon. Friend confirm the reports that before the end of this month there is to

713
be a Green Paper of the problems of the elderly which will recommend a lowering of the voluntary retirement age for men to 63? In view of the great importance of this subject, can he assure the House that there will be time for a debate on retirement before the House goes into recess?
Mr. Foot: My hon. and learned Friend had better wait to see the Green Paper before he or I make comments upon its recommendations. When the Green Paper is presented to the House, the House will then be able to consider whether it wants a debate at an early date and, if so, whether there is time for it.
Mr. Raison: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a statement on the rather lamentable industrial action being taken by Post Office telephone engineers which is causing grave inconvenience to many of my constituents and to many other people in the country? Up to now it has been an example of people taking industrial action, not doing the job for which they are paid, yet getting fully paid for it.
Mr. Foot: I cannot comment on what the hon. Gentleman has said about the particular aspect of the dispute, but I shall certainly consult my right hon. Friend about whether we should have a statement.
Mr. Helfer: In view of the fact that the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) has suggested that the Labour Party wants to bring in a Nazi-type system, the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition has suggested that we want to bring in an East European-type system, and the spokesman on Scottish affairs has suggested that we are all Nixonites, is it not time that we had a debate so that we could clearly explain the democratic socialist concepts of the Labour Party? If the Conservative Opposition are not prepared to have such a debate on a Supply Day, as they are obviously not prepared to have a debate on immigration, could not the Government find time for a discussion on this matter?
Mr. Foot: I am sure that the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) must be thoroughly ashamed of the statement which he made. I think that much the
714
kindest thing which the House can do—I know what a kind heart my hon. Friend has—is to say nothing more about it. I am sure that the right hon. Lady would be the first to agree with me.
Mr. Biffen: Is the Leader of the House aware that his statement on dividend control may have given rise to some unintended confusion? Can he confirm that without further legislation the existing controls lapse? Therefore, the only interpretation which can be put on his remarks is that any future dividend control will be a matter for a voluntary code and not a statutory one.
Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman should put no such interpretation on the words that I used. The words that I used were not those which he put into my mouth. A statement will be made at the appropriate time. A number of factors have to be carefully considered as part of the Government's general approach to counter-inflation, and I am fully aware of the third factor, mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, about 31st July.
Mr, Alan Lee Williams: Will my right hon. Friend consider a debate before the recess on the report of the Select Committee on waterways and canals?
Mr. Foot: I must tell my hon. Friend and the rest of the House that we have considerable pressure on the Government's time before the recess. Therefore, I cannot make any promises on the subject. I shall have to say the same, I fear, to quite a number of right hon. and hon. Members today and on the one or two other occasions which will occur before we reach the recess.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I propose to allow business questions until a quarter to Four.
Mr. Baker: Will the Leader of the House clarify what he said about the continuing powers which he may seek to extend dividend control? It is the general assumption that substantive legislation is needed for this. He said that substantive legislation would not be required. Is it the Government's intention to introduce the extension of dividend control by means of an additional clause to the Finance Bill?
Mr. Foot: There are various possibibilities. I have nothing further to add to what I have said already in response to the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen).
Mr. Arthur Lewis: The Leader of the House will be aware that on Thursday of last week the Government promised a White Paper on what I call freedom of information but what my hon. Friend would probably call the Official Secrets Act. Is it to come next week or the week after? Time is getting a little short, is it not?
Mr. Foot: It is true that time is getting a little short, but I cannot say whether it will be next week or the week after.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: is it a secret?
Mr. Foot: I can assure my hon. Friend that there will be a White Paper on the subject before the recess.
Mr. Spearing: When does my right hon. Friend intend to table the motion about tomorrow's business on the EEC European Foundation for the furtherance of European union? Are the Government in favour of this concept? If not, will they oppose the proposal?
Mr. Foot: For the debate on the subject which takes place tomorrow, the Government are proposing a "take note" motion. I think that we should see how we get on then. But I understand fully the representations on the subject which my hon. Friends have made to me.
Mr. Sims: The right hon. Gentleman said that we should be discussing the Fourth Report of the Services Committee next week. Does he recall that the Fifth Report deals with the new building for Parliament? In view of the very important decisions to be taken and the need for them to be taken at an early date, will he assure us that we shall have an opportunity to debate that report before the recess?
Mr. Foot: I know the interest of the hon. Member and others in the subject, but I fear that I cannot give an absolute promise that we can debate it at an early stage. I know the desire of the House to discuss it, but I have to underline what I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Williams) about the pressure on the business of the
716
House, and that must be taken into account, too.
Mr. Gould: As we approach the end of the Session, is my right hon. Friend aware that he has not yet fulfilled his undertaking to bring forward a resolution to improve parliamentary control over EEC legislation? When does he intend to do that?
Mr. Foot: I am fully aware of the undertaking which I gave on that subject and of the necessity for the House to discuss the matter.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Will the Leader of the House make clear the position on police pay? Is it intended that the Edmund-Davies report will be published with a statement by the Home Secretary at the same time, or will there be a gap? Secondly, as this will touch on many matters besides pay, will there be an opportunity for a debate before the House rises?
Mr. Foot: We had better wait and see what is in the report before I can answer those questions. Whether the House will want a debate, whether there will be time for a debate and what should be the nature of that debate are matters that we must consider when we have the report and the Government's statement on it.
Mr. Ioan Evans: When my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Walton (Mr. Heifer) referred to the speech of the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave), the Leader of the Opposition laughed. Will my right hon. Friend ask the right hon. Lady to dissociate herself from that speech, because it caused a great offence to those millions of people who came back from the last war—
Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Member ask a question on the business for next week'?
Mr. Evans: The question is whether we could have an opportunity next week for the Leader of the Opposition to make her position plain regarding that offensive speech.
Mr. Farr: May I ask the Leader of the House whether it is true that next Friday we shall discuss on a Northern Ireland day a Bill which will be published by then on the implementation of the recommendations of Mr. Speaker's Conference

717
on Northern Ireland? If not, why will not the Bill be ready by that date?
Mr. Foot: I think that the hon. Member knows the answer to his own question. If he has followed the answers that I have given on previous occasions on this subject, he will know perfectly well that we are not proposing to deal with that next Friday. There is other business concerning Northern Ireland to be dealt with then.
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Will my right hon. Friend provide time next week to debate the scandal of the Tory Party opposing every job creation and job saving measure proposed in this House and then taking £11,000 for itself from the job-creation scheme? Apart from the customary hypocrisy that this demonstrates, does my right hon. Friend consider it appropriate for taxpayers' money to be paid to a political party of that kind?
Mr. Foot: That is a somewhat wider question, but I dare say that many of these aspects of the attitude of the Conservative Party to real job creation schemes will arise when we return to our discussions in the House on the Finance Bill.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I am a friaid that we must move on.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY COUNCIL OF MINISTERS (FISHERIES)
3.45 p.m.
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Silkin): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to report to the House on the outcome of the Council of Fisheries Ministers held in Luxembourg on 20th and 21st June.
I represented the United Kingdom at this meeting, together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland.
In a discussion on revising the common fisheries policy, I again emphasised the political and economic importance of the fishing industry in the United Kingdom and the strength and unanimity of feeling expressed in this House during the debate on 15th June. I regret to say that. despite the willingness the United Kingdom has
718
shown to be flexible in the search for an agreement, the other members of the Community showed no readiness to depart from the position they had adopted at the Council meeting last January, and consequently no progress could be made.
The Council also discussed two issues of immediate importance. It agreed to roll forward for July the present reciprocal fishing arrangements with third countries subject, however, to a quota arrangement at Northern Norway which will help to ensure that the United Kingdom maintains its share of the cod and haddock catches in that area and that over-fishing by other countries will be contained.
The Council, however, failed to agree on a Commission proposal to introduce a ban on further catches of herring to the west of Scotland. There is clear, independent, scientific advice that this stock, which is of the highest importance for the future of our herring industry, is in danger. The Government will therefore now have to consider urgently what must be done to protect it.
I informed the Council that Her Majesty's Government would now have to decide, in the light of the Community's failure to take the necessary decisions, on what further action we needed to take in accordance with our rights and obligations as the coastal State, to protect and conserve the fish stocks in United Kingdom waters.
Mr. Peyton: First, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware of the Opposition's complete agreement with him—[Interruption.]—in resisting proposals which are wholly unacceptable, ill-founded and intrusive? May I also express to him our regret that the Commission does not yet seem to have recognised the primary importance of conservation?
I should like then to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the fact that the failure to agree was predictable—indeed, he predicted it himself—he is aware that there will be some disappointment that he has not come here today already prepared with definite measures of conservation—[Interruption.]—with the intention of putting them into force at once.
But, despite the barracking of his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer)—a little silence from

719
him would be so rewarding—may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will undertake to come to the House of Commons next week and announce measures such as those which we recommended to him last week to conserve fish stocks and also to make it quite clear that these will be put into effect immediately?
Mr. Silkin: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the agreement which he signifies to the stand that I took in Luxembourg. It was in accordance with our debate on 15th June, when all of us, I think, agreed that it would be a matter of some surprise to me if there were not those around the Council table who thought that the agreement would not be as lasting as in fact it may be. I think that it is lasting, and I hope, therefore, that I speak for the whole House and the country.
On the question of conservation, as I said to the House before, obviously it is better to get conservation measures that embrace the whole Community. Indeed, if we could get agreement beyond the Community and have, for example, reciprocal arrangements among Norway, Iceland, the Community, ourselves and all other countries, it would be better. For that reason I was hoping that we might get some Community conservation measures. Unfortunately that failed. In fact the Commission tried, but the member States refused to allow the herring conservation measure to go forward.
It is not a question of not knowing what should be done. We know pretty well exactly what should be done. But we have to follow a certain procedure, and the right hon. Gentleman must be aware of that. We shall follow that procedure and we shall announce to the House at the earliest possible moment what conservation measures we intend to adopt after we have followed the correct procedures. I promise the right hon. Gentleman that we shall do it as soon as we possibly can. Obviously I am covering myself a little because I have to wait until I hear what reply I get after seeking the Commission's approval in Brussels.
Mr. Peyton: I really must press the Minister on this matter. He cannot plead
720
surprise. He knew for an absolute certainty that no agreement would be forthcoming in Luxembourg. We now repeat the question that we put to him last week —will he undertake quite clearly to come to the House of Commons next week with prepared measures and then put them into immediate effect?
Mr. Silkin: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman understood what I said, but clearly he did not. I did predict that there would not be an agreement. Both he and I agreed on 15th June that if we could get an agreement that served our national honour and our interests we would be glad to get it. What I did not know—and I said that to him at the time—was that conservation measures were not necessarily part of that agreement on the common fisheries policy. The Commission was prepared to and, in effect, did introduce proposals on conservation, but I did not know until the last moment whether those measures would be accepted by the rest of the Council. It is better to have a Community conservation measure because it is more extensive than a national one.
In the light of that I still say that I would have had to go through the same procedures even had I known that the talks would fail. I have to go through the procedures because I want to ensure that the measures are effective. The House will be informed at the earliest possible opportunity, and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there will be no delay.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: May I ask for crisp questions if possible?
Mr. McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we all applaud the zealousness of the converts on the Opposition Benches in supporting the vigorous stand that he has made to protect our fishing industry? I urge him, however, to beware of the zealousness of the converts because sometimes in their keenness they can make fatal errors.
On the question of third parties' relationships and the improved situation for the United Kingdom in Norwegian waters, can my right hon. Friend explain to the House in more detail how he sees it rolling on after July and taking in other countries?
Mr. Silkin: Mindful of what you said about crisp questions, Mr. Speaker, I reply that the basis is that in September last year we agreed with the Commission, the French and the Germans to a division of cod in Norwegian waters, which gave us 70 per cent. of that cod. By the end of the year there had been over-fishing by our two partners and as a result we did not even get our quota. This year there has been no quota. Large and very powerful French and German vessels have been fishing ahead of ours. Therefore we were afraid of over-fishing in those waters and in consequence that was the basis of the agreement. Until the end of July we shall get the proportion, based on the 1977 agreement, which is the highest amount, and the French and German quotas will drop down in that period. That should enable our fishermen to fish the full amounts and at the same time it will contain the fishing of the French and Germans.
Mr. Powell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that support for his dogged defence of British interests and rights, despite the weak bargaining hand that he inherited, is felt far beyond the fishing industry itself? Now that he has been obliged to take over the responsibility for herring conservation in the waters around these islands, will he administer and organise it in such a way that he can preserve, by the very small allocations which are necessary, the skiff fisheries in areas such as Mourne, and the important and special industries which depend upon them?
Mr. Silkin: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said. I will do my best, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland stands ready in his field to bring in Scottish conservation measures. The right hon. Gentleman knows that he has always had my sympathy about Mourne. I have always said that there might come a time when we would need to do this.
Mr. James Johnson: I urge my right hon. Friend to ignore the petty and bad-tempered comments from the Opposition Front Bench. Is he aware of the deep satisfaction of all hon. Members representing fishing ports in all parts of the House for the firm stand that he has taken against the callous and cynical demands of our continental partners for
722
so-called equal shares of stocks in our waters?
I thank my right hon. Friend for the work that he has done for the deep-sea fleet in Norwegian waters. This may have resulted in only 6,000 or 7,000 tonnes, but in Hull we are thankful for small mercies.
Is it correct, as Mr. Gundelach has said —although I do not accept it—that the United Kingdom demands this week would give our fishing people 100 per cent. of the stocks in the 200-mile belt by 1982?
Mr. Silkin: I saw that comment in a written statement which differed from the oral statement that Mr. Gundelach had made to the Council. Of course I am bound to say that it is true in one or two species, although the statement that he made gave the impression that it is true in all species. It is true of cod, plaice and herring.
Germany, Denmark, France, Holland and Belgium together contribute precisely 20 per cent. of the fish resources of the Community, and according to the Commission's proposals they take out 70 per cent. I thought that in suggesting a mere 100 per cent. I was being rather modest.
Mr. Grimond: While wholly supporting the Minister in his admirable fight in Brussels, may I ask him whether the conservation measures that he is considering must be of a general nature for all boats and types of fish, or whether they are variable? Is he aware that it is not only the fish that must be considered—important though it is to conserve them—but the industry, and in particular the fishing communities that depend entirely upon fishing? Will he ensure that any such measures do enable these communities to continue their livelihood?
Mr. Silkin: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, that lies very much within the field of responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland. Of course very painful decisions will have to be taken. The industry, including the Scottish industry, has assured me that although it may suffer very much—and I think it will suffer much more from the West of Scotland herring closure than the industry of any other country—it is not only prepared to do it, but it wants to see conservation measures. That is why

723
I say again, the sooner we can do it the sooner we will do it.
Mr. Jay: Does my right hon. Friend regard the common fisheries policy as one of the benefits of EEC membership for which the Conservatives voted?
Mr. Silkin: I do not want to try to make out an examination list of the benefits of our membership of the EEC, but I suppose that if I were to do so I would not necessarily regard the common fisheries policy as coming at the head of the list.
Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the Minister aware that he has the full appreciation of SNP Members on his strenuous fight on behalf of our fishermen? Is he also aware that the fishermen in the West back the judgment about the risk to the herring stock, although they themselves will suffer most in terms of employment and earnings? If a ban is imposed. will he consult his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland about exemption for those boats that practise conservation by the use of drift nets?
Mr. Silkin: This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, but I wish to emphasise that there will be difficulties. So far as it is possible to mitigate them we want to do so, but I am afraid that we may be in for something of a difficulty in this and in other matters, some even in England.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope to call those hon. Members who have been rising to their feet, if they are brief.
Mr. Spearing: Although conservation is clearly an important matter, may I ask my right hon. Friend to confirm that a matter of importance to the United Kingdom is the proportion of catch which is ultimately made available to us? Does he agree that, although he is justifiably supported on conservation matters by those who approved the common fisheries policy, no such arguments can be said to apply in respect of catch because that was not part of the policy? Therefore, those people cannot talk about protecting the industry as such.
Mr. Silkin: The common fisheries policy is always being quoted to me by
724
other members of the Community. They say that they are in favour of it, and dispute the question of catch with me. I regret to say that they appear to dispute the question of conservation, otherwise the conservation measures that now exist would all be Community measures. However, not one is a Community measure: they are all national measures.
Sir J. Langford-Holt: If unilateral action on conservation becomes necessary, the right hon. Gentleman clearly will have the support of the House. But are we not in some respects in danger in this argument? Was it not the unilateral conservation policy that led us into near conflict with Iceland about three years ago? The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the necessity of reaching agreement with Iceland.
Mr. Silkin: I wish slightly to correct the first part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. Unilateral conservation measures will not become necessary: they are necessary. I think that the whole House understands that. On the subject of Iceland, that dispute took place some time ago before the Commission was empowered to act on behalf of the Community in negotiations with Iceland. The Icelanders at that time based their case on two fundamental points. The first was conservation, and the other involved the existence of 200-mile limits, which they pointed out were their waters and nobody else's.
Mr. Spriggs: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there are no grounds for making reciprocal agreements on fishing rights with Community countries?
Mr. Silkin: Under the Treaty of Accession, the basis, I understand, is that there shall be equal fishing opportunities in all member States for Community's vessels, whether they come from Germany, Denmark, Holland, Luxembourg, Italy or even the United Kingdom. I sometimes think that that point of view in respect of some of our northern neighbours is sometimes more honoured in the breach than in the observance.
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I appreciate the urgency and necessity of conservation measures. However, does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the bringing in of specific measures, such as the ban on herring fishing on the West coast of Scotland, will lead to diversion of

725
effort elsewhere? Does he not agree that what is needed is a comprehensive scheme of conservation which takes account of the repercussions of individual measures dealing with the conservation of fishing both in terms of species and of certain areas around our coasts?
Mr. Silkin: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but the point I made in the debate that took place a week ago was that I have certain guidelines, and both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I must keep to them. We must first—that is the law—seek the approval of the Commission. Even if the Commission does not give us its approval we can still go ahead, but we must seek its approval. That takes a certain amount of time.
The second consideration is that the conservation measures must be in accordance with the scientific evidence. That is not always available.
The third point is that the measures must be necessary. That I would agree in every case, and so would the hon. Gentleman. The final point is that they must be non-discriminatory. One sometimes hears arguments that measures are discriminatory against another member of the Community. It is curious that in most of the measures which the United Kingdom has taken unilaterally I would have thought that the United Kingdom had suffered more than other countries. That point has never yet been taken.
Mr. Raphael Tuck: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he deserves the congratulations and thanks of the whole House and country for the superb stand he has taken in Europe? Indeed, he is one of the best Ministers of Agriculture we have ever had. Does he agree that in view of the fact that our waters contain between 50 and 60 per cent. of the EEC's total fish catch, the EEC's offer to us of only 30 per cent. of the total fish catch is contemptuous and derisory?
Mr. Silkin: I do not know about "contemptuous and derisory". It may be just a fault in mathematics. At any rate, we have a few months to see whether that is the case.
Mr. Clegg: Did the Minister point out to the other Ministers the impact of the
726
possible accession of Spain and Portugal on the common fisheries policy? I do not see how one can bring those countries into the EEC and continue with the CFP as it is.
Mr. Silkin: I pointed that out in the Council and more specifically, and in another city altogether, to one particular Minister of that Council.
Mr. Watt: Does the Minister recognise that SNP Members wish him a pleasant and fruitful journey to Norway later in the month? We hope that he will manage to negotiate some decent reciprocal fishing rights. Will he take with him as compulsory bed-time reading the report of the Expenditure Committee on the fishing industry? Does he agree that if he were to implement the recommendations in that report, the next generation might have some fish to catch, whereas if we listen to what the EEC says, we shall have only paper fish to talk about?
Mr. Silkin: I invariably take the report of that Committee with me to bed. It is now the sole topic of conversation in my household. That is not to say that I do not think there is a great deal in the report with which I find myself in agreement.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY COUNCIL OF MINISTERS (FISHERIES)

  BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR MONDAY 10th JULY
  Members successful in the Ballot were:

  Mr. Terry Walker.

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson.

  Mr. Anthony Nelson.

BILL PRESENTED
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1974 (AMENDMENT) (No. 3)
  Mr Geoffrey Finsberg presented a Bill to amend the Local Government Act 1974 so as to enable Members of Parliament to refer complaints relating to local administration to Local Commissioners: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14th July and to be printed [Bill [52.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [24TH ALLOTTED DAY]—considered

SCOTTISH ECONOMY (OIL RESOURCES)
4.8 p.m.
Mr. Gordon Wilson: I beg to move,
That this House condemns Her Majesty's Government for its mismanagement of Scotland's oil resources and its refusal to establish an Oil Development Fund for Scotland to be used for restructuring the Scottish economy, encouraging industrial growth and reducing unemployment.
There can be no more important subject for debate for the people of Scotland than that which we have chosen today. The future of our country and its economy can rest on this major source of national wealth. I refer to the resources of oil and gas which lie off our coasts.
Today's news about the cut-back at Singer on Clydebank from 4,500 jobs to 2,000 indicates the real worry about the fabric of the Scottish economy. It is sad that there is no sign that Scotland can have those additional resources steered towards her and that the Government, although making claims about the value of having a Secretary of State for Scotland in the Cabinet, are apparently unable to do anything to save jobs in Scotland. It must ring in many ears today in that part of the country that a vote for Labour means a vote for unemployment.
I should like to review the three areas that will be affected by oil—unemployment, the curtailment of emigration and the social distress which many indicators have shown to exist in Scotland. These are the main subjects of political and social concern in Scotland. Every political party has been offering solutions for those problems. In this debate we are discussing, in particular, the mismanagement of our oil resources and the lack of an oil fund to help our industrial structure.
Labour Members will have grave difficulty in making excuses. They can
728
blame some of the faults on the Conservative Party which failed in its duty by leaving behind a policy vacuum when it left office in February 1974. It can be compared with the early English king Ethelred the Unready.
In almost every sector of the oil industry which the Government have tackled, they have bungled the approach or climbed down on their main intentions. The consequences for Scotland have been damaging, are damaging and will continue to be damaging for years to come. For example, the platform industry was one of the main areas of interest when the Government came to power in 1974. They set out to exploit the oil well quickly. One of the earliest Bills that we had in this Parliament was the Offshore Petroleum Development (Scotland) Bill 1974. The then Minister of State, now Secretary of State for Scotland, said during the Second Reading of that Bill:
"to ensure that these vast resources can be used to the best effect they must be exploited quickly."
Later he said:
"It is very much bound up with the question of getting oil out as quickly as possible because the work involved will be an important source of jobs and prosperity for the people of Scotland."—[Official Report, 19th November 1974; Vol. 881, c. 1108–9.]
Right from the outset, the Minister indicated that it was the Government's intention to get the oil out quickly—that was their main criterion—and to produce employment. The oil is now coming out and the balance of payments has been strengthened, although a recent Barclays Bank report pointed out that the advantages of that strengthening will be eroded through import suction, so the alleged long-term benefits may not exist for too long.
It is in connection with jobs that the Government's strategy was entirely wrong. The intention was that oil companies should be given a choice of platform yards producing steel and concrete platforms, and there was a wholesale rush to provide those yards. Warnings were given during debates on the 1974 Bill that there would be too many yards and too much dislocation. Today we find that of the yards that were provided, Nigg and Ardersier have been continuously open, Methil closed and reopened, though only with an order which had to be partly shared with another EEC country, Ardyne is

729
empty, Kishorn has recently been empty and Portavedie and Hunterston were never used. As a result, we have wasted more than £25 million of public money which could have been used for alternative industrial development.
We had hoped—I think that I speak for everyone—that the oil industry would provide one of the greatest injections of life into our engineering industry, but since the Government came to power, we have lost 10,000 engineering jobs in Scotland while there has been an increase of 3,000 such jobs in the United Kingdom as a whole. The engineering sector in Scotland is critical. It is the greatest repository of our skills and has been the backbone of our industry for many years. As other countries have shown, it should have been expanded, even in these difficult days of recession.
We had hoped that the arrival of the oil industry, giving, as it did, a large and protected home market, would have provided a stimulus for production and development which would have given the engineering industry the opportunity not only to secure a strong base in the oil industry but to become much more sophisticated in other industrial applications.
The Labour Party's statement "Oil for Everyone" which was issued before the General Election in October 1974, said:
"The Labour Government's plans for North Sea Oil will benefit everyone by creating many more jobs in Scotland. By creating new industry. By creating, through Labour's new economic strategy, a booming Scottish economy."
I am waiting for the "Hear, hear" from the Government Front Bench. Do they think that there is a booming Scottish economy when we have 170,000 people unemployed, compared with the figure of 91,000 when they came to office? If that is their example of a booming Scottish economy, heaven forbid that we should have any more of it.
It is time that we had a major change. We had a promise from the Labour Party in the election campaign about what it would do, but on the two main sectors, which would have helped many of the people in West Central Scotland who voted Labour, we find that the engineering industry has not got access to the contracts that have come from oil and that it has not been able to maintain its position.
730
The pre-election message of the Labour Party must sound sick to many folk in Scotland and today's news from Singer will reinforce that.
A number of jobs have been created. Some could hardly avoid being created, but it is a peak of 60,000 jobs, and once the underwater or land pipelines from the offshore platform have been laid to the market, no more will be laid unless more fields are found. There is a limit, and many of the jobs are only short term. They will disappear. Many have already disappeared and some have been caught up in other developments. The creation of 60,000 jobs is a disappointing achievement in view of the hopes that were held out.
We must lay emphasis on the fact that we had a strong home market which existed because oil resources were being developed off the coast of Scotland. Bearing this point in mind, I suggested during our debates on the oil taxation Bill that fiscal incentives should be built in to encourage oil companies to buy Scottish. I believe that if the Government had, from the outset, introduced into the licences a "Buy Scottish" provision and it had been known in advance to the licensees that a certain proportion—we suggest 50 per cent.—of the products should be purchased on our home market, many more jobs would have been created in Scotland.
Throughout the world where oil has been developed, these protections are provided. For example, there is a prohibition in the United States, under the Jones Act, on the use of supply boats which do not fly the American flag. If the mighty American Government which controls the mighty American economy found it necessary to take those steps, surely the British Government could have done at least that for the people of Scotland.
We have not had the employment and economic multiplier taking effect. We were told that the benefits of the oil industry would penetrate other industries remote from oil and provide more work throughout the country, but if we look at the distribution of employment, although we are happy that many areas, such as the Grampians and the Highlands, have done very well, we find that many areas in Scotland with industrial resources

731
and strengths have benefited hardly at all from the oil industry. In July 1977, the numbers of inshore jobs fully related to oil were nearly 13,000 in the Grampian area, nearly 7,000 in the Highlands, 1,750 on Tayside, 1,600 in Fife, Central and the Lothians together, 845 in the islands and a mere 1,460 in mighty Strathclyde. For most of Scotland, the impact of the oil industry has been a damp squib.
It may be that Scotland's industrialists are to be blamed for slowness. It may be that there is an element of fairness in that criticism. The speed of the Government's intention to exploit the oil did not give our industry much time to catch up. It is interesting that the report of the International Management and Engineering Group on industrial opportunities for the United Kingdom stated:
"British industry has to break into an area of activity in which foreign investment, mainly American, has established an entrenched position in offshore work, and is daily strengthening that position by the accumulation of experience in solving the still more difficulty problems of the North Sea."
There should have been some form of Government back-up to ensure that more work went to Scottish firms. No doubt the Government will say that they established the Offshore Supplies Office. However, the Office had to accept, first the political mandate that it was there to help the early production of oil, to get the oil out as quickly as possible, and, secondly, to provide contracts and jobs. One of the problems is that the OSO is just as likely to provide jobs and contracts for those south of the border as for those in Scotland. It was located in Glasgow, but from the outset many of the important officials—the audit engineers, for example—were located in London. It is only lately that they have been transferred to Glasgow.
The OSO will not publish the percentage of the work that goes to Scottish firms although it publishes that information for United Kingdom firms. There are regular outputs of information for United Kingdom firms, but it cannot or will not produce similar information for Scotland. It will not produce figures to tell us what business and employment was generated from oil in Scotland and how it assisted in that activity. I accept that the OSO tries to do its best, but I suspect that Scotland has had only a
732
small proportion of the work, bearing in mind that the oil is located off our coast.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Dr. J. Dickson Motion): Rubbish.
Mr. Wilson: If there is any doubt, let the Government produce the figures. If they can produce the figures, we shall listen to them. The right hon. Gentleman, who is so sensitive on the subject and who shouts from the Government Front Bench, knows full well that he cannot produce the figures. If he did, they would be so shameful and shocking that the Department would be embarrassed.
Mr. Douglas Henderson: Get up and give us some figures.
Mr. Wilson: If the Government cannot produce the figures, I draw an answer from that. There has been little work going to Scotland during one of the blackest depressions that we have had for years. However, we live in a world in which offshore development is regarded as an extension of national shipping and shipbuilding.
There are various forms of protection. I suggest that the Jones Act is one example. Many of our merchant seamen would have found it desirable to benefit from a similar measure. It would have meant more jobs for them at home.
In future licensing rounds it should be made clear to the oil companies in advance that they will be asked to indicate, in the event of their being successful in the allocations of licences and the finding of oil what industrial application or investment they propose to steer towards Scotland. The licences are discretionary and should be used to bring in as much work as possible. I cannot understand why the Government have been so relaxed and liberal in their attitude. They have allowed employment and economic development to disappear.
I shall make a few comments about taxation and participation. It is difficult to cover the whole range of the development of the oil industry and the use of the oil funds even in an opening speech. Comment should be made about taxation. It is unsatisfactory—this can be seen from the falling estimates of income that

733
the Government will be receiving from the revenues—that the oil companies are seen to be using the loopholes that exist in present legislation. The Government should do something about that. Time is short.
Labour Members who did not study these matters when we were considering oil taxation will be surprised to learn that the Government halted in their tracks in the middle of the Bill. They set out with great statements about what they intended to do. They said that they would take on the mighty oil companies, but midway through the proceedings in Committee they changed the taxation structure. They took the Bill backside foremost. They had not developed a tax system that would work.
There is a significant article in the Petroleum Times of 7th March 1975. The article appeared some time ago but it remains relevant as we are still labouring under an unsatisfactory taxation regime. The heading is:
"The UK Government's give-away tax."
It reads:
"The battle of the UK rate of petroleum revenue tax is now over, and the oil companies operating in the North Sea can chalk up another victory over a European Government."
Later in the article there is reference to dilution. It said:
"Although the computers have yet to digest the new programmes, it is already clear that the manifesto policies have been diluted almost to the point where no flavour is left."
That was the analysis in one of the petroleum journals. It is an objective analysis of the weaknesses of the Government's tax structure.
Participation has been summed up by the Government's words "No gain, no loss". There has been no gain to the country and no loss to the oil companies. That does not rank very well with the claims made in the October 1974 General Election that a Labour Government would negotiate for participation and take participation. The whole process was a waste of time, and the Government well know it. They had to fulfil the letter of their manifesto promise even if they have been unable to implement it in reality.
Participation and taxation were two of the main areas of concern to the Government when they took office. They
734
have bungled them. They have bungled the taxation set-up. They could have gone for a higher petroleum revenue tax. They had the opportunity and they decided not to take it. They procrastinated on participation. We have not had anything on that score.
Depletion policy is extremely important. I can give some credit to the Secretary of State for Energy, who in a speech to the Southwark College of Further Education—he is a hard-working man to cover it—on 1st February 1977 said—
Mr. Henderson: Where is he?
Mr. Wilson: —
"The other important question is how fast the Government should authorise the lifting of the oil. If we take it up too rapidly, we may be in danger of having a national surplus of oil in the 1980s only to move into shortage during a period of world scarcity, with all the financial implications of that misjudgment. Very prudent and careful assessment will be needed to weigh our immediate interests against our long-term needs."
It is indicative that the Secretary of State for Energy realises, along with other specialists, that oil prices are likely to rise dramatically in the early 1990s, if not before. At that stage oil imports will cost a tremendous amount. However, instead of eking out the oil over a longer period the British Government are making the strategic blunder of trying now to produce as much oil as they can, when there is a glut and the price has stabilised. Yet in the 1990s, as the Government well know, the United Kingdom will be importing up to 50 per cent. of its oil requirement at extremely expensive prices.
It is only a pity that the Secretary of State for Energy does not have the same fighting ability that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has displayed in the Common Market when dealing with fisheries. If the Secretary of State were prepared to do more about oil and to fight inside the Mafia of the Cabinet, something more might be done.
Mr. Harry Gourlay: Will the hon. Gentleman make up his mind, or make up the SNP's mind, what is to be his or its policy on depletion? Earlier he was arguing that very few jobs have come to Scotland from the oil industry, but he is now arguing that we should slow down the rate of depletion, which would add to unemployment in Scotland.
Mr. Wilson: My party's policy has always been clear. I have had some say in its evolution. Its policy, basically, is that we take out of the sea as much oil as we require for home and export consumption. That is the principal strategy.
Perhaps I may put it another way for those who are unaware of the Scottish situation in terms of oil production. We consume about 10 million tonnes of oil per year. If we produce 90 million tonnes of oil, as the Government intend, to quote one of their lower targets, that will be the equivalent for the United Kingdom of about 900 million tonnes of oil per year pro rata. If Britain consumes 100 million tonnes and a population multiplier of nine is applied, obviously that is the scale of the uplifting that the Government are taking per head of population.
The second point that I want to make in response to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Gourlay) is that, if we increase the Scottish content of the orders which come in, we shall get many more jobs. On the one hand, we save the oil for future generations. We have agreed to accept higher production figures than we would have wished. We have developed our approach in considerable detail on the subject. If anyone is interested, I can provide some detailed comments that I have made. The important thing is that, by increasing the Scottish content by the methods which I have suggested, we should have much more employment and activity to help Dundee, for instance, West Central Scotland and other parts of the country. That would be more sensible than to stampede into unnecessary oil production and lost job opportunities.
Dr. Mabon: if 10 million tonnes is the Scottish net self-sufficiency figure and we have produced 38 million tonnes in one year, is the SNP's depletion policy that we should not open up any more new fields?
Mr. Wilson: No, it is not. It should be taken gradually over a period. We should allow the anticipated rate of production to fall slowly within the parameters which exist for that. There are technical matters concerned with that aspect. I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman came in on that matter. If he had been able to help me with the figures
736
from the Offshore Supplies Office with regard to the Scottish content, it would have helped considerably. If he has that information, we should be pleased to hear it.
Dr. Jeremy Bray: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Wilson: I will allow one more intervention. Time is short.
Dr. Bray: If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that it is a matter of continuing with existing contracts, presumably employment in opening up new fields would dry up overnight.
Mr. Wilson: No, it does not mean that.
Mr. Henderson: That is the British Steel Corporation's policy.
Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend makes the point about British Steel. If we adopt a gradual process of running down production so that we have a lower depletion take-up rate, we shall have more oil available for future generations. That is very important. There are those of us in this House who have some thought for our children and grandchildren. We are not prepared to blue it all in one great extravagant blow-up of the kind that the British Government have in mind.
I turn now to petrochemicals. There must be a lot of worry that too little has been done in this connection. We have not had much of the great petrochemical boom which was supposed to build up employment in Scotland. Apart from Grangemouth, most of Scotland's oil is due to be exported. There has been silence about Cromarty Petroleum. We are waiting to hear a little more about that. Scanitro has gone by the wayside. Many of the petroleum gases are due to be exported without being developed, refined and processed here. We are still awaiting final news from the Government about Mossmorran and the associated cracker.
We need the jobs in chemicals. Only 1·6 per cent. of jobs in Scotland come from chemicals compared with 2·2 per cent. in England and 2·3 per cent. in Wales. Therefore, there is room for improvement there.

737
I find that each company seems to find excuses for exporting to England or further afield and not building up its opportunities and investment in Scotland. The Government have gone out of their way to help, because their refining policy has been relaxed to help the companies to export crude oil instead of refining more, even inside the United Kingdom.
The plastics industry will grow, according to surveys which I have seen. It is significant—again, we come back to the Common Market—that some of the major European chemical companies have not established branches in Scotland or even in the United Kingdom. We have not had much benefit from that industry. Yet, it is reckoned that about 10 million tonnes of additional plastics capacity will be produced in Western Europe in the next decade. There are opportunities there.
We are still waiting to hear what is to happen to the gas gathering pipeline. That caused a lot of publicity two or three years ago, but it has disappeared.
I ask the Government to consider encouraging oil companies to become involved in joint projects to ensure that singly they do not find excuses for failing to build up their investment in Scotland.
I come now to the last aspect of my speech. I refer to the oil revenues and the oil development fund. The way in which the oil revenues are being dealt with must count as one of the greatest swindles and frauds on the Scottish people for a long time.
At the last election, all the parties had their own delicate ways of expressing that the Scottish people would get the maximum benefit. That was the inference that they put before the people of Scotland.
The Conservative Party proposed that there should be a development fund, interestingly enough, to be controlled by the Secretary of State for Scotland—that was reported in an article in the Scotsman in 1975—but guided by the Scottish Assembly. I am not sure whether, as the Tories reneged on their promise of an Assembly, they have now reneged on the development fund about which they made great play in the election.
The Liberal Party said that Scotland would get half the revenues. That was very generous. I am sure that most
738
English Liberal Members did not appreciate what their Scottish colleagues were doing on their behalf. However, it did not figure in the Lib-Lab pact. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) did not use his influence with his right hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) to persuade him that one of the crunch issues of the Lib-Lab pact should be that the Scottish Assembly had access to the oil revenue—not even the half that the Liberals generously had in mind.
The Labour Party has procrastinated on the issue and implied that Scotland would get its share. There is a lot of hypocrisy coming from the Labour Party. It used to say that the SNP's attitude to oil was immoral—that the Scots were greedy. But on 2nd June 1978, that worthy publication Labour Weekly carried the headline:
"EEC has eyes on our oil."
Obviously, "our oil" is very much a form of British nationalism.
On 16th June 1978, Tribune, that champion of international workers' solidarity and the flail of "narrow nation-ism", carried the headline:
"How the EEC seeks 'legal' ways to grab our oil."
For those who are interested in following it through, no doubt free copies will be made available by the Government as they must have difficulty in selling them.
The oil revenues must be the source of the deepest disappointment. We have had "The Challenge of North Sea Oil". I do not know how the Government managed to come up with that title. I should think that the new PR expert to advise the Prime Minister would have difficulty in fighting any challenge at all in that document which stated that the oil revenues would go into the Chancellor of the Exchequer's—
Mr. Henderson: Piggy bank.
Mr. Wilson: Piggy bank. That document states that the oil revenues would be steered towards industrial development in Scotland and in other under-developed regions.
On 30th January 1975, again during the course of proceedings on the Oil Taxalion Bill, I had a letter from the then

739
Minister of State, Treasury. After turning down proposals which I had made to increase the amount of work coming to Scotland from oil development, it stated:
"As an Assisted Area Scotland benefits from measures financed by the Exchequer from general taxation. As you will appreciate our capacity to continue with these and other measures such as the Regional Employment Premium (which we retained) will be enhanced by the revenue which will in due course accrue to the Exchequer from North Sea oil. Scotland should thus benefit from our general regional development policy: we hope it will also draw advantage from the more specific measures we have introduced or promoted."
Three years have passed, and with them the regional policy and the regional employment premium, the abolition of which, it was indicated by the Scottish Council, would cause the loss of some 20,000 jobs in Scotland. The Government are responsible for taking away REP after saying through the Treasury that this would be one of the benefits that Scotland would get from the oil resources. If anyone believes that, he will believe anything. It shows that the Government say one thing and change their minds after a year or two as soon as they think they can get away with it. I remember the exchange that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) had in connection with the Chrysler car project which had been proposed for 1979. I notice that the Secretary of State for Industry is just about to scurry to Chrysler to explain the position.
We were accused by hon. Members of being greedy. I remember the abuse that I took. They have to realise, however, that the oil revenues constitute one of the main possibilities for Scotland to develop its economic structure. There is an interesting aspect to the argument about need and morality. The Church of Scotland in its Church and Nation Committee Report in May this year said that Scotland has a "moral claim" to special treatment. When a Church says that Scotland has a moral claim to the oil revenues, that explodes once and for all the insinuations and nasty allegations that have been made over the years.
We are asserting tonight Scotland's moral and legal claim to the oil revenues, or a fair share of them. We have to repair our social and economic base. In October 1974 an STUC leaflet declared that Scotland would get the major part of the
740
revenues devoted to industry. It said that these could be used to help restructure the economy of Scotland and the development areas.
We need development resources to put into our engineering chemicals, plastics, service, food processing and timber production and processing industries, and for investment in energy, in better transport infrastructure, in housing, and, above all, in the development of our human resources. These are the things that we can do with the assistance and help of the oil resources. We have to have them and we have to get our economy moving. We must bring down unemployment. No answer from the Government can provide any solution.
This House can take positive action tonight to make amends for its ruthless and unscrupulous rape of Scottish resources. It can rightly condemn the mismanagement of Scottish oil, and it can agree the need for a Scottish oil development fund to give the resources necessary to rebuild our nation.
4.43 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Gregor MacKenzie): The nicest thing I can say about the speech of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) is that it was not the most constructive I have ever heard. We all waited for the Book of Revelations. Instead we got something like the performance of an Old Testament prophet, and the speech was almost as long as that we would expect from an Old Testament prophet. It did not help me necessarily to understand the various arguments.
The hon. Member has demonstrated once again just how narrow and unrealistic is the view of the SNP of oil development and of the opportunities that oil affords to the people of Scotland and of the United Kingdom. In the light of the election results of the last few weeks it is perfectly clear that the people of Scotland do not share the greedy and selfish approach exhibited by the SNP.
The development of North Sea oil and gas has been one of the most successful operations undertaken in the United Kingdom since the war. Bearing in mind that the oil is being recovered from one of the most difficult areas in the world, the SNP's niggardly attitude seems to me to be designed to make a success

741
look like a failure. All the people concerned can take credit enough for the remarkable success which has been achieved in moving to a position in which about half the United Kingdom's oil requirements are being met from the North Sea. The figure last year was 38 million tonnes. That fact will be seen increasingly as one of the most important milestones in Britain's economic history.
Achieving this state of affairs has not been without difficulty for the Government. Perhaps I might remind the House of the situation we inherited. It was most unsatisfactory in a number of important respects. When we came to office the previous Government, in four years of power, had operated one gigantic licensing round of nearly 300 blocks. The consequences of their action has illustrated how defective their policies were in almost every respect.
No effective provision had been made to secure an adequate share of the revenues for the people. There was no petroleum revenue tax, and not even any means of making corporation tax effective. There had been inadequate controls over development and no effective controls over the rate of depletion or the flaring of gas. There had been no effective control over exploration after the initial years of the licence. We have taken action to put those matters right.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East revealed in his speech to day that, we gather, he is now in favour of a depletion rate of 10 million tonnes a year, as against 38 million or 50 million tonnes a year. There would not be the jobs there have been in the offshore and onshore industries or the developments both in the North Sea and throughout Scotland if that policy had applied.
Mr. Gordon Wilson: Where in my speech did I say that production from the North Sea should be 10 million tonnes? Nowhere did I say that.
Mr. MacKenzie: The hon. Member could not have been reading his speech very carefully. He was questioned on this matter by my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Gourlay). What I have said was the distinct impression that the hon. Member left with my right and hon. Friends and, I am sure, with the Opposition.
742
The taxation measures that we have introduced have made sure that the people of Scotland are getting a fair share of the revenues while allowing the oil companies sufficient profit on their investment, encouraging them to develop the resources. The Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Act 1975 puts control where it should properly be, which is in the hands of the Government. Under the Act the companies are subject to tighter control over submarine pipeline routes, levels of exploration activity, and rates of depletion from individual fields.
In addition, the creation of the British National Oil Corporation ensures that the State participates in all the major discoveries, and guarantees that these important offshore resources will be exploited and developed in the way which best accords with the interests of the people of Scotland and of those throughout the United Kingdom. I believe that all of these measures are now widely accepted both by the public and by the oil industry as just and necessary.
In Scotland one of the most serious failings was the quite inadequate forethought given initially to the needs of the infrastructure in supporting North Sea oil. That is a condemnation of the previous Conservative Administration and of the SNP Members. Apart from a few slogans which we occasionally heard from the SNP, they made no constructive contribution. Only since we have come to office has a major effort been made to catch up in this area. The local authorities and the other public agencies are, I believe, to be congratulated on their achievements.
Mrs. Margaret Bain: Is not the Minister, in fact, outlining with great hindsight the policies that should have been adopted in the late 1960s, when it was a question not of a Conservative Government but of a Labour Government? In the late 1960s the Labour Government practised the kind of policies that were followed by the Conservative Government.
Mr. MacKenzie: I am sure that the hon. Lady has one thing in common with me at present—and that is that neither of us knows what she is talking about. One thing that I recall is that the discoveries were made at a very much later stage than that which she has just mentioned.

743
It is worth while mentioning that we have done a great deal on the whole question of infrastructure, and much to the benefit of some SNP Members.
Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Where?
Mr. MacKenzie: Perhaps I may continue for a little while without interruption.
There have been major developments of harbours at Aberdeen, Peterhead, Montrose and in Shetland. We have the reconstruction of airports at Aberdeen, Inverness and Sumburgh. There is an immense house-building programme in the Grampion Region, the Moray Firth and Shetland. The improvement in main line railways and communications has been very marked. We have also ensured that ratepayers in the areas affected by these developments were protected from the full impact of the additional financial burden in providing these facilities.
From the start, we have given the highest priority to ensuring that Scotland's economy gets the maximum possible benefit from activity related to oil. One of the first decisions was to move the Offshore Supplies Office from London to Glasgow. The OSO has had a major role in helping industry in Scotland—and, indeed, in the United Kingdom as a whole —to meet the new requirements of the offshore business.
We also decided to put the headquarters of the British National Oil Corporation in Glasgow. This has not only provided—many of us are interested in this matter—jobs of high quality, and much needed jobs, but helped to bring an important part of the decision-making on oil matters to Scottish people.
At this point, I should like to pay a tribute to the very important part that the BNOC played last summer in helping to secure two very valuable contracts for the Marathon oil rig building yard on the Clyde. Further contracts, as some of my colleagues may know, are under negotiation, and, based on the yard's performance, we are certainly confident of its long-term future.
We all appreciate that it takes time for industry to adjust to the requirements and specification of a new industry such as North Sea oil. As has been mentioned
744
often, the latest available full figures that we have show that at present some 55,000 to 65,000 people in Scotland enjoy jobs which are either directly or indirectly related to exploration for and exploitation of oil under the North Sea.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East chided us, in the course of his rather long speech, about the estimates of the OSO. It is worth noting that certainly 60 per cent. of the orders from the United Kingdom sector of the North Sea are now placed in Britain. That is a very good record indeed. We have to improve it further—not by protection or by compulsion, hut by trying to better our own industrial performance and the competitive position of our industries.
Mr. Gordon Wilson rose—
Mr. MacKenzie: The hon. Gentleman took a fair amount of Back Benchers' time in the debate—a very long time.
Not many weeks ago I opened a factory in East Kilbride, a factory producing oil well-head equipment. I have visited many other factories. People who go about Scotland with their eyes open—I hope that the hon. Gentleman will occasionally do this—will see that a very considerable proportion of that 60 per cent. of orders is providing jobs for people throughout Scotland.
Mr. Gordon Wilson rose—
Mr. MacKenzie: Once again, I am obliged to give way.
Mr. Gordon Wilson: If the right hon. Gentleman has made all these trips and has been in touch with the OSO, will he say what the Scottish figure is in relation to jobs, as he was able to give it for the United Kingdom?
Mr. MacKenzie: What we are concerned about is to look at the percentage here. If the hon. Member had been listening as carefully as he has been talking, he would have heard me say about two sentences ago that some 65,000 jobs were provided for the people of Scotland as a result of this industry.
It is already clear that the United Kingdom industry has built up the skills and the knowledge to compete at home, where there are growing markets for inspection, management and repair of installations, and certainly has a very

745
considerable expertise in the export markets.
Scotland has, therefore, benefited already to a very substantial degree from the economic activity related to North Sea oil. This has happened at a time when not only Scottish but British, European and international rates of unemployment have been higher than at any other time since the war. It would certainly be a great mistake to imagine that the development of North Sea oil could alone counteract the unemployment caused by the international recession. This has been a boost to our economy. It has come at a time when it was very badly needed, and without it unemployment would certainly be very much higher than it is at present.
Let me turn to the wider economic benefits which affect the country as a whole. We have heard a great deal from SNP Members about what they would do with taxation revenues from North Sea oil. I can well remember, as can, no doubt, many of my colleagues, on both sides of the House, what was said by various SNP Members during the course of the last General Election. Whenever they were challenged about how they would increase pensions—I cannot remember the figure now; it varied from area to area and from candidate to candidate—all that we could discover was that the money would be coming out of the North Sea. One would have thought that instead of oil coming ashore, someone—an Almightly providence, perhaps—would be delivering pound notes. But I know that the people in the area that I represent were certainly not conned by the SNP candidate. They did not believe that the people of Scotland had collectively won the football pools or anything of the kind.
I do not think that people find the SNP's approach to the difficult economic problems facing us to be constructive. Certainly the SNP has failed to make out a convincing case, even on its own terms. SNP Members never explain to us how they would tackle the deep-seated problems of the Scottish economy—problems of steel, of shipbuilding and of motor vehicles. As most of us know these problems stem from a lack of demand in overseas markets and from intense international competition. But whenever the SNP is challenged about
746
these matters, the only answer that we ever get is "Do not worry about these matters. If there were a separate Scottish steel corporation, a separate Scottish shipbuilding corporation, a separate Scottish this, that or the other, all these problems of demand and productivity would be solved."
The electorate can very well see that the SNP's policies in this regard are quite farcical and are designed to separate Scotland—I know that SNP Members do not like the word, but designed to separate they are—from the management of the United Kingdom economy as a whole. They will only make a difficult situation quite disastrous.
Faced as we are with depressed markets, serious dislocation in world trade and intense competition from countries in the Far East, the only hope lies in closer co-operation within the United Kingdom and Western Europe as a whole. A fragmented approach, a separatist approach, will produce only divisive policies, from which I think all of us would suffer.
Therefore, the Government totally reject any attempt by SNP Members to hypothecate the North Sea oil revenues exclusively to Scotland. We have made our position perfectly clear. Oil, like the gas in the Southern Basin before it, is a United Kingdom resource, to be used for the benefit of the United Kingdom as a whole.
Mrs. Winifred Ewing rose—
Mr. MacKenzie: Perhaps the hon. Lady will forgive me if I do not give way until I have finished this part of my comments. As it happens, I live in Cambuslang, not terribly far away from the hon. Lady's home. She will know that we use gas in our homes which comes from the Southern Basin of the North Sea. We use it all over Glasgow. We do not talk about the English gas which is coming in to supply various homes in Scotland.
To take advantage, as Scotland has done over many years, of being part of the United Kingdom, sharing in the United Kingdom's economic assets and resources, and then to try to keep the benefits of North Sea oil for Scotland alone is not only immoral—irrespective of the work of the Church and Nation

747
Committee or anyone else—but unworthy of Scotland as a whole. It fits ill with the spirit which enabled Scotland to contribute so much to the United Kingdom and the whole economic and social development of this country in the past. It would be seriously damaging to Scotland's wider economic interests.
Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Does the Minister not see in the slogan "It's Britain's oil" something terribly unacceptable to the EEC member States, who regard it as a European resource and have their greedy eyes on it? Does he see ally thunder cloud affecting his British nationalist stand on oil from the EEC's desire to interfere with the promises which the Government gave me in this House when I asked whether the EEC would affect the rate of extraction of the oil and the right to select our price and our markets? Does he see a threat to British nationalist oil claims?
Mr. MacKenzie: The trouble is that the hon. Lady is confusing her roles. She is today at Westminister representing a Scottish seat and she should for a few moments forget the obvious interest that she has been showing in the European Parliament for all sorts of reasons for some time.
The Scottish economy is closely integrated with the rest of the United Kingdom. The Fraser of Allander Institute of Strathclyde University, headed by Professor David Simpson, shows this beyond doubt in its recent input-output study. Just under half of Scotland's manufacturing output is sold across the border to the rest of the United Kingdom, and nearly half Scotland's consumption of manufactured goods comes from the rest of the United Kingdom. There can therefore be no question of a prosperous Scotland except in a prosperous Britain, despite what SNP candidates and Members may say.
Scotland's problems are essentially the same as those of the rest of Britain. They have common origins in our past industrial structure, our attitudes and our common economic history. They will be overcome only if we recognise them for what they are and work on them until they are overcome. North Sea oil gives us a real opportunity to strengthen our
748
economy. Even with North Sea oil, that will not be easy. it is not a panacea for all our problems, but it will give us a breathing space and a better chance than we have had at any time since the war.
It is therefore essential that we make the right choices and set out priorities so that North Sea oil gives the maximum benefit to the country. Those priorities have now been decided upon by the Government and were set out in the recent White Paper. We have made it plain that our aim is to promote the expansion of demand and activity to get the economy moving forward.
We certainly intend to redouble our efforts through the industrial strategy to improve the competitive position of our industries by raising investment. We shall maintain and strengthen the impetus of regional policy which has already, despite what the hon. Member for Dundee, East said, made a considerable improvement in the Scottish position. We shall also invest in the future in new replacement forms of energy supply.
Since we came to power in 1974, we have already substantially strengthened the measures available to help the people of Scotland. The Scottish Development Agency, which we established in 1975, in advance of any revenue from the North Sea, is now making a significant impact on the Scottish economic scene. SNP Members constantly ask us to add to its contribution, so I hope they approve of it.
In my own Department, the Scottish Economic Planning Department, we have made offers of selective financial assistance of £97 million in the last few years and have paid out about £373 million of regional development grants, thereby safeguarding and creating thousands of jobs for the people of Scotland.
The difficulties of the current economic situation, both in the international economy and in the United Kingdom, tend to make us overlook what has already been made possible, and the Government's policies have already been influenced by the availability of North Sea oil. It would have been difficult, indeed, perhaps impossible, without it to provide the stimulus of the income tax cuts of the Budget of 1977 or the further stimulus provided last November, which was particularly helpful to the construction industry. Without it the scope for

749
measures to assist industry through the Industry Act, the SDA and the industrial strategy would have been curtailed and the special measures for job creation which now benefit about 53,000 people in Scotland would have been much reduced.
I recall that this was acknowledged by no less a person than the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart), who said that the special measures had reduced unemployment in his constituency to the lowest level in his lifetime—and with no disrespect to the right hon. Gentleman, he is no chicken. Therefore, we are already benefiting from North Sea oil to an important extent.
The effects of the measures that we have taken have been more important in Scotland than in the rest of the United Kingdom. We have heard today, as we have heard before, the proposal for an oil development fund for Scotland, but nothing specific or convincing has been said about how it would work, so I conclude that those who propose it have not thought through its implications in great detail.
I have explained why we reject the implications of the words "for Scotland" in the motion as being narrow, selfish and unworthy, but, leaving that aside, the idea of a special fund was considered carefully and at length in our review before the White Paper was published. Quite simply, we consider that what matters is to decide the right priorities for our use of North Sea oil benefits, and for that purpose we consider a fund to be unnecessary.
The policy decisions we need can be taken within the present framework and they must in the end be implemented through our main policy programmes. For a fund to have any effect, it would have to be devoted to the finance of additional items—to things which do not receive sufficient priority in main programmes. If so, it might end up being used in ways which many of us feel would have given poor value for money.
Mr. James Sillars: When the Minister says that an oil development fund was considered, is he saying that the Government considered something which they thought selfish and greedy and is that the reason why it was rejected, or were there other reasons?
Mr. MacKenzie: I have just made the point that we considered the establishment of an oil fund. I am not sure what kind of oil fund my hon. Friend wanted. I think that it was rather different from that envisaged by Members of the SNP, but sometimes I doubt it.
For a fund to have had any effect, it would have had to be devoted to the financing of additional items, which might not have been good value for money. If such items can be justified, it is simpler and more effective to adjust our programmes to take account of them. A fund which merely replaced additional programmes of expenditure would in the end satisfy no one. On balance, therefore, we have concluded that the creation of additional machinery would be artificial and the wrong approach to the country's problems. The right way to use the benefits from the North Sea is to set our priorities as we have done.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East was very loud and long in his criticisms, if not always acute in his understanding of the real issues at stake. Those who pretend without any justification that opportunities have been wasted, that production should have been held back or that revenues should in some way be concentrated solely on Scotland have a duty to say whether they will also oppose the expenditure measures taken by the Government which have been made possible by oil. So far they have not done so, though they have the opportunity in this debate.
For my part, I am satisfied that the policies which the Government have set for the development of North Sea oil are working well. Scotland has benefited substantially already from the employment created from North Sea oil, and will continue to benefit, within the priorities which the Government have set for the use of the revenue and balance of payments benefits.
At the risk of repeating myself, I must say that I still think that this is a selfish and inward-looking motion. I believe that it does not reflect the true attitude of the people of Scotland, who are concerned about the problems of their native land but every bit as concerned about the problems of Merseyside, Wales, the North-East of England and elsewhere. I must also tell the hon. Member for Dundee, East that, just as I think his motion

751
greedy and selfish, I am convinced that it does not reflect the attitude of the people of Scotland any more than his and his colleagues' conduct in this place in recent days has done.
Not many weeks ago, the Scottish National Party went into the Lobby to ensure that there were even further tax reductions for the well-to-do in this country. Last week, they went into the Lobby with the Tories to try to stop the whole development of devolution. Where, we often ask ourselves, was the old Celtic fervour? Where was the old Celtic radical? Where was old Uncle Donald that night? He was marching hand in hand with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor).
We have rumbled all of this for a long time. The people of Garscadden rumbled it. The people of Hamilton rumbled it. The people rumbled it in the regional elections. We are rumbling it once again today, and I am sure that I can confidently ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to defeat the motion this evening.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): I feel that I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that this is intended to be a short debate. I still have three Front-Bench speeches and 12 Back-Bench speeches to accommodate within it.
5.11 p.m.
Mr. J. Grimond: I am always glad to take part in a debate about Shetland and Orkney oil. We are prepared to allow the neighbouring islands to have a certain share of our oil funds, but I wish to make clear whose oil it is before we start.
I must take issue with the Minister when he says that the Government are protecting the ratepayers of Orkney and Shetland against the extra expenses to which oil had put them. If he were a ratepayer in Orkney, he would soon find out the truth about that. The rates have risen enormously, and such protection as is offered to the ratepayers has come out of the oil funds, which are supposed to be kept for reinvestment in industry and which have been negotiated by the Islands Council itself with the oil companies.
As for Shetland, it does not seem to be generally realised that so far not a drop
752
of oil has been landed in Shetland. Nothing has come through the pipelines. The Shetland Islands Council has been put to great difficulty over this because it is not getting the revenue which it expects. I put seriously to the Government that they might look at the question of the derating of the terminals, and they might also support the efforts of the Shetland Islands Council—which, I hope, will be successful—in negotiating with the oil companies some payments before the oil actually comes.
I must tell the House that oil is by no means all benefit. It brings heavy expenses to local communities. It disrupts the life of these communities and of individuals. This is one of the reasons why Orkney is determined not to have the mining of uranium. We feel that we have made our contribution to the minerals of Great Britain, and for an island community to have another part of its land dug up for uranium would, we believe, be totally unjustified.
The motion refers to a Scottish oil development fund. At one time, I think, there was something to be said for that but, in company with the Minister, I did not find many details given today about how this fund would operate. It would be possible for the English, I suppose, to demand a gas development fund, and so one might go on with development funds throughout the country.
Now that we have a Scottish Development Agency, I imagine that it will channel capital investment into Scotland. I am not quite sure whether the proposal is to have another corporation dealing with oil revenues, or what it is. I hope that a lot of the oil revenues will be invested in capital projects, but they must be viable capital projects, and I believe that the best way to ensure that is to see that most of it is done through ordinary commercial channels, which know what they are about.
Secondly, I hope that at any rate funds from somewhere will be made available on a generous scale for research into new sources of energy, such as the waves, the wind and the sun. I know that this is being done. Even in the cooler latitudes of Orkney, there is a man who assures me that he heats his bath water with the sun, though how often he takes a bath is not so far revealed.

753
These new sources of energy will not add much beauty to the landscape, and I suggest that the ecologists might think of looking at a landscape dotted with windmills and imagine how our coastal waters would look with "ducks" waving in the sea. Nevertheless, investigation of these new sources is important. I do not want to see research done in America duplicated, but I hope that the Government can assure us that they are conscious of the need to carry out research in these directions.
Thirdly, I consider that a considerable proportion of the revenues ought to be made available for local communities and local banks. If they are to make a contribution, at least in the north of Scotland, to the curing of unemployment, this effort must be directed through the smaller firms. Such firms will be in need of capital, and in my view they are much more likely to bring new jobs than the large monopolies would be. Nor are such small firms nearly so vulnerable to industrial blackmail. I hope, therefore, that they will gain from the oil revenues.
I should like to know whether the Government have seen the scheme discribed in Lloyds Bank Review for April this year, under the title "A People's Stake in North Sea Oil", by Brittan and Riley. I do not necessarily agree with it, but for those who are interested in spreading ownership it is of interest. The basic idea is to issue a North Sea oil stock. This would be a marketable stock issued to all adults in the kingdom. I shall not go into the details now, but if the Minister can tell me whether any study has been made, or is to he made, to see whether such a scheme is feasible, I shall be grateful.
I turn now to one or two problems which have arisen in my constituency as a result of oil developments. There is widespread discontent in Shetland over the allowances paid to local people. In-corners get housed in camps, they are fed, they are transported, they get holidays, but few such benefits or equivalent allowances are available to the local people.
I have had complaints also from the Stockton-on-Tees Trades Council about the treatment of workers on the rigs. The council alleges that many people from
754
that part of England have gone up to work in the Chevron field and that 1,100 workers have been dismissed, many of them within 26 weeks of their engagement. I do not know how far this is the Government's responsibility, but I wish to put on record that there are dissatisfactions with working conditions in this industry. Perhaps the appropriate Ministry will look into it.
In Shetland, the advent of oil has led to a dual economy. There are very high wages for those on oil-related work, while many of the crofters not employed on oil work still have very low wages but have to pay high prices. Oil-related work is taking away workers from crofting, from fishing, from road work, from knitwear and from shopkeeping, and it could have a serious long-term effect in both Orkney and Shetland. This is particularly serious when it is added to the slump in fishing and the uncertainty about that industry's future.
That brings me to a matter of great importance which I must put to the Government, namely, training. Most of the oil-related work—perhaps all of it—is unskilled. Young boys leaving school go out to work, earning £100 a week and getting all sorts of perquisites, but they get no training. When this period is over, they will have high expectations for a standard of life but no skills with which to earn the necessary money. I do not say that at this moment training is vital, but what is vital is that there should be plans for training as the oil construction period runs down. I hope that the Government are giving attention to that.
Again, we must do much more for boys who go into industrial training and take up apprenticeships. I know of one lad who, instead of going into unskilled work —highly paid but an absolute dead end —is training as an apprentice in Lerwick. He comes from another island. He tells me that his take-home pay is £27 per week, out of which he has to pay £17 for digs. He is lucky to get digs as cheap as that. Further, he has to buy his own tools. This is quite absurd, from the point of view of the country and from the point of view of everyone else.
Such treatment compares badly with that afforded to those who go into academic further education. It seems to be entirely wrong for a country which will

755
have to depend on its skilled industrial workers to tolerate this enormous contrast between what unskilled or academically clever people are paid and what apprentices are paid.
It is important to keep the whole question of oil in perspective. The right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) gave some figures the other day pointing out that the net addition to the gross national product arising from oil when at its peak of production would be no more than the Japanese add every six months to their GNP simply by working harder and being more efficient. It is no good investing money unless it is properly used. The trouble with this country is not that there is a total failure to invest. It is that too much money is put into non-productive investment and too much of it is under-used, even when it is in industry.
I would like to see some estimate of the effect of the benefit of natural gas upon the economy. The Minister said that he estimates that oil has done us a lot of good. We have had natural gas for many years now. I believe that about one-third of our energy needs outside of transport are now met by gas and that gas from the North Sea will be equal to about one-third of the energy provided by North Sea oil. If that is so, we ought by now to be able to see, without speculation, what has been the effect on the economy of this gas. It cannot be said that over the past three or four years we have been through a particularly good period. It would be unwise to assume that oil does not bring great problems as well as advantages.
I agree that there are advantages for the terms of trade and so on but oil produces great problems for the local communities and for the country. If there is to be a benefit from oil we have to make sure that the revenue is used for efficient, productive employment. If it makes Britain or Scotland more complacent, and many advertisements for parts of Scotland seem to imply that all problems will be solved by it, oil will do more harm than good.
5.22 p.m.
Mr. George Robertson: This subject is of considerable importance, and not only to the people of Scotland around whom this debate has been
756
framed. It is important for the people of all of these islands. In discussing the management of oil and the possibilities that it opens up, we have to assess, as the electorate will have to assess at some stage, the credibility of the various parties and the policies they put forward.
Oil is a major national resource which opens up major opportunities for all of us. Each of the programmes put forward by the political parties will have to be judged not just in the context of the view taken of one natural resource but in the context of the development of all natural resources and the revenues accruing from them. Although it is easy for the nationalist party to put forward this motion and to make criticisms of a wide-ranging and penetrating type, the fact is that its alternatives have also to be assessed by the electorate. The programmes that it proposes have to be judged too, not just the criticisms that they throw so negatively against Government policy.
I have been interested in trying to establish, along with many of my hon. Friends, precisely where the Scottish National Party stands in relation to oil. I was not enlightened by the opening speech of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson). I am sure that the same is true of many of my hon. Friends. A lot of promises have been made by the Scottish National Party to the people of Scotland. These promises have been specific and have concerned the future that the Scots could expect if or when the bonanza that oil was likely to produce could be directed into the pockets of the Scottish people and not into the Exchequer of the United Kingdom. Ultimately, the acid test of the Scottish National Party's policy will be whether it can deliver the goods. Can it deliver what has been promised? There have been inconsistent and ever-increasing bribes offered to the Scottish people.
I have been trying to establish what the specific promises made by the nationalists concerning oil amount to in view of the election which is not too distant. Promises were made to the electorate of my constituency, as well as to electorates elsewhere to the effect, that the wealth flowing from the oil would produce a doubling of the standard of living of the people. That was said by the second-from-last nationalist candidate in my constituency. It was said in

757
an SNP publication that oil and oil alone would make Scotland the richest nation per head of population. That came from the election address of 1974.
Mr. Ramesh Watt: Does the hon. Member agree that if we allow the Labour Party to continue in its present profligate ways, Scotland could well be the only nation in the world that has found oil yet finished up the poorer for it?
Mr. Robertson: I do not agree. In that respect, I quote from a document called "A Scottish Government and the Oil Revenues" published by the SNP. This was a document that was given some degree of publicity. It speaks of Holland and on page 8 makes a number of assessments about the impact of national resources on the Dutch economy. It says:
"The 'Dutch Disease' is a warning to us. We must avoid frittering away the oil revenue on what appear to be attractive programmes in social capital investment".
What we have had consistently over the years throughout Scotland has been a variation of the promises and the bribes by the party which claims that, with all of the oil revenues directed to the Scottish population, there would be, among other things, a doubling in the standard of living, with Scotland becoming the richest nation per head of population in the world. These are absurd claims which increasingly in recent months the electorate has found to be as fraudulent in practice as they seemed to be on paper.
Let me turn to some of the more specific elements of policy put forward by the SNP. The SNP document "A Scottish Government and the Oil Revenues" is a refreshingly frank, and in some cases honest, publication for an SNP document. It deals with a number of issues and problems which would confront a hypothetical independent Scottish Government. The document breaches for the first time that code of conduct within the SNP which does not allow the concept of separatism ever to arise. Page 3 of the document speaks of assuming:
"a level of anger at the break-up of the British state amongst the English electorate."
Clearly and identifiably the SNP is stating what it stands for—the break-up of the British State as we know it. There is an assessment of the consequences on
758
the British constitution and the cost that would arise as a result of the perceived damage within Britain.
What we are now beginning to see from the depths of SNP policy is an assessment of the negligible effects on the Scottish economy which oil would bring. Instead of speaking of about £7,000 million, which the Scottish electorate has been promised in recent elections, this document, produced in February 1978, says that the oil revenue capacity of the Scottish economy is likely to be only £1,000 million per annum. We are told now that the Scottish economy cannot absorb this and that the maximum that a Scottish Government could expect in year one of so-called independence would be £1·25 billion, in year two £1·4 billion rising to a maximum, in year five, of £1·75 billion.
The whole thesis of this document seems to establish that those are the realistic figures, and not the grandiose promises of £4,000 million, £5,000 million, £6,000 million, ranging up to £10,000 million, made to the Scottish people in previous election manifestos by the SNP. This is the true scale of the benefit that would accrue under the separatist policies of the SNP from oil development.
When one measures the existing needs of the Scottish economy, and establishes the statistical fact—accepted, it would appear, by all parties—that the actual public sector deficit between what is collected in Scotland and what is spent in Scotland in the public sector is about £700 million, the £1,000 million that the SNP now claims would be the maximum in the revenue take from oil can be put into perspective. Out of the remaining element of that has to be financed the creation of a completely separate Government as well as completely separate shipbuilding corporations, aircraft corporations and all the other paraphernalia of a nation State. The whole thing is absurd.
Mr. Sillars: Could my hon. Friend tell us the source of his information for the assessment of a borrowing requirement of £700 million? The last official statistic appeared post the last Hamilton by-election and was about £400 million, and no recent budget has been done by the

759
Treasury taking account of the contribution from North Sea oil resources—at least, not to my knowledge.
Mr. Robertson: It is not within the context of oil resources that the recent figures seem to suggest that the public sector deficit exists at the moment between £600 million and £700 million. I stand to be corrected if that figure is not accurate. But certainly the figure is at least in excess of the £400 million last published, and undoubtedly, on the basis of studies recently done, it must be nearing the £600 million to £700 million mark. This does not, however, disturb the central thesis of what I am saying—that the scale of the resources available even to a separate Scottish Government would be of negligible proportions in terms of the grandiose plans for social expenditure continually being advanced by the SNP.
Dr. M. S. Miller: I have not had the benefit of reading the document referred to by my hon. Friend. On what basis was that assessment made in relation to the oilfields involved? Is it assumed by the writers of the document that there will be no problem at all in apportioning the number of fields in the North Sea to Scotland?
Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. The document, which is crucial to the assessment of this debate, again for almost the first time, makes a detailed study by the SNP of the difficulties and problems that would be associated with negotiating a settlement of the division of the continental shelf. Indeed, the document says:
"The 1968 Order"
—that is, the Continental Shelf order—
"had no other intention than to allocate which law applied where, and it is evident from consideration that—and this would certainly be the stance taken by the English government—allocation of 'sovereign rights' was not included. Moreover, one cannot even work from precedent as none exists."
The document again establishes that there will be major problems and difficulties associated with the
"break-up of the British state"
—its words, not mine—involved in coming to any political settlement in the short term. So we are talking about solutions which are at best and not at worst.
760
When we are discussing the problems and difficulties associated with the present Government's conduct of oil policy, we have to relate it integrally to the alternatives being put forward by the SNP, which criticises Government policy so much. As I have said, the problems associated with oil development are clearly established in this document and elsewhere. The Dutch disease is a problem that can be avoided. We in this country must desperately seek to avoid the difficulties and the considerable social problems now being encountered by the Dutch Government following their bonanza period.
Until recently, I was a member of the Board of the Scottish Development Agency, and I believe that at this stage we have no need in this country for a separate oil fund. I concede that the Scottish TUC has promoted the idea of a separate fund, and that the Church of Scotland has from time to time promoted variations of the fund, but the fact is that the majority of the Scottish people would now agree that we have probably reached saturation point with the creation of new institutions taking away the instruments of government from the people and their democratically-elected representatives.
I think that, having created a number of organisations, we must use these existing instruments to further Government policy and to further the restructuring of industry. We have these institutions, and with the funding and with the correct and proper strategy over a period—a longer period than simply four years—we shall be able to build on them.
But empty rhetoric from the SNP will not solve any of the problems we face, in Scotland, and the difficulties being encountered by the Government in their negotiations with the oil companies, and their determination to get a proper and sensible policy for the oil industry, will not be helped simply by carping criticism by those who have no positive or constructive solutions to put forward.
I believe that the Scottish electorate, when eventually given the chance to make an assessment of all the parties' views on this issue, will follow the trend shown of Garscadden, in the regional elections and at Hamilton, and will judge the nationalist policy of separatism and apportionment

761
of oil revenues. I believe that only a practical programme for the disbursement of oil revenues will be satisfactory to the Scottish people.
5.37 p.m.
Mr. Iain Sproat: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), because he has done a very good demolition job on the vast and ludicrous gap between the cost of all the institutions of a separate Scotland which the Scottish National Party wants and the revenue that would be received from the 10 million tonnes of oil a year, or whatever it is, that the SNP is now proposing as the sort of level that we should extract.
The Minister of State spoke of the selfishness and greed of which the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) gave evidence in his speech. But we did not even have to listen to the speech of the hon. Member for Dundee, East, because the title of the debate
"The mismanagement of Scotland's oil"
was sufficient. It cannot be said often enough that there is no such thing as Scotland's oil. The oil lying off my constituency is no more Aberdeen's oil or Scotland's oil than the coal that lies beneath the fields of Yorkshire or the gas that lies off the coast of Norfolk is Yorkshire coal or Norfolk gas or English coal or English gas. They are all British resources. That is the legal position, and, whatever the Church of Scotland may say, it is certainly not the moral position that Scotland has any right to this oil above any other part of the United Kingdom.
The SNP has been singing an old song again today, but no one is listening any more. The hon. Member for Hamilton—and I am happy that he did—showed that in his own by-election, and it was shown in the Garscadden by-election earlier, too. I do not think that we have to worry very much about the Members sitting on the SNP Bench for much longer.
I want to speak about a subject which concerns me in this whole question of the management of oil—the slow-down in the development of North Sea oil. I give as evidence of that slow-down the following facts. First, in May 1974—that is, shortly after the Labour Government came into power—the Department of Energy forecast in its "Brown Book"
762
that production in 1977 would be 50 million tonnes. We know that the actual 1977 production was about 38 million tonnes. In other words, there was then about a 25 per cent. shortfall in the Government's forecast. The forecast for 1978 production was given as 80 million tonnes, while the latest Department of Energy projection for this year is between 55 million and 65 million tonnes—a shortfall of between 19 per cent. and 31 per cent.
Secondly, significant discoveries are not being developed. The latest "Brown Book" lists about 49 significant oil discoveries, some going back to 1973, of which only one—Fulmar—is now under development, although no platform has yet been ordered. Thirdly, as another area of evidence in the slowdown, only two permanent platforms for new fields have been ordered in the last four years, for Murchison and Tartan. Recently, the right hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Mabon) predicted that six or seven orders would come to United Kingdom yards in the next 18 months. I very much hope that he is right, but I also hope that, when speaking from the Front Bench later, he will tell us from what fields he expects those six or seven orders to come. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that this time last: year he said that we would have five or six orders in 1977–78, and of those only two have so far materialised.
Given that there is some slowdown in the development of North Sea oil, what are the reasons for it? There is no question but that one of the reasons is that the companies underestimated the complexity and difficulty of the development. There is no shame to them in saying so. But, equally, they have over-extended themselves. I do not think they would deny that.
However, in addition, there are four main reasons which I should like to mention. The first main reason for this slowdown is that the fields are getting smaller and need better fiscal terms. Unfortunately, the terms are getting worse and tighter rather than better. For example, under rounds 5 and 6, companies now must relinquish two-thirds of exploration acreage instead of the 50 per cent. under rounds 1 to 4. I understand that under rounds 5 and 6 the royalty will increase

763
—not in the sense that the percentage will be increased—in that it will be levied on United Kingdom landed value rather than on the-well head value, as it was under rounds 1 to 4.
Secondly, we all know that in the early days it was necessary to give various assurances to the oil companies to encourage them to get on with the speed of oil development, and quite rightly so. The then Secretary of State for Energy gave a series of assurances on 6th December 1974 which became known as the "Varley guidelines". These guidelines did a great deal to encourage the companies to go ahead with a speed of development which was the optimum speed for this country as a whole.
But, of course, those guidelines no longer apply, and no such assurances are now available for companies considering new developments. Not only are no assurances available, but the present Secretary of State for Energy said on the 5th April this year:
"when the oil companies were first coming into the North Sea and their investment was very heavy before the returns came—frontloaded investment, as it is called—it was necessary to give some assurances that those who invested would be able to develop their fields. Therefore, in the early days those assurances were given, relating to fields that were already under development. This was in 1974. As we move into a new phase of oil policy—particularly through private sector development, but this applies more generally —we are freed from assurances given in the past—[Official Report, 5th April 1978; Vol. 947, c. 443.]
In other words, the right hon. Gentleman is completely removing such sense of certainty as had been given by the original Varley guidelines and substituting nothing in their place but uncertainty.
The third reason why I believe that North Sea oil development is slowing down is that the British National Oil Corporation is heavily involved in monitoring other company operations in addition to its own activities. In spite of that, nothing can be done without the approval of BNOC. As an indication of this, it took about 18 months for BNOC and the companies to come to agreement over round 5 operating agreements. Not only is BNOC involved in operating agreements but, first, it holds equity in five oil fields which are under development—which is more than any other com-
764
pany. Secondly, it is the sole operator in a dozen or more blocks, plus four more in round 6. Thirdly, it has a 51 per cent. interest in 80 or more blocks under rounds 5 and 6 and, fourthly, it has over 50 participation deals to monitor and work out, including involvement in downstream activities.
It is no wonder that, with a staff of about 877, which is the latest figure, and in addition to all its own work which it must do in those four areas, the BNOC does not have the staff or the experience to work out with the companies exactly what is needed in development plans. I am sure that this bureaucratic interference by BNOC, whatever its other virtues or purposes may be, is a major factor in slowing down our North Sea activity. It is interesting that Lord Kearton has said that it takes about 2,500 employees to run a North Sea oil field, yet he is trying to run not only BNOC's own oil fields but everyone else's as well with only 870 employees.
The last reason why development in the North Sea is slowing down is quite simply that the size of the exploration rounds is now far too small. Under round 4 in 1971–72, 282 blocks were awarded. In 1976, under round 5, that had shrunk to 44 blocks awarded. Under round 6 this year, only 40 blocks have been offered and historically only about one-third are awarded in the end. Small rounds mean few attractive prospects, and few attractive prospects mean less exploration.
Having said that there is evidence of a slowdown in North Sea oil development, and having shown some of the reasons why that has taken place, I should like to say why I consider this to be a very serious problem for our country, regardless of who the Government of the day may be. The problem for the United Kingdom in the future is that there will be less oil by the mid-1980s than expected. Indeed, we are already getting less oil than expected. Since the bigger oilfields will start to decline in the mid-1980s, it should have been our policy to get the many smaller oilfields developing in their place in order to replace that decline. As I said, out of the 49 significant fields which should be brought into operation in the 1982–1988 period to offset the decline in the big fields, such as Brent, Forties and Ninian, it looks as if only three or four will be commercial.

765
I am not saying that the tax regime for the larger fields should be altered or diminished. But I urge the right hon. Gentleman to look again at the possibility of at least making the tax regime easier for the smaller and marginal fields, so that we can at least encourage development in those smaller fields when the bigger fields decline.
5.50 p.m.
Mr. James Siliars: The debate and the exchanges so far in the debate have demonstrated that Scottish National Party Members are now paying a fairly heavy political price for having over-stated the case on oil shortly after the discovery of the oilfields in the North Sea and early assessments of the magnitude of flow both of oil and of money.
In the 1970 period, it is fair to say, the SNP must have fielded a number of fairly inexperienced candidates who gave more than a fair share of hostages to fortune in relation to the assessment of what oil would bring. I remember reading in one of the Cumbernauld papers a constituent writing to the hon. Lady who now represents that area saying that after independence perhaps she would be good enough to post to him his Littlewoods coupon every week on a Friday because he liked to pick up his pay on that day. Certainly SNP candidates gave the impression that after independence every Scottish kitchen sink instead of having two taps, would have four—hot and cold, and petrol and whisky as well.
But SNP Members have advanced from that position, and people would be very foolish to write off a party which got roughly 33 per cent. of the vote in two parliamentary by-elections on the straight case of independence or non-independence. I have heard the party written off in this House and elsewhere far too often to believe that it is likely to go away.
As the speech of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) demonstrated, however, the case today is not being overstated to the same extent. Under what I regard as the grindstone of the critique applied by both the Labour Party and the Conservative Party, the Scottish National Party is coming nearer to reality in respect of what Scottish oil can or cannot do in the Scottish economy, although, if the assessment quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) is
766
correct about the ability of the Scottish economy to absorb £1,000 million per annum, it is still probably about £500 million per annum over-stating the case when it refers to the capacity of the Scottish economy to absorb that magnitude of additional resources. Economists to whom I have talked have said that we could absorb about an additional £500 million without having a massive effect upon the rate of inflation. But, of course, that figure is open to argument.
Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Does not the hon. Member agree that, when we are talking figures, one of the more striking features about the oil development in the North Sea is the gross under-estimate which was made by both the Labour and Conservative Parties when they ridiculed the homework of the SNP about the amount of oil in the sea which turned out. as we always said, to be on a conservative basis? Those two parties went on record as saying that we were exaggerating the amount of oil.
Mr. Sillars: I can speak only from my experience from inside the Labour Party. I took part in a party political broadcast in February 1974 in the course of which the question of North Sea oil was raised, and we were given a briefing background paper. As far as I can recall, the Labour Party's research staff was pretty accurate about its assessment of the magnitude of the wealth flowing from the oil.
However, my purpose is not to defend the SNP. I do not agree with it about the oil revenues being diverted into the Scottish economy. As a Socialist, I have no desire to see Scottish prosperity built upon English penury, but I shall support the SNP in the Division Lobby, and I shall explain why.
My contribution to this debate is directed towards three objectives which I believe it is necessary to establish if the SNP motion is to be supported. The first is to justify the Scottish claim to a significant proportion of the oil revenues. The second is to state what could and should be done with an oil-financed development fund. The third is to restate some basic principles about full employment, because the argument about how we engage in management of the economy is in my view for one major purpose, which is to produce full employment with all the

767
implications inherent in it for the Scottish working class.
My support of the Scottish claim to a significant proportion of oil revenues is based on the proposition that oil won from under Scottish waters is as much an indigenous Scottish resource as the fish hauled out of those waters and the coal cut from under those waters off the coast of Fife.
I forecast that one day it will be recognised generally as a Scottish industry. That will be when the oil activity abates and the Scottish economy is left with the problem of rehabilitating the individuals, the work forces and the communities presently built up around the oil industry. I know that the retort is often "So what?" In a sense, we got that from the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat). He gave us the cry about the Selby coalfield. I believe that the answer to that was given far more eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Dr. Bray), who made what I regarded as a most significant and, for some of my hon. Friends, a most disturbing speech on 30th October 1974. It was his first speech in this Parliament as the newly-elected Member for his constituency. His answer to that kind of charge was as follows, and I have given notice to my hon. Friend of my intention to quote his remarks:
"Nor is it any answer to point to other resources and industries in other parts of Britain which are equally needed in an industrial economy and to argue that Yorkshire coal, Welsh water or Cornish clay afford equal opportunities for regional control of resources. They do not. Oil is unique as a major commodity in having a market price far above its production cost, thus giving it command over other resources and playing a special role in power politics."—[Official Report, 30th October 1974; Vol. 880, c. 275–6.]
My hon. Friend described oil as having a special role in politics. That special role arises in the Scottish context because of its potential use in allowing us to break free from the perpetual cycle of decline and despair which has been the lot of the Scottish people in the context of the Scottish economy. That was mentioned most forcefully by Professor Donald MacKay, who used to be the professor at Aberdeen University and now takes the chair at Heriot-Watt. In a paper which he produced entitled "North Sea Oil and
768
the Scottish Economy in 1974", he summed it up by saying about oil:
"It is a possible escape from the depressing economic record of Scotland over the last half century. Quite frankly, it is seen as a means of redressing the balance of economic, industrial and commercial power within the UK in favour of Scotland."
Later in that same paper, describing Scotland as a slow-growing region in a slow-growing national economy, he said:
"Between 1950 and 1970, the following countries in Western Europe, all of whom had lower per capita income in 1950, had caught us up and surpassed us; Norway, Iceland, Denmark, Belgium, Holland, Austria, France, West Germany and Luxembourg."
If we are to redress that balance and to allocate part of the oil resources, and if there is to be any call on those resources, it must be on the basis of need. I regard it as self-evident that if a nation's industrial-based economy is undergoing a rapid process of de-industrialisation, if its social and economic infrastructure are widely acknowledged to be seriously deficient, and if its people are enduring levels of unemployment unheard of in post-war years, that economy should have the first call on resources discovered and exploited within its land or its sea area.
All the elements of decline are there. The need is very clearly established. Let me again quote from the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw on 30th October:
"The allocation must start not from the resource end but, as we are Socialists, from the need end. Let there be an inventory of the assets and current expenditure, and of social needs enjoyed or suffered by the several nations, regions and classes within Britain as a whole, and, indeed, of personal wealth and incomes too. Let the objective be set of bringing these up to a common level within a number of years, with the allocation of resources then made on the basis of social need."
My hon. Friend went on:
"On this basis I believe that Scotland, Wales and parts of England would justly enjoy a substantial premium for many years over their present share of the national income."—[Official Report, 30th October 1974; Vol. 880, c. 277–78.]
I have not quoted him out of context, and I am not suggesting that he will necessarily agree with the conclusions that I draw from this debate.
I want to take a few seconds to provide detailed proof of why Scotland—and Wales and parts of England as well—should enjoy what my hon. Friend called

769
"a substantial premium". We have in Scotland 187,000 registered unemployed. The true figure is around 200,000. In the past 20 years, 200,000 jobs have been lost in the key industries of coal, steel, shipbuilding, vehicle manufacturing, textiles and agriculture.
In the decade between 1965 and 1975 employment fell by 40,000 in total. The number of male jobs fell by 133.000. By mid-1976 the manufacturing share of total employment had fallen below 30 per cent. for the first time in living memory. Since the mid-1960s more than 110,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost. Recently the Strathclyde Regional Council forecast that we are in danger of losing another 65,000 manufacturing jobs in West Central Scotland by 1983. Since Labour won the last election Scottish unemployment has doubled.
The effect of all this is that we have massive redundancies, high overall unemployment and high concentrations of jobless in certain areas. Although the unemployment figure for Scotland is 8·4 per cent., there are areas of male unemployment of 25 per cent. to 40 per cent. This has had a corrosive and debilitating effect on Scottish society. According to the Strathclyde Regional Council, one in 10 children in that area are born into deprivation. There are 21 areas of multiple deprivation in the United Kingdom, 18 of which are in Scotland.
Given that situation, I have no feelings of guilt, shame or greed—in fact I am as selfish or unselfish as the Scottish Trades Union Congress—in demanding a share of this new basic resource for the Scottish economy. Since the taxation settlement between the Government and the multinational oil companies there has been precious little, if any, protest in this House or outside about the vast amount of wealth and the vast quantity of oil allocated to the multinational oil companies.
There is no director or executive from BP or any other oil company who lives in an area of multiple deprivation. These people do not have children who are in composite classes because of cuts in education, and none of the international super-class has been ravaged by high unemployment. Yet all these experiences have been the fate of thousands of families in Scotland.
770
Therefore, the claim is justified that if the multinational oil companies are entitled to their cut of the wealth from North Sea oil, so are the Scottish people. If we do not get our substantial share of that resource the Scottish economy and the state of the people will continue to decline.
With the injection of a massive amount of capital and the adoption of a Socialist policy—that is, production for need, as well as production for profit when manifestly production for profit only has failed people—we can transform the situation within the Scottish economy in a remarkably short period. I think that we should pump £400 million to £500 million a year, year on year, into the Scottish economy to transform it and create full employment.
It is fashionable for so-called Socialists to pray in aid the international recession and use that as a total excuse for Scottish unemployment and the decline in our economy. There was more than a tinge of that in the speech of the Minister of State this afternoon. These people conveniently overlook the fact that the Scottish economy has been in decline under both Labour and Tory Governments during periods when the rest of the world has enjoyed boom conditions.
Faced with their own inability to provide Socialist solutions to the problems created by international capitalism, these people feel that they must try to persuade the people to accept what would be normally unacceptable. What would be the situation tonight if the Tories were in power, Labour was in opposition and there were 187,000 Scots unemployed? If Scottish unemployment had doubled in four years under a Conservative Government the Benches would be packed tonight and there would be no acceptance of an international recession or any excuse like that.
It may be that in some areas we would be forced to accept the unacceptable. If we lived in Southern Italy, Northern France, Malta, Greece, Portugal and, dare I say it, Peru, and if we were citizens of those countries we would have to accept the unacceptable. I am not in possession of sufficient knowledge of their economies to judge, but I am in possession of sufficient knowledge of the Scottish economy to judge that this is not

771
the case in Scotland. We do not need to accept the unacceptable. We have oil-based resources and an abundance of manpower and engineering skills. We have vast areas of need in Scottish society. What we lack is the political will to put them all together and overcome the problem.
I am not saying that there is a short-term solution to half a century of problems. Nor am I saying that some of the long-term problems of Scotland, together with those of other parts of the white West can be easily solved especially as the world's balance of power changes from north to south. But I am saying that there is a short-term solution to the immediate, appalling problem of high unemployment and social decay in certain areas, as well as the poor social and economic infrastructure.
We can create the basis to overcome some of the long-term challenges before us. It is possible to create full employment in the short term in Scotland by a major public works programme. That is what I mean by producing for need and not for profit. We should have a programme embracing housing improvements and new housing construction. We should have a vast expansion of the roads programme and a fundamental tackling of the railway system—improvements in railway track, signalling and rolling stock. We should have hospital renovation, especially for geriatrics and the mentally ill. We should have an advancement of the district general hospital programme, most of which has been lying in abeyance since 1962.
If we got a share of the oil revenue and we had the political will to engage in a public works programme of that size we would create work and stimulate the private sector. That should cheer the Tories. It would leave us at the end of the day with a superb social and economic infrastructure.
There would be the multiplier effect of a single public works project. If we built a district general hospital of 700 beds costing between £8 million and £9 million it would require 20,700 square metres of blockwork, 850 tonnes of steel, and 26,300 square metres of floors and slabs. It would require 11 miles of electrical wiring, and 9,300 square metres of gravel and paving. In the Scottish economy,
772
with its large public sector, when one engages in a major public works programme one stimulates the building and steel industries and one also employs architects, electricians, joiners, plumbers and those who operate earth-moving machinery. One gets the whole Scottish economy on the move—perhaps for the first time in several years. That is all capable of being undertaken if we have an oil-financed development fund.
All my arguments are directed towards four aims. The first is that we should raise industrial activity to new levels; the second is that we should give new strength to our industrial base; the third is that we should establish a superior infrastructure as one of the prerequisites for a more thorough-going solution to our long-term economic objectives; and the fourth aim, the most important of all, is that we should seek to re-establish the right to work and full employment for the Scottish working people.
In my view, full employment is the key factor in human life. The basic conditions and circumstances of working people have not changed a great deal. All we have to sell is our labour. Whether we can sell our labour and under what conditions governs the character of our life style. That requirement determines what constraints will be removed or imposed on ordinary individuals because it affects personal, intellectual and cultural development.
The right to work and a decent job at a decent wage are fundamental to all the other rights and civil liberties which working-class people believe they should enjoy. Without the right to work and to obtain a good return for our labour, all the other rights of which we speak and all our liberties are seriously diminished.
I question whether we have an equal society when in one part of the same town a man in full employment is on a middle-class income but in another part of the same town a man may have exhausted his unemployment benefit and may be existing on supplementary benefit. In theory, those two men have equality of opportunity and rights. But that is only a theory; it does not happen in practice.
Prolonged unemployment makes a person less of a personality, especially in his own eyes. I was recently visited in my constituency surgery by a man who had

773
worked extremely hard in the building industry almost all his life. That man has now been unemployed for a year, with no prospect of employment. He came to see me about his circumstances. The important thing I noted was the deterioration in the personality of that man, a man whom I have known for some time. Strangely enough, above all he blamed himself and he told me that he was losing self-pride and self-confidence.
I have never read a more eloquent telling, or moving commentary than that which appeared in Labour Weekly in July 1974, as the Labour Party geared itself for the General Election in October. It was a Labour Weekly "Extra" which carried the headline:
"Heath's one million unemployed. Don't let it happen again."
The great irony is that it never has, because the figure has been 1·3 million to 1·4 million unemployed.
Let me quote from that edition of Labour Weekly:
"Labour's message is quite clear: Don't let it happen again.
"The Labour Government has made an immediate start in tackling the grave problems we are facing. It has put forward the solutions it sees to these problems. It wants to get on with them.
"The theme of this broadsheet is jobs—because the greatest problem in this country and the top priority for this Government is still the danger of unemployment.
"Labour is scared of unemployment. Like the millions of ordinary people who lived through the Thirties, the memories of Labour MPs and Ministers are haunted by the dole queues that scarred society then."
Then comes the eloquent moving part of the article:
"It isn't just the hardship and the cut in living standards. It's the indignity that is inflicted and the self-respect that is taken away. It is also the stupidity of keeping people idle and wasting human resources when the country faces grave economic problems.
"Labours proposals are geared to the problem of jobs, of the regions which still have high unemployment, of the need for training and re-training, of investment.
"And Labour believes that it is not with new and radical policies, and not with the discredited policies of the past, that the solutions will be found."
The article concludes:
"New methods, new policies and a new understanding are needed if we are to get a grip on these new problems of our economy."
An oil-financed development fund and a public works programme would provide
774
new methods, new policies and a new understanding. However, because the Government have turned away from that opportunity, I intend to vote for this motion.
6.15 p.m.
Mr. Hamish Gray: The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) will forgive me if I do not take up the whole of his argument, but I hope in my speech to discuss one or two of his comments.
Perhaps I may remind the hon. Gentleman, since he was critical of the multinational oil companies, that until January 1976 94 per cent. of the total investment in the North Sea came from private sources—in other words, from oil companies and private investment. That investment has provided many of the jobs to which the hon. Gentleman referred. That is too easily forgotten in the dogma of Socialist politics.
This motion is based on a false premise. For that reason the Conservative Party will not support it. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) gave the reason when he said that the motion refers to "Scotland's oil". We do not accept that it is Scotland's oil. Therefore, we believe that the whole motion is false. The people of Scotland do not wish to be separate, as has been well and truly proved recently. The motion is also weak in that sense.
On the other hand, we have every sympathy with the Scottish National Party in its round condemnation of the Government for their failure to control unemployment. I shall not go into that matter in great detail because the hon. Member for South Ayrshire dealt with it adequately and effectively. The Labour Government should also be condemned for their failure to achieve sufficient industrial growth.
Let me refer to the recently issued unemployment figure totalling 187,150. In January of this year unemployment rose to 203,629. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, if Labour had been in opposition and those figures of unemployment had been reached under a Conservative Government there would have been marches to the House of Commons every week. It is a ridiculous figure.
The Minister of State spoke complacently, as though everything in the

775
garden was lovely, and yet he is a member of a Government who, when in Opposition, condemned the Conservative Government when unemployment in Scotland was 89,700. The Labour Government had the audacity to allow that figure to reach 203,000 in January, and to date it is still 187,000. This is a very serious situation.
This figure is the result of the Government's policies. It is perhaps misleading for the SNP to attack and condemn the Government so severely on this subject when all too frequently the SNP is in sympathy with many of the Government's ideas. Indeed, the SNP's own policies would create even more unemployment. I remind SNP Members that 60 per cent. of Scotland's manufacturing industry is in firms owned outside Scotland. Great difficulties would arise if SNP policies were followed to their logical conclusion.
I wish to take up a point made by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) on depletion policy. If SNP Members insist on a reduction in the rate of the depletion of oil, inevitably they will create more unemployment. If we cut back to the extent suggested by the hon. Member for Dundee, East there will inevitably be a loss of jobs.
Petrochemicals in Scotland, especially in the Highlands, have been referred to. I hope that there will be developments in this industry. There are proposals relating to Nigg Bay, in my constituency. I recently met the company involved and was told that there are considerable developments in the offing, but for reasons of commercial confidentiality the company is naturally unable to make public what is happening. There is great interest in the area, and I look forward to positive developments before too long.
We have become used to hearing the SNP refer to Norway as a model in handling oil policy, but Norway is having a complete re-think and it seems almost certain that it will try to make changes before long. Exploration drilling has been low throughout the 1970s. Only one oil field, Ekofisk, and one gas field, Frigg, are in production. In the United Kingdom sector there are eight oil fields
776
and seven gas fields in production, and a further eight fields are being developed.
Norway appears to have fallen into a trap, and I suspect that the hon. Members for Dundee, East and South Ayrshire could easily fall into the same trap. It all hinges on the attitude of ensuring that high extraction rate is initially attained and then cutting back to suit the situation that has been created. That is precisely what has happened in Norway. It is committed to a high extraction rate and cannot escape from it because the spending policies of the Norwegian Government make it necessary to maintain that rate of depletion.
There was an article in The Scotsman on 13th June by Mr. Tony MacKay, of the Institute for the Study of Sparsely Populated Areas. He operates from Aberdeen University, and was an associate of Professor Donald MacKay, who was referred to earlier. Mr. MacKay examined the failure of Norwegian oil policies and said, in his article:
"The main problem is that through their expenditure policies the Norwegian Government have committed themselves to a fairly high and steady rate of oil and gas production, certainly considerably higher than the present level."
He described how, between 1974 and 1977, Norway achieved an annual rate of growth of 4 per cent. and how its unemployment fell to 1 per cent. That was achieved on the assumption that Government income from oil and gas in the late 1970s would be very high. But that did not happen, and that is why trouble has occurred for Norway, which is facing large balance of payments problems. There was another article in The Scotsman on 15th April which highlighted the problems faced by the Norwegians and reported that
"Norwegians face a four-year freeze in living standards under a Government plan announced today to rescue the ailing economy."
These are facts. There is no doubt that this situation has been brought about largely because of the policies adopted by Norway in the early stages.
The SNP policies would signal even greater dangers. In its pamphlet "Building Scotland's Future", the SNP proposes to finance a Scottish Ministry of Industrial Development, at a cost of over £700 million per annum, and to provide a basic pension of £25 a week for a single

777
person and £35 a week for a married couple. That is uncosted, but I have done some rough costing and I estimate that the cost of that proposal would be another £285 million.
The SNP suggests that it will put an extra £150 million into modern schools, hospitals, and so on, over the next five years. Let us say that this will cost another £30 million a year. There is a proposal to cut income tax by 12 per cent., which will cost about £150 million a year. The SNP says that it will create 130,000 new jobs over five years. The only way of assessing the cost of that proposal is to consider the regional aid that Scotland has received recently. In 1974–75 it totalled £146 million and in 1976–77 the aid amounted to £215 million. A rough estimate of the cost of the proposal to create new jobs would be £200 million.
The increase in expenditure involved in those proposals is £1,365 million per annum. I can assure the House that that figure relates to only one SNP pamphlet. It does not take into account all the other things that the SNP proposes. The party has reached the stage in Scotland where if anyone suggests something he wants, the Scottish National Party will claim that it can be provided from oil funds. It has become a total farce, and slowly but surely the people of Scotland are seeing through all these bogus arguments.
The Minister referred to the licensing policies of former Governments and particularly to the licences issued by the previous Conservative Government. I suggest that if the terms of the licences issued by that Conservative Government had not been as attractive as they were we would not be enjoying the benefits of North Sea oil today. There is no doubt about that. It was suggested that we issued licences without any thought of petroleum revenue tax. The biggest oilfield in the North Sea is the Forties field, and the licences there were issued by the Labour Government—without any question of petroleum revenue tax. Those who claim credit for the sun must accept responsibility when it rains.
Mrs. Winifred Ewing rose—
Dr. Mahon: Here comes the snow.
Mrs. Ewing: Does the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) accept
778
the report of the Public Accounts Committee which criticised the Conservative Government's issuing of licences? Does he accept that when the SNP was making conservative estimates of the amount of oil, the Conservatives ridiculed us as overestimating the amount? As things have turned out, there is, as we thought, far more oil than we estimated.
Mr. Gray: I do not disagree with the hon. Lady. That is a fair comment, but any estimates of oil reserves must, to a great extent, be guesswork. For example, many estimates have been condemned by Professor Peter O'Dell, who has always said that the estimates of the SNP, the oil companies and the Government were much lower than the figures that he considered to be realistic. The BP field has been much more productive than was ever considered likely, but this works both ways, and there are other fields where the yield will not be as great as was hoped.
I must put the record straight on petroleum revenue tax, because the Minister was a little unfair in what he said about the previous Conservative Government. In the Budget Statement on 6th March 1973, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Tony Barber, made clear that it was the Government's intention to bring in legislation to ensure that Continental Shelf operations would be brought within the United Kingdom tax system where the operating company was non-resident, that artificial losses made by oil companies abroad would not be offset against United Kingdom tax liability, and that the take from oil operations would be increased. He made clear that there was no likelihood of oil coming ashore before 1975 and that therefore there was ample time to deal with these matters.
As the hon. Member for Dundee, East said, to a large extent the present Government followed the policy outlined by Mr. Barber. It was they who introduced PRT. Between 1964 and 1970 the Labour Government introduced licences on exactly the same tax basis as those introduced by the Conservative Government. It is as a result of the policies followed and licences introduced by the former Conservative Government that investment was attracted, that exploration was ensured and development was encouraged. The United Kingdom is now reaping

779
the rewards of constantly increasing oil production.
The amount of investment that has taken place in the North Sea is enormous. We want to encourage more, but if we are to ensure that there is continuing investment in the North Sea we must give careful consideration to the incentives that we can provide. One suggestion is that the Government must devise some means of encouraging more development in marginal fields. At present we have massive investment in the good fields, but when that oil is only partially depleted we should be giving priority to the marginal fields, in which there are considerable reserves.
The Minister of State was extremely unfair in some of his remarks about infrastructure. Many of the improvements that have taken place were planned by the former Conservative Government. I am not surprised—I am sure that the SNP is not surprised—that the Government sit back and try to take the credit for everything. They want to divert attention from unemployment, which is the lethal part of the motion. The Government have wasted money. As the hon. Member for Dundee, East said, they wasted £25 million on Hunterston and Portavadie, which were never used and which never will be used. We have yards in this country, both for steel and concrete, that are capable of meeting any demands that are likely to be made of them.
I condemn the Government along with the proposer of the motion the hon. Member for Dundee, East, for their failure to deal with unemployment and to attract adequate industrial development. Equally, I condemn the Scottish National Party for what could almost be called its racist policies on oil.
6.33 p.m.
Mr. William Hamilton: It seems that we are all condemning one another. I shall be no exception to that rule, but I shall be different to the extent that I, a Labour Member, shall be critical, to a degree, of the Government's present policies.
It is idle to presume that there is any easy solution to the unemployment problem that has been repeatedly referred to by all those who have spoken in the debate, or to the challenges arising from the facilities provided by North Sea oil and gas.
780
I felt that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) missed a great opportunity by keeping the debate rather narrower than it need have been. It could have been debate on overall energy provision, either in the United Kingdom or in Scotland. If that course had been taken we would have had a much better debate. Having restricted it to North Sea oil—the hon. Gentleman called it Scottish oil—he proceeded to give us his solution to the problem of Scottish unemployment. He suggested that we should slow down the production of North Sea oil.
That suggestion was complementary to the remarks made by his hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford), when members of the Finance Bill Committee discussed further tax concessions for those receiving £7,000 and more per year. The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire said that to provide the jobs that are needed in Scotland we shall have to give substantial tax concessions to those earning over £10,000 a year. That would go down very well with working people in Scotland, employed or unemployed! If that is the contribution that the SNP wishes to make to the problem of unemployment in Scotland, it had better think again about its policies.
The Tory Party is making all the capital that it can out of the unemployment problem. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) makes the predictable charge that it is Socialist policies that are wanted, as if that shibboleth, that slogan, will solve our problems. I am as good a Socialist as the hon. Gentleman. I have been a Socialist for longer than he, because I am older. I make no virtue of that. However, I understand that merely to sloganise is not to solve the problem.
It is no good anybody pretending that capitalism, Socialism or any other "ism" can get us out of the unemployment problem. It is not facile escapism to say that it is an international problem. Nor is it enough to say that it is the international crisis of capitalism. The problem exists in States that claim to be Socialist as well as in capitalist States.
It is a world-wide problem and it is impossible to seek to solve it on a purely nationalist basis. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is moving

781
around the world. He will be visiting Europe this month and next month to get together with other international statesmen to ascertain whether we can find solutions to our problems.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) talked about problems within the oil industry and about energy problems generally. At least I can argue with and differ from the hon. Gentleman. He talked about evidence of a slow-down in the development of North Sea oil and attributed that, in part, to the Government's fiscal policies. I recommend the hon. Gentleman to read the debate that took place in another place on 8th February, when the contrary view was expressed by great experts on energy matters. It was said that the development had reached its maximum and would probably flatten out not because it could not proceed at a faster speed but because of increased costs and the relative lack of expertise.
Lord Balogh said that there is no oil-producing country in the world as liberal in its fiscal policies towards the oil companies as is the United Kingdom. He added that in public the oil companies are bound to bellyache and complain about the penal tax system but that privately they recognise that they are on a winner. Not all the armies in the world will drive the oil companies from the North Sea. The Government should tighten up their tax policies and the tax that they are taking on behalf of the British people. The British National Oil Corporation, the royalties and the taxation are not enough to get control of a valuable resource for the use of the British people.
It is not so many years ago that the hon. Member for Ayrshire, South had a great belief in the Labour Party. He did not believe one word that the SNP was saying. I venture to suggest that after the next General Election he will be in that party. His speech today was almost an invitation to himself to join it.
Mr. Sillars: To ease the hon. Gentleman's anxiety I put it on the record that in no way would I be a member of a non-Socialist party. That is one of the reasons that caused me to leave the Labour Party.
Mr. Hamilton: I should very much welcome the hon. Gentleman's leaving
782
the Labour Party now. In fact, I think that he will get the boot very soon. I hope that he does. The proper course, having made that speech, is for him to get into the SNP, despite the document that he produced two or three years ago "Do not butcher Scotland's future". The arguments that he adduced in that pamphlet are as relevant today as when he wrote it.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East should have learned the lessons of the last two or three months. Politically, in Scotland public opinion polls, by-election and regional election results indicate that the SNP has lost all credibility. The reasons are not far to seek. The SNP constantly appeals to the baser motives of the Scottish people—greed, envy, and the rest. I wonder whether the hon. Member believes even a fraction of what he said about the exploitation of the Scottish people. The word used in London is "colonials". That is the kind of emotive language that the Scottish nationalists use.
I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should pay a visit to Glenrothes. He will there see an enormous diversity of industry. Since the war Fife has built up the greatest concentration of electronics industries in the world outside California. That may surprise the hon. Gentleman. That has been done under successive Governments who believed in regional policies. I give no particular credit to the Labour Government, but they played a large part in putting the new towns legislation on the statute book. It is one of the greatest social concepts that the world has seen since the war.
Mr. George Robertson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Hamilton: No. The Scottish new towns have been visited by statesmen and politicians from every country in the world because of the diversification of industry in those places due to the policies of successive Governments. Glenrothes has ridden out the economic recession more successfully than have most other parts of the United Kingdom. For the hon. Member for Dundee, East to denigrate what has happened in Scotland since the war under successive Governments is to do a disservice to both major parties in this country, particularly the Labour Party.

783
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State put this problem in its proper perspective when he talked about its being international. It is no use seeking to pretend that this resource is exclusively for the use of 5 million people who live north of an arbitrary line on a map. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) made the valid point that if that game were to be played the Orkneys have a greater claim to the oil than anyone in Glasgow or Edinburgh.
We do not regard these resources as any more Scottish than the coal in Yorkshire or whatever resource happens to be around our shores. This approach to the problem makes good economic and Socialist sense, and it makes for good morality. If we have a resource within the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, it makes good sense to say that the wealth accruing from that resource shall be allocated not according to accent, or to where people live, or to what they believe, but according to what they need. That is the basic philosophy of the Labour Party. Indeed, that is what the Government are trying to achieve.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East talked about North Sea oil being a damp squib for Scotland. I do not know where he has been all these years. Even in the last two or three years, the evidence has been all round for us to see. Thousands of jobs have been created.
The Economist, on 18th February, referring to the number of new jobs that had been provided in Scotland as a result of oil, gave a figure of 60,000. The article stated:
"For comparison, mining employs about 35,000 people".
Therefore, the number of new jobs created by the discovery of oil is about double the number of jobs in coal mining in Scotland. In farming there are about 50,000 jobs. Therefore, the number of new oil-related jobs in Scotland is greater than the total number employed in agriculture throughout Scotland.
The article went on:
"Output per employee in direct oil jobs seems to have been about twice the Scottish average. The total market for offshore supplies is reckoned at around £1 billion a year. Locational advantages, judicious arm-twisting by the Government, and the work of the Offshore Sup-
784
plies Office and others in helping to get orders, have meant that well over half of this sum has been spent within Scotland."
These are the advantages which have accrued to Scotland.
The article went on to point out that after this initial development the next phase would be the downstream development, of which we have a good example coming to Fife with the petrochemical complex at Moss Morran, to which the hon. Member for Dundee, East referred. I remind the hon. Gentleman that when that announcement was made the SNP candidate in Fife came out firmly against it. There was to be a prospective investment of £400 million in that part of Fife, and the SNP opposed it. Therefore, it does not lie in the hon. Gentleman's mouth to condemn the Government. The three Labour councils—Dunfermline District Council, Kirkaldy District Council and Fife Regional Council— were putting pressure on the Secretary of State to get on with that development. My right hon. Friend is under considerable difficulties, but he knows how we feel about it. The SNP should not say that we are against the development. If anyone is opposed to it, it is the SNP.
Mr. David Lambie: Surely my hon. Friend recognises that this is traditional SNP policy. It has opposed petrochemical development at Hunterston. Indeed, at the public inquiry at Hunterston Scottish nationalists gave evidence against petrochemical development. In the last regional election their candidate—luckily, she was heavily defeated—came out openly against petrochemical development at Hunterston. Cunninghame District Council, which is SNP controlled, is still saying that it does not want petrochemical development. We should not be surprised at the policy of the SNP. The Scottish nationalists have a different policy for every constituency to suit local needs.
Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend has underlined what I said. Following that condemnation of the petrochemical complex in Fife, the SNP kicked out its candidate. Now it has another. For all I know, its policy has changed as well. Indeed, the SNP issued a statement saying that it has been in favour of Moss Morran all the time. That is the kind of

785
topsy-turvy change, switching and turning upside down, that the people of Scotland have now rumbled. That is the reason for recent election results.
The facility at Moss Morran is important to Scotland. The Provost of Dunfermline went on record on that subject in the Dunfermline Press last weekend. The report states that
"Although the final decision has still to be made on the proposed petrochemical complex at Moss Morran and Braefoot Bay, there are already indications that the project, if it goes ahead, could bring an industrial boom in its wake.
Provost Les Wood said this week that, since the start of the year, over 50 inquiries had been received about the possibility of sites for industry in Dunfermline District. 'Some of these inquiries are from firms in oil related industries, but it is obvious that all of them are aware of the Shell-Esso proposals at the moment before the Secretary of State,' he said."
He went on:
We are convinced from what we have experienced already in the way of inquiries about sites, that there is virtually certain to be downstream industry, if the gas separation and cracker plant projects go ahead. It seems that the go-ahead for the projects could be the start of a new boom for West Fife."
I believe that to be profoundly true. That is the kind of thing that the SNP came out against.
I wish to quote from an article that appeared in The Times of 15th November last year dealing with the then latest literature of the Scottish National Party. It said:
"The Scottish National Party is claiming in its latest literature"
—I do not know whether this is up to date, or whether the SNP has produced a revised version since—
"that Scotland has 'enough coal for 1,000 years' and 'enough oil to provide £1,800 million to a Scottish Treasury for 60 years' so why should we tolerate continuing social deprivation within Scotland?"
If the SNP believes that Scotland has enough coal for a thousand years it should write to the Coal Board about it. There are proved coal reserves in the United Kingdom to last for 300 years, but nothing like that in Scotland. The oil may last 25 years. If we are serious about discussing energy policy in the United Kingdom, in the long term oil is infinitely less important than coal. If we had had a debate on United Kingdom energy policy rather than on the narrow bellyaching motion before us today, we would
786
have been able to put oil in its proper context. That would have been a much more profitable use of the time by the SNP.
The Times article continued:
"What of the oil revenues? First, to talk of revenues from the North Sea fields over 60 years' is a foolish and misleading political trick."
It went on to talk not about Scottish oil, but about the United Kingdom sector.
"There is no agreement in existence or remotely in prospect that says how the North Sea could be divided into Scottish and English sectors."
No attention has been paid to that. It is a myth to pretend that one can somehow easily decide in a cosy round table discussion with some English authorities how these apportionments can be made. That is unrealistic. The article continued:
"All the trends are towards a breakdown of national barriers in the search for answers to these vital problems,"
—the article there is referring to energy in general—
"rather than a retreat into nationalism. For nationalism in this increasingly energy-hungry part of the twentieth century does not spell freedom, but the opposite. For Scotland to choose 'independence' on the strength of a present surplus of oil without safeguarding the future would be folly."
That is why I shall be voting against the motion tonight.
I believe that the Government must put greater pressure on the oil companies to ensure that we get a much greater take of the revenue and wealth that will accrue from the oil resources. But I do not believe that any other Government are capable of doing that. I have sufficient faith in my Government to believe that they will handle these problems correctly, fairly, and justly in the interests not only of the Scottish people but of the people of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. As far as I can judge there are still two hon. Members anxious to take part in the debate. The winding-up speeches are due to begin at 7.15 p.m. That leaves roughly 10 minutes apiece for each hon. Member, and I hope that I shall not have to pour oil on troubled waters later.
6.55 p.m.
Mrs. Margaret Bain: I shall bear your remarks in mind, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

787
It is extremely difficult for us of the SNP to reconcile the type of speech that we have heard from the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) with the euphoric and premature post-mortems written about my party in the past few weeks. The rather predictable vitriol which came from the hon. Member indicated that the Scottish National Party is still a major political force in Scottish politics and will continue to be so and I shall not waste time by trying to pick up his rather spurious arguments.
I would rather turn to the theme which was put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) and the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Siliars), who spoke of the need to break the spiral of decline and despair which exists in Scottish life. In endorsing some of the views of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, I point out that of course there are ideological differences between his party and mine. There is a difference of emphasis on the means of reaching our particular end. But at least the hon. Member made an intellectually honest speech. He can see his way to supporting a measure which would help the young people of Scotland in particular and the whole economy in general.
I point to the European Scottish report of 1975 and to the conclusions of the steering committee. I ask Labour Members to bear this in mind when they go through the Lobbies this evening. For those involved with the survey the most significant and depressing outcome was the realisation that too much of the burden of the last 150 years of Scotland's history rests on the shoulders of young Scots today. It is not strange that they find it difficult to tolerate that, but it is disturbing that they react with a sense of hopelessness and despair.
The young Scots of today are tomorrow's future, and they need investment to change that future from one of despondency to one of hope. Against that background, I was horrified at the Minister of State's complacent and platitudinous attitude to my hon. Friend's remarks. There is a television programme called "Mastermind'. Today, every time a pertinent question was put to the Minister of State he gave a voluble "pass" and refused to answer the very important points about unemployment in
788
Scotland, which is a major problem for my country. It ill becomes the right hon. Gentleman, as a Member representing a constituency in the West of Scotland, where unemployment stands at 10·2 per cent., to show that kind of complacent attitude.
In addition, under this Government, in the past year emigration has risen from 4,500 to 9,500. It is the young people who are leaving our country. It is not enough for the Labour Government to say that this is due to some kind of world plot which is causing the recession.
Like the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, I see no question of selfishness or greed in trying to establish an oil-financed development fund for Scotland. Just as the Labour Government set their face against giving the proposed Scottish Assembly tax-raising powers, so they have no political will to establish the oil fund in Scotland, even though the Scottish TUC, with which the Government claim to have a special relationship, was one of the main organisations in Scottish society to ask for such a fund.
The Minister said that the Government rejected the concept of the fund because it would satisfy no one. In Dunbartonshire today we have heard of the proposed redundancies of 2,000 people in Clydebank. The oil development fund might well have met the needs of those 2,000 people, many of whom are my constituents, and for whom there is no alternative employment.
It is no compensation to those people for the Government to talk about regional assistance. Let me refer the House to the October 1974 Labour manifesto.
"We have doubled the regional employment premium thus bringing another £40 million to Scotland every year."
What do we have now? We have the abolition of REP at an estimated cost of 20,000 jobs in Scotland. There is no long-term policy being operated by the present Government to guarantee a manufacturing base being continued in Scotland.
In areas such as Clydebank and throughout the whole of the West of Scotland, where we have industries such as Singers and shipbuilding, there is no long-term strategy to guarantee a future for them, thereby maintaining our manufacturing base, which is essential if the

789
Scottish economy is to pick up and guarantee the kind of security for which our people are looking.
Again, reference was made to the 65,000 oil jobs which have come to Scotland. No indication was given of how many of these are just temporary, building up an infrastructure, and how many of them will go in the next few months. Indeed, this is an element of hidden unemployment in Scotland. But the Minister thought that it was great that the Offshore Supplies Office was doing so much for Scotland.
I should like to point out an example from my constituency, where a company involved in the oil industry in Scotland was having extreme difficulty with a nationalised industry under British government. This American company, in Cumbernauld New Town, is the producer of pipeline valve actuators for the world's pipelines and offshore platforms. It is a considerable provider of employment in my constituency. It is probably the second largest manufacturer already, in its product line, in Europe.
The company was informed in April of this year through the contractors in London that it was not being considered for orders for the British Petroleum Sullom Voe project. A bid had been accepted from the company, and although it was commercially acceptable and technically acceptable to the contractors, BP did not have the manpower to visit our factory in Cumbernauld and inspect it. Orders were then to be placed with an American company in Houston, which has supplied BP in the past.
The company in my constituency could meet delivery requirements, and the bid had been with the contractors for over one year. Eventually, that problem was sorted out, but one full year was wasted, with all the implications of insecurity for at least 80 employees in my constituency. A nationalised industry such as BP, along with the OSO, could do nothing really to help in that kind of situation.
The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and, indeed, the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) who has now departed from the Chamber—spoke of promises made by the SNP to the electorate of Scotland. We
790
have been an intellectually honest party, putting to the Scottish people the kind of alternatives that are open to them. Because of our intellectual honesty, we have moved, in 10 years, to gaining one-third of the support of the Scottish people. I put it to hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Hamilton, that that support will continue to grow. I ask him and his colleagues on the Labour Benches to look at their own promises to the Scottish electorate. I ask them to reconcile their vote tonight with the position in which many people in Scotland find themselves.
The October 1974 Labour manifesto for Scotland stated that
"The first and overriding priority facing Scotland will be to create more and better jobs."
Unemployment rose to nearly 200,000 and, indeed, there is hidden unemployment.
It also said:
"7,000 Civil Service jobs are being moved from London to Scotland."
We are still waiting. Then:
"The whole of Scotland has development area status."
Of course, this has been withdrawn from certain areas of Scotland. We all know that only too well.
Then:
"We have ended the delay and dithering Hunterston and laid down a policy involving a start for BSC and sites for oil platform construction."
The action has been that the plans for the expansion of the site have been shelved and no orders ever came for platform construction.
Then:
"Labour's housing philosophy is simple and direct. Everybody is entitled to a decent home at a price they can afford, whether that home is rented or bought."
One hundred and sixty thousand houses in Scotland are below minimum tolerable standards, with no inside toilet. A quarter of a million houses in Scotland lack exclusive use of the three basic amenities.
So this whole sorry record goes on. Yet Labour Members can see their way to going through the Lobby tonight to oppose the concept of setting up an oil-financed development fund which could

791
help to eradicate many of these problems in Scotland.
The complacency shown on the Labour Benches today is equalled only by the hypocrisy that has come from the Conservative Benches. I was interested to read in the Evening Times the other evening that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) would today ask a Question of the Secretary of State for Industry about the future of the Scottish shipbuilding industry. I was particularly intrigued by this, knowing that the Conservative Party, including the hon. Member, had voted against the Intervention Fund and against the Polish contract coming to the Upper Clyde—a contract which has guaranteed jobs for many people in the West of Scotland.
Perhaps, of course, it is not so much that they are complacent today but that their friends and colleagues are all at Ascot and are not interested in the future of the people of Scotland.
Anyone who goes through the Lobbies tonight against this motion, especially any Scottish Member of Parliament, is rejecting the cries for help that are coming from the people of Scotland, who are asking for a change of attitude and for a genuine commitment that will set them free from the kind of problems that they have suffered over the last century. We shall build a new kind of future in Scotland using the resources of Scotland in futuristic and forward-looking industries, giving jobs to people and eradicating social problems.
7.5 p.m.
Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: About the only thing that the Scottish National Party has been able to achieve in this debate, in both the motion and the speeches that have been made, is to show that SNP Members are expert in one thing only—bleating about the ills of Scotland. If only they would realise that in that respect they themselves, perhaps, do one of the greatest disservices to Scotland. Every time they speak, and in motions such as that before us, all that they are doing is selling Scotland short. That is something that we do not want to see.
We want to see Scotland prosper and progress in the world, and not be con-
792
tinually cried down by the kind of speeches that we have heard from the SNP Bench this afternoon.
The one thing that is fortunate is that at least recent elections in Scotland have shown that fewer and fewer people are being deceived by what the SNP says. In itself, that is no wonder, because the greatest disservice that could be done to Scotland is that for which the SNP stands—to separate the Scottish economy from the economy of the rest of the United Kingdom. If there is one thing that would be certain to lead to unemployment in Scotland, that is the most certain thing of all. In regard to jobs, that is the one thing that none of us wants to see.
One of the unfortunate things that come out of a debate such as this is that we have got into the situation of trying to apportion blame in terms of the way in which policy has gone wrong on the exploitation of oil.
I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat). I say that coming from an area in which oil development is taking place. There is no doubt that over the past year or so much of the momentum has gone out of the oil industry. I do not agree wholly with what my hon. Friend said, that it is necessarily related to fiscal policy, because I believe that it is necessary that the country gets financial benefit out of the oil industry and takes its share in the profits that are in that industry. But where I believe the Government have gone wrong—this is where I disagree with the hon. Members for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) and South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars)—is in the form of Socialist policy that has been followed by the Government. There is no doubt that in relation to the kind of interference in the oil industry, particularly in the structure of the industry, and the establishment of the BNOC, the Government, by their policies, have put instability and uncertainty into the industry. It is that instability and uncertainty which have caused a slowing down in the industry.
I remind the Minister that there is nothing that needed to be done to safeguard the national interest that required the establishment of an organisation such as the BNOC. There is nothing that needed to be done in the national

793
interest that could not be done either by fiscal means or by licensing controls, physical controls, in relation to exploitation. By using up all this additional manpower, by instilling this degree of uncertainty and instability into the industry, the Government, must bear their share of blame for the uncertainty in the industry in recent years.
On an evening such as this, when debating oil. I cannot but reflect on the interference by the Government also in the oil platform building yards. At the time, we debated the subject in the House. But one thing that is significant is the amount of public money which had to be invested in that subject and which has shown no return whatsoever. If that had been left to private industry to do, it would have been private shareholders rather than the taxpayers who would have had to bear the loss arising from the very big mistake that the Government have made.
The Government must acknowledge that in modern times the oil industry is the best example of private enterprise and risk-taking. If this had been much more a partnership between the Government and private enterprise and there had been no unnecessary interference by the Government, the national interest would have gained much more. The correct partnership is for the companies to bear the risks and for the Government to take a supporting role in providing the infrastructure. By means of fiscal policy and licensing controls, they could then ensure a return for the nation. The Government have got the emphasis wrong.
I was interested in the speech of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). The Government should take a supporting role—they have to some extent—in oil development. The industry has brought great benefits, but also great costs to the areas where development has taken place. Many of those affected, particularly where the environment has been destroyed, have gained no direct benefit. Existing industries have suffered the burdens of competition. The roads have been congested. One has only to travel the A92 or the A94 from Perth to Aberdeen to realise the burden that the industry has imposed on the normal road user.
794
When there has been so much benefit to the economy and to Scotland as a whole, has sufficient been done to invest in the areas concerned? I have three specific examples.
First, there has been controversy over which road—the A92 or the A94—should be trunked to join central Scotland to the Aberdeen area. I do not want to open this question again, but the Government have not given sufficient priority to proper communications between the oil areas and the rest of Scotland. They are detrunking one road in a year's time against the advice of the reporter of the public inquiry who suggested that it should be delayed for another three years, when £10 million of identifiable necessary improvements is outstanding on that road. In this detrunking, the Government are giving a vague assurance in relation to the Montrose relief road, which I welcome. They say that when the work is carried out, they may—I emphasise "may"—be able to support it from oil-related funds. The Government are not putting back enough into the economy of the affected areas and therefore are not supporting the industry properly.
My second point relates to the proper provision of facilities in the North-East and in Shetland. There has been a tremendous increase in population and housing in those areas but there has been no equal increase in community facilities like schools and community centres. There has been a huge housing development in the village of Porthlethen, on the outskirts of Aberdeen, in my constituency, but at this stage it has only one primary school with temporary classrooms and it is grossly overcrowded, with no facilities for community activities.
Thirdly, I am concerned about what is being done for industries other than oil. The Minster of State visited my constituency a year ago and promised—a promise for which I am grateful—an advance factory and an industrial estate for the town of Brechin. A year later, nothing has happened and the farmer has sown another crop in the field that was to be the site of the estate. People are concerned about the Government's intentions to help these areas. The demotion of the Aberdeen travel-to-work area from full development area status is a further example of insufficient attention being given to the need to support the

795
industries on which the economy of these areas will depend after oil ceases to flow.
The Government must do more. More money should be ploughed back into the areas which are making this great contribution to the strength of Scotland and to the British economy.
7.16 p.m.
Mr. Douglas Henderson: One thing which always emerges from a debate initiated by the Scottish National Party is the unanimity that crosses the frontier between the Conservative and Labour Parties. As I listened to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) congratulating the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), who seems again mysteriously to have disappeared, I wondered whether he would have welcomed with such enthusiasm a similar result in his own constituency.
Again and again, we hear from both main parties a unanimity of opinion, of approach and of complacency, which emerges only when the SNP initiates a debate. This debate shows the division between those of us who believe that Scotland's resources are the property and the right of the people of Scotland and those in the other parties who believe that they should be controlled from London.
That is what this debate is about: whether Scotland's resources and problems should be handled in Scotland or London. In the speeches of hon. Members from other parties—perhaps with the honourable exception of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars)—one heard an incredible complacency. The theme seemed to be: "Everything is working perfectly with control in London. Why do these nasty SNP people want to change it?"
I am reminded of that satirical poem of Hugh MacDiarmid, in which he says:
"Tell me the auld, auld story
O' hoo the Union brocht
Puir Scotland into being
As a country worth a thocht.
England, frae whom a' blessings flow,
Whit would we dae withoot ye?
Then dinnae threap it doon oor thnoats
As gin we e'e could doot yeo!"
I am sure that that will be appreciated. I hope that all our colleagues from other Scottish constituencies understood it. The
796
test would be to ask them to give us the second verse. Perhaps the Minister of State would oblige.
There is a polarisation in Scottish society between those who believe fundamentally that the resources and the problems of Scotland can be tackled only by Scottish people responsible to the Scottish electorate and with a wider sense of the world than we get in the United Kingdom, and those on the other side—I accept that it is a legitimate and fair view—who believe that Scotland's resources are better managed from London, that Scotland's problems are better solved in London, and that Scotland's future can be decided only in London.
After the constructive and incisive speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), we had the Government's script read by the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. MacKenzie). He should get a new script writer. I could not believe that any Member of Parliament—and especially a Scottish Member—could sound so boring, so complacent and so platitudinous as the right hon. Gentleman contrived to be. I acquit him, of course, of such characteristics. The guilty men are in the Official Box, and I hope that when the Minister next has to make a speech we shall have a change of faces. No doubt it is too much to expect a change of attitudes.
The Minister spoke of the people of Scotland getting a fair share of the revenues, and he talked about infrastructure. The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), among others, drew attention to the problems of infrastructure. Over the past few years the Government have given special assistance in this direction, but it is significant that in the past two years the grant for special oil-related expenditure has been cut for the Grampian Region, for the Banff and Buchan district, for the Gordon district and also, I believe, for the Kincardine and Deeside district. So the ratepayers in these areas, which are bearing the brunt of the developments, are receiving less and less grant from the central Government to help them.
At bottom, as was rightly stressed by several hon. Members, speaking from different points of view, this is a problem of Scotland's industrial structure and its unemployment. Those of us who have

797
seen unemployment in our own constituencies or, perhaps, in our own families at times—that can happen to hon. Members in any part of the House—realise how destructive it is of the morale of individuals and, what is worse, of the morale of entire areas.
I can always remember the time when I brought visitors from a business college in London—this was before I came to the House—and took them round parts of Glasgow to look at the possibilities for development. What struck them more than anything else was the expressions on the faces of people standing at the street corners. I am sorry if the hon. Member for Aberdeen. South thinks that this is a laughing matter.
Mr. Sproat: I am laughing at you, Douglas. That is all.
Mr. Henderson: It is extremely serious, and does not call for frivolity of that kind.
The morale of many people in Scotland has been destroyed over a long time. Sometimes entire families have had the experience of seeing people without employment for two and even three generations. I am sorry to say that the situation has got worse.
Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Absolute rubbish.
Mr. Henderson: The cry of "Rubbish" goes out from the Tory Party Front Bench. After all, there is probably not much unemployment in their areas. But anyone who knows central Scotland knows that that state of affairs is all too prevalent. It is a blot and a shame on all of us who represent Scottish constituencies and on all of us who purport to speak for Scotland.
How is it that the resources of Scotland can be so mismanaged? How can we be so disorganised as a nation that we have not been able to tackle these problems fundamentally and in a lasting way over such a long time? The glib cry goes out—we heard it from the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton)—about international crises and the rest. Incidentally, I remember the assurance that the hon. Member for Fife, Central gave the House some time ago, that he intends, when Scotland becomes independent, to leave the country at once. In my view, that is a great incentive to all
798
of us on the SNP Bench to make sure that that independence comes quickly.
Here we have an opportunity. I remember an American visitor saying to me in 1970 "If I were ever asked what it was that could make a difference to any modern industrial country, I would say that it was the discovery of oil." Yet hon. Members have been telling us that we should almost be better off without it, that they are doing the Scots a favour by taking the revenues away down to London. "Look at all the headaches we save you by doing that", they say.
Mr. Sproat: Silly man.
Mr. Henderson: I can understand the rage and fury of the Conservative Front Bench—
Mr. George Robertson rose—
Mr. Henderson: No, I shall not give way. I have only a few minutes. I can understand the rage and fury of the Conservative Front Bench in the light of their record.
Mr. Fletcher: The SNP Leader should fire him.
Mr. Henderson: I think that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) has been using that phrase constantly during the past 10 minutes, and I am afraid that that is about all he has in his head. He has nothing else to contribute to the deabte on oil or on any other subject.
The attitude has been that Scotland can be saved from all its problems by London's taking control of Scotland's oil resources, so that the wise and benevolent men down here will spend it for Scotland, and spend it wisely, because, of course, the Scots would be thriftless and make a hash of it. That is the underlying argument running through the debate today.
Are the Scottish people as capable of coping with their problems as are any other people in the world?
Mr. Gray: It is quite plain that the hon. Gentleman is not.
Mr. Henderson: As I look at the Tory Front Bench, I can understand that there would be doubts about the answer to that question. We have no doubt what could be done for the Scottish people.

799
This place has had years and years in which to tackle the fundamental problems in Scottish society, and it has totally failed. Not over the four years of this Government, not over the past 10 or 15 years but for generations, this place has failed the people of Scotland.
Because this place has failed the people of Scotland, they are looking to new remedies and new ways of deciding matters for themselves. Basically, that is what the argument is about—whether the Scottish people should control things for themselves and should make their own decisions, or whether it is better to leave London to do it for them. That is the great divide between us. [Interruption.] I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North has been out for a good dinner or something and has enjoyed another three minutes to hear the Minister.
We have witnessed the attitude of the two Unionist parties. It should not be forgotten that the Labour Party is as much entitled to be called the Unionist party as are the Conservatives in this context. They join hands and decide that the Scottish people are not to have the right to determine their own affairs.
In Scotland, we have a record of social deprivation, of unemployment, of rotten housing, and many other things which need to put right in our society. When the oil was discovered, people in all parties in Scotland must have said that here was something which gave us the possibility of a fresh start. But the conclusions reached are different. The Labour Party has reached its conclusion. It regards the possibility of any such fresh start for the Scottish people as immoral, contrary to the findings of the Church of Scotland. I do not know what the Moderator will say to the Minister of State—the right hon. Member for Rutherglen. Labour regards it as immoral that the Scottish people should have this resource. The Conservatives want to hand everything to the international oil companies. That is their policy. They would he happy with that.
We, on the other hand, have said that the right approach is for the Scottish people to have control of these revenues through an oil fund which would be used to deal with unemployment, with social
800
dereliction, and with the other problems in Scottish society—dealing with them within Scotland, in a Scottish context, through a Scottish Government elected by the Scottish people.
When the vote comes tonight, hon. Members will be voting for or against Scotland, for or against Scotland's rights, for or against Scotland's oil, and for or against Scotland's future.
7.30 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): May I first respond to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) and his hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) who raised the question of progress in the North Sea? I know that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) is anxious that I should tell him about platform orders and say how encouraging the present position is. The hon. Member must recall that we had the third platform at Ninian, Ninian North, in the period that he mentioned. Since then we have had this regrettable hiatus which has been a problem for the yards. We have now begun to recover and I was able to announce, after the Oil Liaison Committee met last week, that there was confidence that there would be further orders in the next 18 months.
I can be specific about the development plans of the companies and their intentions.
The fields we expect to see developed in the next two years or so are Fulmar, Cormorant North, Buchan Magnus, N.W. Hutton and Maureen. Hon. Members have spoken about the platforms and the fields that are still being developed. If we were to take the point of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) and keep things as they are, what assurance is there that we would not end up producing more? If we go into the 1980s at the present rate we shall be producing a surplus of oil considerably in excess of what we need for self-sufficiency in the United Kingdom, namely 100 million tonnes.
We shall have to look at the question of depletion. We have to talk to the companies about this. It is certainly something that we take seriously. We cannot take the view—I do not want to caricature hon. Gentlemen—that we should let things rip and develop the

801
fields as fast as we can, getting out perhaps 200 million tonnes of oil. We would then be in a sad state in the 1990s and next century. We must husband our resources.
It is difficult to run a depletion policy. I do not accept the criticisms that the programme has slowed down because of BNOC. Even the Conservatives would have had to invent BNOC or use BP to find out lots of things which the companies would not have found out for us. I am talking in terms of depletion. We would like BNOC to find areas of oil for us which we would then keep as reserves. I believe that to be a good policy. Why should we ask a commercial company to do that? It would want a licence to develop the fields. There are good arguments for BNOC, quite apart from the Socialist arguments, which are also good arguments—
Mr. Sproat: Good arguments and Socialist arguments. There is a difference!
Dr. Mabon: No.
I accept the point about the smaller fields. We do not want to neglect the marginal fields. They are part of our resources. No one has come forward and made a case for the various tax concessions and reservations that we have. These are in the fundamental Act of 1975. We are perfectly willing to look afresh at this issue. I take the point about the current fiscal regime and the point made by the hon. Member for Dundee, East about whether the taxation policy is the wisest that we could adopt.
I readily admit that all of this is worthy of review.
I do not chastise the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) too much for his remarks. I am sorry that he made them because in our estimation it is wrong to write off Portavadie and Hunterston.
Mr. Gray: Why?
Dr. Mabon: I am not prepared to argue now whether it was a mistake to create Portavadie and Hunterston. The fact is that there was little resistance to our creating them. I have some news which I believe hon. Members will find pleasantly surprising. There are at least four companies expressing interest in these developments. One of these com-
802
panies—Howard Doris—has announced its interest in conjunction with a Dutch firm.
The companies are interested in the four existing concrete sites in Scotland and in going forward with various sophisticated developments which involve concrete. The Government would be foolish to say to these companies "We are not bothered. We are tired of carrying on along this road. We shall shut down the yards." It is conceivable that the orders we would get would come to these yards and not to others. I need not go into the technical reasons. Those in the oil business know what I mean.
Mr. Gray: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it is not the Govern-merit's intention to direct anyone to those two yards to the detriment of other yards which are surviving very well by their own efforts?
Dr. Mahon: I can truthfully say that that is not the case. There is one firm that is most anxious about Portavadie. The hon. Gentleman knows about that. That firm is in negotiation with us now. The other two firms have their own designs and ambitions. They are not necessarily in conflict with one another except inasmuch as the oil company concerned may choose one system rather than another, which would mean that the order would go to one yard rather than another. We shall not interfere. We are not a Government who decide technical matters. It is for those who are experts to decide and choose. We have our technical advisers but we do not dictate where the orders should go.
I mention this to show that we are making progress despite the fact that the oil companies—working on the frontiers of a new technology—have had their setbacks. I do not accept that this has anything to do with the bureaucracy of a Socialist Government, just as I would not say that it was because of free enterprise. Such suggestions are nonsense. The oil companies, BP, Shell and the rest, and BNOC, have done exceptionally well.
We have to take seriously the SNP view on depletion. The SNP has not thought through its policy, just as it had not thought matters through when it voted with the Conservatives to bring down the Government. It was doing that in defiance

803
of its own National Council which had resolved that it wanted to have the devolution Bill on the statute book. Perhaps it was not so much defiance as confusion. What a confused bunch they are.
Let me take the most confused of the lot, the hon. Member for Dundee, East. In 1974 the SNP—the hon. Gentleman was one of its advisers—told us that depletion control must begin at a production rate of between 40 million to 50 million tonnes a year. The hon. Gentleman changed his mind, and I do not blame him for that. Later he said that it was envisaged that the figure would be 50 million to 80 million tonnes a year. That was still in 1974.
In 1976 the hon. Gentleman declared, on behalf of the SNP, that the production rate at which depletion control would start was in the range between 30 million to 40 million tonnes a year. The hon. Gentleman's figures are going up and down. In January 1977 he said:
"Once the development expenditure has been incurred the economic costs involved in restraining production levels by more than 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. are high and should not normally be complated by the Government of Scotland."
The hon. Gentleman's figure was 50 million tonnes. We are bouncing around.
There is one more statement which gives the latest news from the front. The latest news is that the level we are to accept, as enunciated by the egghead in charge of the Scottish National Party's policy—the "honourable egghead"—is 60 million to 90 million tonnes a year. I want to take that as the latest information and to ask what it means in terms of these platforms that I have mentioned. It would mean that we did not build any of them. It would mean that we had probably made a mistake in authorising Ninian North, Murchison and Tartan. Shades of Kirkcaldy and Methil!
The fact is that we are at 38 million tonnes. Despite the criticism of progress, we shall get to 50 million or 60 million tonnes—and here we get to the bottom of the hon. Gentleman's depletion range. Therefore, if the SNP is wise, if we accept its opinion and the people of Scotland accept it, it will be 15 years, on present calculations, before the next platform is
804
ordered and built. We all know that that is applicable only to Scotland because Laing's, the only steel yard in England, has now shut down. There are no concrete yards in England. This is a specifically Scottish industry which, by decision of the SNP, would not have an order for 15 years. Lewis Offshore would not get another order of any kind for 15 years. Not another module builder in Scotland would get an order for 15 years.
Yet, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) said, this is one of the largest, indeed, the largest, of our industries. It is bigger than agriculture and mining. The SNP may sneer at 55,000 or 60,000 jobs, but according to its plans this industry, one of our largest, most profitable, and finest, would have to shut down for 15 years.
Mr. Gordon Wilson: I am grateful to the Minister for having given up that exaggerated repetition. The right hon. Gentleman will admit, if he is an honest man, that he has quoted me out of context. The situation about development and depletion policy is as follows. Starting from scratch, 50 million tonnes would be a reasonable figure to have in mind. But, of course, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware, as one produces oil, one has to deal with the situation where one has the developments under way, and in the statement, only part of which he quoted, he will be able to find that we shall have taken that into account. Secondly, I repudiate as a complete exaggeration the figure of 15 years. It is quite untrue. As he knows, with the high Scottish content of orders that we propose, there would be more jobs rather than fewer.
Dr. Mabon: Even if the hon. Gentleman could prove my calculations wrong—and I have taken good advice—and the figure was not 15 years but five, our offshore industry would be wiped out. Furthermore, when we come to the arguments about protectionism, does he realise that Ardersier is building a platform for Brazil? Does he realise that the opposite of protectionism is retaliation?
I will explain what we are trying to do. After the oil is gone, whenever that is going to be—it might be in this century or the beginning of the next—we in Scotlant want to be among the best of the

805
builders of offshore oil installations for the rest of the world. The irresponsibility of the SNP and its motion today is just the kind of thing that would do incredible damage to Scotland. I call on my right
Question accordingly negatived.
hon. and hon. Friends, and on all men of good will, to defeat the motion.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 14, Noes 131.

Division No. 237]

AYES

[7.43 p.m.

Crawford, Douglas

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Wigley, Dafydd

Evans, Gwynlor (Carmarthen)

Sillars, James

Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

Henderson, Douglas

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

MacCormick, Iain

Thompson, George

Mr. Andrew Welsh and

Reid, George

Watt, Hamish

Mrs. Margaret Bain.

NOES

Abse, Leo

Grocott, Bruce

Padley, Walter

Anderson, Donald

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Palmer, Arthur

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Pardoe, John

Armstrong, Ernest

Hooley, Frank

Parker, John

Ashley, Jack

Horam, John

Pendry, Tom

Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)

Huckfield, Les

Penhaligon, David

Bates, Alf

Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

Price, C. (Lewisham W)

Bonn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Radice, Giles

Bidwell, Sydney

Hunter, Adam

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

Janner, Greville

Richardson, Miss Jo

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

Jeger, Mrs Lena

Robinson, Geoffrey

Bradley, Tom

Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

Roderick, Caerwyn

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Judd, Frank

Rowlands, Ted

Buchanan, Richard

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Sandelson, Neville

Campbell, Ian

Kinnock, Neil

Sever, John

Canavan, Dennis

Lambie, David

Shaw, Arnold (llford South)

Carmichael, Neil

Lamborn, Harry

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Lamond, James

Smith, Rt. Hon. John (N Lanarkshire)

Cartwright, John

Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

Snape, Peter

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Lee, John

Spearing Nigel

Coleman, Donald

Litterick, Tom

Spriggs, Leslie

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Loyden, Eddie

Stallard, A. W.

Cronin, John

Luard, Evan

Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

Stoddart, David

Cryer, Bob

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Strang, Gavin

Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

McElhone, Frank

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Davidson, Arthur

MacFarquhar, Roderick

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Maclennan, Robert

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Deakins, Eric

Madden, Max

Tomlinson, John

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Doig, Peter

Meacher, Michael

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Dormand, J. D.

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Ward, Michael

Dunnett, Jack

Milian, Rt Hon Bruce

Watkins, David

English, Michael

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

White, James (Pollok)

Evans, loan (Aberdare)

Molloy, William

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Evans, John (Newton)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

Moyle, Rt. Hon. Roland

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Newens, Stanley

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

Ogden, Eric

Wrigglesworth, Alan

George, Bruce

O'Halloran, Michael

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Gould, Bryan

Ovenden, John

Mr. James Hamilton and

Graham, Ted

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Mr. James Tinn.

WALES (ECONOMIC SITUATION)
Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Snape.]
7.55 p.m.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I am glad of the opportunity to raise a subject which has been a theme in previous debates on Welsh Days, in Welsh Grand Committees and, indeed, in debates on the economy in general over the past four years and longer. In opening the debate, my mind goes back to the very first week after the March 1974 General Election. On that occasion I remember that there was an opportunity to debate the economic problems facing Wales. The fact which at that time stared everyone in the face was the failure of successive Governments to bring forward a pattern of balanced economic development in Wales.
I remember speakers who had just joined the Government Benches understandably criticising the previous Conservative Administration for its failures in this direction, as well as the tragic economic developments of the last few weeks of 1973 and the first two months of 1974. At that time, hon. Members of all parties were looking forward to a way of working ourselves out of the economic mess into which we had got ourselves. In doing so, we wanted to ensure that it was not just a search for a boom which would bring benefits to the South-East of England and the Midlands. We also wanted a pattern which would ensure that Wales did not retain the same sort of economic blackspots that it had suffered in the 1920s and 1930s and, to a lesser extent, since the war. Examples of that pattern also, no doubt, existed in other parts of the United Kingdom. There were areas which had suffered because of the changing economic patterns over the last century, the rundown of major industries and the failure to ensure that in their place were developed balanced economic opportunities.
I initiate this debate not because the economy is an end in itself but because, unless we get the economic circumstances in Wales right, there is no prospect of ensuring the survival of our communities. The possible loss of communities—as we
808
have seen happen in the Heads of the Valleys in Glamorgan and Gwent and the old slate quarrying villages of Gwynedd—means that we also lose our culture, language and everything else which is dear to us. Therefore, the objective of obtaining balanced economic development in Wales is one which is a service to the community as a whole and not an end in itself. But unless we get that balance in development, we shall continue to see declining villages, schools being closed, young people leaving, an ageing population, an increase in the pressure on the social services which that leads to, and the decaying of the whole fabric of a community.
I am sure that hon. Members of all parties will accept as an objective the need to ensure that there is as reasonable an opportunity as possible for the maximum number of people to have adequate job opportunities, and a future within their own community. Since 1925, Wales has seen the collapse of the coal industry as the major employer. At that time, 225,000 people were employed in the Welsh coal industry. That figure is now about 35,000. In one generation that represents an astronomical decline.
A decline of similar proportions is now taking place in the steel industry. which is another major industry in Wales. As steel plants close, so again—as in the history of the coal industry—whole communities can be written off. We know the fear that has been experienced in places such as Ebbw Vale and Shotton because the people know that when these industries end there is a very great doubt about the ongoing viability of their communities.
It is not only in terms of manufacturing industry that we see these problems facing us. We see them also in the agricultural sector and the rundown that there has been in agricultural employment. As a species, the farm labourer has almost gone out of existence. The figures are minuscule compared with what they were only just after the war. With this, we have also seen the amalgamation of farms into large units and the purchase of farms by institutional investors and people from outside Wales, and even from outside Britain, which have themselves led to difficulties facing young people going into agriculture, leading to a position which has aggravated rural depopulation.

809
The industries which have grown in the wake of the decline of the old industries have been scattered and sporadic and they have not in themselves brought a full answer to our problems. Since the war we have seen successive Governments trying, by various policies—development areas, special areas and the rest of it—to induce growth from outside and to transfuse industrial activity from sectors outside Wales. In some areas this has succeeded to some extent, but I do not think that anyone will deny that it has been patchy.
We have seen some firms move into Wales and succeed. Perhaps I should declare my own past interest, having worked at one time for Hoover, at Merthyr Tydfil. When I was there, the company employed about 5,000 people. Now, in an expansion plan, it is hoped to increase that to 7,500. That is one of the instances of a major modern manufacturing concern coming into Wales and succeeding. But many of the branch factories which have come into Wales have come merely in order to get the grants available to them and, sadly, we all know of examples of those which, after a few years, have packed up and left.
A characteristic of those which have succeeded and stayed—I include amongst them even the largest, the Hoovers of this world—is that, being branch factories and manufacturing plants, they cannot give a balance of employment opportunities. They have not succeeded in ensuring that jobs are available for management staff, office staff and technical staff at the Welsh level. Very often these jobs are at head office level and outside Wales, so that the job opportunities in many of the Welsh plants have been stilted and geared towards factory floor employment and very often without as great a proportion of the technical and commercial opportunities that would arise in the company as a whole throughout the United Kingdom.
Where we have succeeded in getting development, we have not always had the right development. But, sadly, there are many more areas which have not had any development. I think of my own constituency and the failure that there has been to fill the empty advance factories standing there. We accept that advance factories are useful in themselves. They make it easier to attract develop-
810
ments when the economy is improving. But advance factories standing empty for a long period can become a depressant upon a community. People start to think—especially people from outside—"Why is it that these factories are standing empty with no one coming in?" So far, we have failed to get a structure of policy which has led to the filling of these factories as well as the construction of them.
There are reasons for this, and we have laboured those reasons in the past, but it is right to underline them again. The development of the infrastructure is fundamental. The M4 in Glamorgan has been developed, and we have seen in the case of the Ford project at Bridgend how the infrastructure in terms of road and rail communications can play a vital part in locating a major plant. Unfortunately, in many other parts of Wales—this is true of the counties of Gwynedd, Clwyd and in Mid-Wales—we have not had this type of modern road network which is so essential for manufacturing industry. I know of companies which have thought of setting up in my own constituency but which have felt that the communications have not been adequate.
It is not only road communications which are important, and at a time when we have 90,000 people out of work one would have thought that there was a good case for pressing ahead even faster with the development of road communications —I think of the A55 and the A5 in North Wales. Increasingly important is air communications. Only this week, I had a letter from an electronics company in America interested in the possibility of developing in Gwynedd, having links with the University College of Bangor which had led the company to consider Gwynedd as a location. But one of the prime considerations was the availability of air connections with Gwynedd.
As we know, although there has been a welcome development of an air link from Hawarden down to Cardiff airport in the last few months, with connections through to international flights from Brussels, there has not been any development of air links through to the more westerly parts of Wales. We would do well to look at locations such as Valley, in Anglesey, Llandwrog, in my own constituency, Llanbedr in Merioneth, down in Pembroke and in Swansea, as possibilities for an integrated air service which

811
could link through to Cardiff and to Brussels for international flights. That is an important consideration in the development of industry.
The other sector of industry that we have seen developing at a very fast rate in the past two decades in my part of Wales, in Gwynedd and in Dyfed, has been the tourist industry. However, that industry is perhaps an example which underlines the imbalance in our economy and the need for engendering balanced economic development. For climatic reasons, unfortunately, the season in Wales is relatively short—two or three months. We have a period between the middle or end of May and the first week in September when all the tourist sector has to make the money which will keep it going for the rest of the year. We have an economy working at 200 per cent. capacity for a few weeks in the summer and at 10 per cent. capacity for the rest of the year. This is a classic definition of a state of dis-economy. We have an industry, with all the investment that it entails, working for a short period in excess of its capacity but for most of the time way down below capacity.
In the tourist industry itself we have seen some developments at the least beneficial end of the industry which have soaked up and saturated the tourist market in Wales and yet have not brought as great a return as one would have hoped. The hope always is to see the maximisation of the type of tourism which brings the most revenue that will stay in Wales. Perhaps the day trippers are the sector which brings in least in this way. We have heard of the people who fill their car with petrol and bring their sandwiches with them leave their litter and drive home having spent virtually nothing.
In looking at the development of tourism as one of the inputs into the economy, we must consider not only the extension of the season but the balance between various parts of the tourist sector, not least the international sector.
Tied in with all this, looking especially at the replacement of jobs and the need for manufacturing industry, we must face the reality that there are many fewer footloose supranational companies now than there were 10 years ago. The pattern has changed. I cannot help feeling that we
812
must look in the future to the possibility of putting more emphasis on encouraging young people who have the talent and who have the ideas to develop those ideas themselves in their localities. This means not only having the right incentives and the right assistance available to them through the agencies that we have, but also engendering the right approach, especially in our education sector.
We want to make sure that we do not develop the brightest of our people to a state where they leave college or university, perhaps at the age of 21, feeling that they must go into a secure job and to be reluctant to take a risk. These are the people who can be planting the acorns which will grow into the big trees of employment in the future.
That has not happened sufficiently in Wales in the past, for a number of reasons. One is security of employment, which is totally understandable, given the Welsh background. Another is the experience that these people have in their own areas, and of course we have not had the background and experience in industry in the way that we might have had in an area such as Birmingham. We need a new emphasis in this direction to give young people the motivation to go out and start enterprises for themselves. If they succeed, the companies which they found will grow, will develop job opportunities, and will, optimistically, persist in the future and not be the type which close down at the first ill wind of economic recession.
Finally, I draw attention to the role of the various agencies in this question of getting a balanced economic growth in Wales—particularly the Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales. These two bodies were set up with the very ambitious objectives of cracking the problems that we face. To some extent they have made a good start. In the more limited time that it has been in existence the rural board has achieved more than the WDA.
We are worried that the Welsh Development Agency and the rural board are to some extent working in a vacuum. I do not apologise for underlining once again that unless these agencies have guidelines in terms of quantifiable objectives and a strategy for reaching those objectives, geographically and sectorally

813
determined, we will not get the maximum benefits that we could out of these agencies. In a nutshell, we need an economic plan for Wales.
More and more bodies have been pressing for this. The Council of the Principality, the report on "Overseas Investment in Wales", and a number of influential individuals have also pressed for such a plan. Some of these individuals have not previously accepted the case for the plan, but in the last six months they have admitted that the case for it is now unanswerable.
Unless we do get this movement, we shall continue to have the imbalance of the past. In the dying days of this Parliament—perhaps this is the last debate we shall have on economic development in Wales—I hope that we shall see the end of argument against a background of rejecting this type of economic approach. I hope that in the new winds of a new Parliament at least we shall have an opportunity of moving forward with a new approach.
Mr. D. E. Thomas: Before my hon. Friend leaves this salient point will he comment on the fact that county councils in Wales now undertake far more economic planning and long-term projections of job needs than the Welsh Office? Does he agree that in the structure plans of each county there are projections based on population and current job opportunities, and projections for job shortfall? There are no national projections. Will my hon. Friend urge the Minister to tell us, when he replies to the debate, whether it is now the intention of the Welsh Office to use the data in the structure plans to produce at least a job shortfall calculation for Wales as a whole?
Mr. Wigley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing in that point. Although we have seen development plans for every part of Wales, with quantified figures—some more questionable than others—of the number of jobs needed in each area, it strikes us devastatingly that one cannot have county development plans in isolation. For example, take the comparison between Gwynedd and Clwyd. It is true that there is an interface between these two counties. The same thing must he true of the interface between
814
Mid-Glamorgan, South Glamorgan and perhaps even West Glamorgan. The roads cross the county borders and there is a mutual travel-to-work area. To take these countries in isolation is not good enough. They are woven together. Therefore there must be an overall package—an all-Wales development plan.
I can see the Secretary of State smiling and I have no doubt that he is thinking that an all-Wales development plan has interfaces outside Wales as a whole. Of course it does. In the present context of United Kingdom economic development, and within the economic development of the EEC, we must consider how to divert more towards the infrastructure in Wales.
Unless we have it right at the Welsh level we shall lose the opportunities of the agencies that have been set up in Wales. Therefore, if it is not already in the manifesto of the Labour Party for the next election, I suggest that the Government should consider writing in an economic plan for Wales now. This could be one of the best bits of good news that we have had for a long time for overcoming the problem of unbalanced development in the economy of Wales.
8.15 p.m.
Mr. Donald Anderson: The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) has opened this debate in a lucid and relatively non-controversial way. However, I must admit that I am still rather confused about his concept of balance in the Welsh economy. We clearly cannot see Wales as a self-contained entity and look at the balance between North Wales and South Wales, for example. Certainly one can see an interface between mid-Glamorgan and West Glamorgan, but for the life of me I cannot see such an interface between the structure plans of Clwyd and West Glamorgan.
The hon. Member conceded that in the United Kingdom context there must be a considerable degree of interdependence, as has been heavily underlined by the recent Ireson and Tomkins study of input and output relativities between Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom. If, for example, we are thinking of a balance between the manufacturing sector and the service sector in Wales, what sort of criteria do we employ to decide on the model that we have in

815
mind? This is the sort of difficulty involved in talking of a balance within the Welsh context.
There are, of course, many negative elements which the Government will be ready to concede, particularly in unemployment. But there are also a number of positive elements which I hope to stress.
During the last 15 years we have seen what a number of economic commentators have described as a second industrial devolution in Wales. There have ben a series of major revolutions in the coal industry, in our farm structure and in transport. Now we are in the middle of a revolution in metal manufacturing, particularly in the steel industry. The restructuring of Ebbw Vale and East Moors —decisions where the Secretary of State took a personal lead in mobilising the total resources of Government to meet the major problems of these twin areas—is an example of this.
In 1950 more than 50 per cent. of our industrial employment was in the coal and steel sectors. Now more than two-thirds of our industrial employment is in sectors other than coal and steel. The losses in coal and steel account for almost all the job losses in Wales. Yet since 1965, it is fair to say, the rate of decline of industrial employment has been lower in Wales.
Obviously we need new investment, but we need it at a most difficult time. If we ask where the new investment will come from we are told that there is no footloose private industry, particularly that which is labour intensive. A Ford investment comes once in a generation, and we have had that in Wales. There are no additional major plans for decentralisation of Government Departments in Wales. We face a time of increase in the labour supply, partly because there are more women in the labour market and partly because of the increase in the number of school leavers.
We might argue that the very success of the Government's regional policy in Wales in the past decade has led to the new concentration on inner-city problems elsewhere. If one goes to Battersea, for example, one sees a hole where the Morganite factory was which has since moved to my constituency. Part of the imbalance in the employment structure of Birmingham and London has been caused by the
816
relative success of our regional policies in the past.
There has been a considerable amount of diversification leading to a healthier balance within Welsh industry, and all the objective commentators accept that the Welsh economy is being adjusted in the right direction—towards the formation of an increasingly modern, diverse and resilient manufacturing base.
Many of the greatest technological changes have come about relatively recently. One thinks of the aluminium investment at Anglesey, by BP at Baglan Bay, as well as the Amoco investment at Milford Haven. As an example of the change in the Welsh economy, I would point to the fact that whereas 120,000 men were employed in the mining industry just after the war, now 30,000 men are employed in NCB mines in Wales and today more people are employed in manufacturing firms in Wales with links with the United States than are employed in coal mining. What gives confidence for the future is the fact that 50,000 people are now employed by more than 500 firms which have moved new capacity into Wales or completed new operations since 1966. Since 1974 under the Labour Government over 140 manufacturing plants have opened in Wales, employing 8,500 people.
I turn to consider the question of balance and the position as it affects small industry in Wales. I accept the psychological incubus to which the hon. Member for Caernarvon drew attention in our search for security at all costs and the relative lack of development of local entrepreneurial skills. I hope that he hon. Gentleman will accept the new climate of encouragement of small industries under the Labour Government, particularly the new boost given in the April Budget. As a further example, the great majority of units in the Welsh Development Agency advance factory programme are of 5,000 sq. ft. or less. Indeed, in Portmadoc, Llandovery and Caernarvon the units are as small as 1,500 sq. ft. Local authorities are now taking a much greater lead in developing their own industrial units for small industries.
Only this week the Welsh Development Agency announced a new counselling service which will be of considerable importance to small industry. Such

817
industry may have expertise in a defined sector, but professionalism in marketing and other areas may be desperately needed. I hope that the Welsh Development Agency will also encourage "missionary work" among our major employers to find opportunities for local small industry which may be in the immediate vicinity. Thus, there is a move in the right direction towards a balance of activity.
I speak within a context of severe world difficulties, with increasing competition from the "threshold" countries such as Korea and Taiwan. For example, it is thought that we should consider moving away from the production of bulk steel—because, owing to labour costs, we are likely in that area to be subject to increasing competition from Third World countries—towards specialist steels. One might say that the loss of steel jobs in Wales is less than might have been expected, given the gap between capacity and demand and the relatively low productivity of our United Kingdom steel manufacturing plants compared with our major competitors. If we have in mind the loss of £30 million in the Welsh coalfields in the past year, the same argument might apply to coal.
Let me refer to one factor which was not referred to by the hon. Member for Caernarvon. There is the move towards a greater balance in the fact of a continuing increase in the number of job opportunities for women in Wales. Although I concede that we started from a low base, the female activity rate in Wales is moving increasingly closer to the national average. There has been an important improvement in the substructure for future expansion.
We are making Wales more attractive because of the accepted success of the Derelict Land Unit, now absorbed in the Welsh Development Agency. We are making Wales more accessible. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the M4 and the coming improvements in the A5. He could also have mentioned in the same context the high-speed train which in travel terms has brought Wales so much closer to London.
Wales was the first area to receive the high-speed train service. Furthermore, there is evidence of new investment throughout Mid-Wales. There appears
818
to be no township without its new factory and there are now more industrial employees in that area than there are farmers.
Let me deal with the Plan for Wales. Do we need such a plan? It is certainly academically respectable to argue in favour of such a plan. I am rather sceptical of the concept of a total Welsh plan and I favour much more the idea of knitting together the structure plans. For example, in the three Glamorgans and Gwent the Secretary of State has appointed a single inspector to seek to iron out the inconsistencies and contradictions that might otherwise appear.
Mr. D. E. Thomas: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's anxiety to defend the official Welsh Office line on economic planning, but he is questioning the validity of all-Wales economic planning. What are his views on the regional economic plans which have been developed in England?
Mr. Anderson: If there is a real region economically, I believe such plans may be well-founded. But I said earlier that there was no interface between, say, the economy of Clwyd and that of West Glamorgan, but there is a necessary interface between West Glamorgan and Gwent, though not contiguous, as part of industrial South Wales. The economic regions will not be constrained by artificial political frontiers. The economy of Mid-Wales is very much linked with the industrial Midlands—for example, North Wales with Merseyside. It is nonsensical to think that one can cut Wales aside as a self-contained unit and plan to have a balance between what is happening in North Wales and in South Wales. The reality is that one can and should do so in industrial South Wales.
Although I was accused by the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) of supporting the Welsh Office line, I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend's approach is more realistic but I also believe that it is not sufficient. Therefore, I hope that he will be bolder and will seek positively to iron out the contradictions. There should be an attempt within a defined economic area, as in industrial South Wales, to plan in a meaningful way. We should have some sort of framework in which coherent locational decisions can be made and we should

819
seek to cluster relatively similar industries within certain areas. For example, metal manufacturing activities could be clustered in the Swansea-Port Talbot complex. Furthermore, this would have relevance in seeking links with the local technical colleges. That is the kind of planning I should like to see and it goes beyond simply seeking to knit together the several structure plans under one planning inspector. We need something bolder in concept than that which is currently envisaged by the Welsh Office, but nothing as grandiose as an overall Welsh plan.
Mr. Wigley: Although the hon. Gentleman says that there is no interface between Clwyd and West Glamorgan, does he accept that the Welsh Development Agency covers the whole of Wales, it has a fund of £100 million to be used in the whole of Wales, and it has to determine priorities between different parts of Wales? Is that not a reason for having a plan to help to determine the priorities?
Mr. Anderson: But the basis of those decisions will be the natural economic regions within Wales and my argument is that the natural economic regions will be, say, industrial South Wales, Mid-Wales and North Wales. That is the essential context of the decisions that will have to be made by the Welsh Development Agency.
This is a difficult period for the Western economies as a whole. There are basic structural problems, low growth, little expectation of major growth in the immediate future, but Wales is well placed. It has a stronger economic base as a result of Government decisions, particularly those made recently. I believe that we have made major strides towards that balance which is the subject of the motion.
8.29 p.m.
Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I recently came across a speech by a Labour Cabinet Minister which seemed to sum up effectively the Government's present political approach. It presented a vivid scene of the political situation in Britain. The Minister said:
"Yes, I am pretty sure that we shall have a fine autumn. There will be beautiful autumn tints of happiness in many a home and many people will say with increased conviction 'Labour gets things done'."
820
That has the ring of Sunny Jim and an election about it, but those were the words of Dr. Dalton, speaking to the Labour Party conference in 1946—just about six months before the Government closed two-thirds of British industry at two days notice given on a Friday afternoon in the House as Britain entered the 1947 fuel crisis. Soon there were 2 million people temporarily out of work.
In the light of that experience, perhaps I may be forgiven a little scepticism as I consider the picture that is being painted now and the whole question of economic planning.
Mr. D. E. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is going back into history. Will he give way?
Mr. Edwards: No, I have hardly started and this is a short debate. It ill becomes Plaid Cymru Members to talk about going back into history, because they seldom get beyond the fifth century in their speeches.
The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) gave an amiable and uncontroversial assessment of the Welsh economy and expressed some unexceptionable aspirations, but his speech was singularly short of specific remedies. Indeed, he did not advance one proposal or elaborate on the form that a balanced economy should take until the end of his speech, when he referred to the grand national economic development plan.
I was flabbergasted that the hon. Gentleman did not choose to spell out the details of the sort of economic development plan that Plaid Cymru would present to us or tell us exactly what balance he thought should be provided for the Welsh economy. Of course, Plaid Cymru has done that in the past, and when considering balance in the Welsh economy we are entitled to look at some of Plaid Cymru's past proposals. In 1970, it proposed an economic plan for Wales. Essentially, it set out to calculate the number of jobs that would be needed in Wales and to describe where and in what form they should be provided.
An extraordinary and fundamental weakness of that plan was that nowhere in its 127 pages of analysis and prescription did it stop to consider who might wish to buy the products and services that were to be provided. I found it hard to take

821
seriously a plan which did not consider the market in which the Welsh industry and economy had to operate or the nature of the competition that we faced.
Mr. Wigley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Edwards: I do not think that in a short debate such as this I should be expected to give way at the end of every second sentence. Many other hon. Members wish to take part in the debate and it would be inconsiderate to the House if I gave way frequently—especially as I have not yet said anything very controversial.
Mr. Wigley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Edwards: I wish to say more about the Plaid Cymru plan. I shall give way later, so that the hon. Gentleman can have his say.
The plan was unashamedly political rather than economic and, like so many other grandiose plans, it subordinated economic reality to political faith. Nowhere was that more evident than in its total failure to give any weight to the importance of tourism, which the hon. Member for Caernarvon mentioned only briefly. Another example of the subordination of economic and other realities to a political faith has been demonstrated by Plaid Cymru's opposition to the arrival of defence jobs in Cardiff in the last few years.
Another extraordinary feature of the plan was that it sought to argue seriously that it was important to have a detailed and complete road structure within Wales, but it was suggested in at least two parts of the plan that it was doubtful whether it was a good idea to have the M4 from Cardiff to the English border, apparently on the ground that this might allow the English to come in and compete too successfully with the Welsh.
That, too, is not really surprising, because when we turn to the economic paper that Plaid Cymru presented to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in December 1976 we find that it is protectionist in its outlook. It wishes to isolate itself behind tariff barriers in a tightly directed economy. How else could it possibly achieve the detailed and specific distribution of certain industries to certain places
822
that was its prescription back in 1970? For example, there were to be yacht building and marine food processing in Glan Menai, clothing and furniture manufacture in Clwyd, printing and a publishing industry in Aberystwyth, and mechanical handling equipment, metal cans and central heating in the Amman Valley.
Plaid Cymru spelled out in minute detail the sort of jobs that should go to each area. All that was to be achieved by an expensive but inadequately costed combination of roads, industrial parks and State-controlled services, including the national airline to which the hon. Member for Caernarvon referred briefly, and a national development authority that at the end of the day would direct firms and people to its carefully pre-planned locations. There is little in the preparation of such plans that inspires my confidence. In that respect I share the views of the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson).
The Plaid Cymru plan is based on a series of predictions, the majority of which have been falsified by events. We are bound to ask the exact nature of its plan. Is it a prediction or an aspiration? Is it permissive or is it imperative? Does it matter if it all goes wrong? It is clear that such plans are unscientific and inevitably become political rather than economic documents. In February 1974 would the Labour Party have prepared a plan and written into it the prediction that unemployment in Wales would rise to over 90,000?
Mr. Anderson: Or that Fords might go to Bridgend?
Mr. Edwards: Yes—or that Fords might go to Bridgend? That is so for rather different reasons. There is the impossibility of forecasting that sort of event rather than the political embarrassment of doing so.
Mr. Walter Padley rose—
Mr. Edwards: No. I refused to give way to the hon. Member for Caernarvon.
Mr. Padley: The hon. Gentleman referred to my constituency.
Mr. Edwards: I did not refer to the constituency of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley) in any detail. I

823
responded to an intervention made by the hon. Member for Swansea, East.
The effort that goes into the production of such plans is immense, but if a Chancellor is not able to predict events from month to month it is hard to understand how they can be predicted effectively over decades. Plans are launched in a great flurry of enthusiasm, as in 1965, only to be scrapped a year or so later.
Mr. Wigley: The hon. Gentleman has spent a considerable time attacking the document that my party published in 1970. He has not chosen to do so in any detail. It is clear that he has not read more than half the plan. It consisted of 280 pages, and he referred to only 127. Does he accept that in the private sector, which he likes so much, companies produce development plans? Despite the vagaries and uncertainties of the economic world, they find the production of such plans much better than going about their business haphazardly and in a vacuum. They are recognised as being beneficial in industrial and economic terms in the private sector. Surely that benefit can also exist in the public sector.
Mr. Edwards: Such grandiose plans tend to produce political aspirations, which the industrial plan does not. The plan of the factory can be tightly realistic. It is referred to only within a small circle and does not seek to convince or persuade others. The real weakness of planning on this kind of scale is that it is based on the unfounded and alarming assumption that a small group of experts can decide where future successes will arise. The things that follow then become inevitable. Either one drops the whole thing in embarrassed silence when predictions go wrong or one makes them happen. That can be done only in an isolationist, closely directed State, which is likely to be incompatible with economic freedom.
Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Edwards: Well—
Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: It is one of the courtesies of the House. In any event, the hon. Gentleman is making a very long speech for a short debate. He said that the Labour Government produced a
824
plan in 1965 and abandoned it 12 months later. What plan was that? I was responsible for the plan that was published in 1967, which was not abandoned. I am not saying that it was perfect—it was imperfect in many ways—but it originated the M4, which the hon. Gentleman and others said was a reasonable proposal and actually supported. If he is to make these statements, he should get his facts right.
Mr. Edwards: I was referring to the then Mr. George Brown's economic plan. I know that the right hon. Gentleman's plan for Wales was very important, but it was not the only plan produced by the Labour Government at that time. It is an interesting commentary on planning that the right hon. Gentleman has apparently forgotten that grandiose exercise in national planning. A plan as specific in its remedies as Plaid Cymru's must involve direction of labour as well as of companies. I have no reason to believe that that kind of isolationist, directed economy is likely to produce better results than one which is left to free market forces. Indeed, the experience of the twentieth century suggests precisely the opposite.
I do not believe that it is the proper function of Governments—at least in a free society—to impose an exact pattern or to build to a precise blueprint of that kind, and I am sceptical about the outcome.
Goverments can affect the balance in the relationship between the productive and the consuming parts of the economy. In Wales, the Government have the power decisively to affect the balance between a weak private sector and a top-heavy centralised public sector, which, for historic reasons, is concentrated on the declining industries.
Governments, by their policies, can play a large part in deciding whether we are to have a vigorous, innovative, energetic, high-production, high-wage, expanding economy, with the strength to provide improved social benefits, or a rigid, protected, immobile, stagnant, low-production, low-wage economy, providing worse social benefits. The Government, by their policy decisions of the last few months, have shown that they have opted for the latter rather than for the former, and have revealed the stark contrast

825
between what they and the Conservative Party offer to the British electorate.
For two years the Government told us that to cut public expenditure was impossible and that to do so would drive up unemployment. Along came the IMF and forced them to do it, and unemployment began marginally to fall. Last spring, having taken measures that could have put us on the road to recovery, they threw them all away and got the balance wrong by increasing public expenditure again and resisting tax cuts which could have revitalised the economy. The June financial crisis and the fourteenth Budget became inevitable with the decisions on public expenditure earlier in the year.
In simple terms, the Government destroyed confidence in the market and found that they could not borrow. That is where the balance of the Welsh economy is principally wrong at present. It is wrong in terms not of industrial structure but of the relationship of income to expenditure. On top of all the borrowing of recent years, we suddenly had a commitment to increase public spending at more than twice the Chancellor's most optimistic estimate of the growth in the economy, with the market well aware that his previous estimates had proved wildly over-optimistic. Therefore, the confidence of the market collapsed. As a result, we had the credit squeeze and, above all, the increase in the employment tax.
Once again, the wealth-creating part of our society is being squeezed to accommodate the Government's expansionist follies. Once again, on the Chancellor's own admission, the liquidity of our largest companies is being bled when they should be poised for fresh investment. For many small businesses the credit squeeze will be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
I am told that Welsh industry has taken it very badly, that the harshest comments are being made, and that it has had a very bad effect on confidence. The most cautious estimate of the Welsh CBI is that the measure will destroy 3,000 jobs in Wales. That figure would be higher, it says, but for the Welsh over-dependence on public sector employment. But it is as well to remember that the tax applies to public sector jobs too, and I believe that the impact will be greater than the CBI estimates.
826
It seems incredible that at a time when we are trying to encourage job creation in the regions, the Government should impose an extra tax which will fall most severely on labour-intensive sectors. It is a striking fact that gross expenditure on the special employment and training measures at present being operated will be just over £500 million in the current financial year, while the extra tax is taking £500 million away from industry.
There is growing complacency among the Government about the current unemployment figures. We must be thankful for any improvement, but it would be wrong to imagine that things are getting better for Wales. Unemployment there this June is about 7,000 higher than it was in June last year, and almost 13,000 higher than in June the previous year. Between June and July last year unemployment in Wales jumped by 12,400 as the schoolleavers came on to the register. A jump on a comparable scale this July would put unemployment perilously close to the 100,000 mark. When we take account of redundancies already announced, and the effect of the Chancellor's recent tax on employment, the prospect that that figure will be reached remains horrifyingly real.
The Government claim credit for the success of their emergency measures. They say that they have saved between 50,000 and 60,000 jobs in Wales. But there is a world of difference between temporary employment and genuine long-term jobs. In the present desperate situation, job creation and work experience schemes have an essential and important part to play, just as do analgesics in medicine. Undoubtedly it is also true that the more these schemes can be directed towards preparation for future employment the more valuable they will be. I shall have something to say about that in the Welsh Grand Committee next Wednesday.
In spite of all that, the jobs provided under these schemes remain very much second-best for those involved and they disguise the real scale of unemployment. That remains a black indictment of Labour's economic record in the past few years.
I should have liked to comment on the latest of a long stream of rather unreliable industrial production figures, but

827
apparently the computer has broken down, and the latest statistics that are available take us only up to the end of last year. These figures, which were pretty poor, showed that last year we were producing less than in 1976, that we were producing less than in 1974, in the three-day working week, and substantially less than at the peak of production in 1973.
Since then, I will be told, there has been something of a recovery in consumer spending as the pre-election boom-let gets under way. The CBI in Wales tells me that overall it can detect only a slight upturn. It describes conditions as patchy. It points out that some sectors, notably steel, are still doing badly, and it says that it can detect no long-term optimism. The order books of industry do not stretch very far ahead.
So, after four and half years of Labour Government, there still seems to be no real prospect of a break-out from the era of stagnation, low production and high unemployment that has characterised, and indeed, always characterises, the years of Socialism.
We live in a world in which industry is debilitated by high taxes, made complacent by subsidy and burdened by bureacracy. We live also in a world of rapid change. There is a terrible danger that economic plans will act as a barrier to change, that a particular concept of a balanced economy will stultify, that political pressure will provide the temptation to resist changes which are an essential forerunner of new growth.
The Government's role in all this, in industrial terms, must be to protect people against the too violent impact, in social terms, of change, to provide a developing infrastructure for the future, to provide assistance for those who are setting up or moving, and to do that by reacting flexibly to economic rather than to political demands.
It is because I believe in regional policy in those terms and because I am impressed by the realistic approach of those involved in Wales that I have become a convert—belatedly, I freely admit —to the Development Agency concept, and would pursue regional policies based on it.
828
Above all, what we must do is to create a general economic climate for high levels of production, high wages and high profits. We believe that that will he done not by Socialist or Plaid Cymru planning but by releasing the energies, enterprise and skill of individuals. We must recreate incentive, allow people to keep more of what they earn, restore differentials, and cut direct taxation at all levels.
The real hope for future jobs in Wales lies not with grandoise plans for a balanced economy but in the hundreds of small and expanding businesses that can react through the market to changing demand and provide a living, flexible and dynamic economy and in Government policies that recognise that it is their prime duty to create the climate in which those developing businesses can succeed. It is that approach that offers the best hope for the Welsh people.
8.52 p.m.
Mr. Ifor Davies: The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) spent a great deal of time talking about planning, even saying that he is a convert to the work of the WDA. I shall follow him in those matters later in my speech
However, I should like to turn straight away to the opening speech of the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) and the motion. The hon. Member emphasised the need for a balanced economic order for Wales, but I did not detect in that speech equal emphasis on the need to recognise the dependence of Wales on outside economic forces. There is a need to realise that Wales needs to obtain the fresh industry required to strengthen the basis of future prosperity. Wales must compete not just with the other assisted areas within the United Kingdom but also with the whole of Western Europe and the rest of the Western world.
The fact is that the Welsh economy is today undergoing a transformation as sweeping and far reaching in scope—but much faster in pace—as all the changes that it went through during the industrial revolution. The earlier transformation was from a predominantly agricultural economy to dependence upon a few heavy industries. The first stage was based on the exploitation of limited iron and mineral resources. The second stage

829
arose from a worldwide demand for coal for the rapid development of transport, steel and constructive industries.
At present, Wales is passing through a period of unusually rapid economic change. The changes now in progress are largely from the basic industries to newer industries, such as chemicals and oil refining, aircraft and motors, electronic engineering and electronics.
The increase in adoption of automation is also bringing fresh challenges. The greatest challenge of all, of course, demands planning. It is said that planning means different things to different people. I recall Stafford Cripps referring to planning as
"…the most potent principle of social cohesion that man possesses—and the most effective means of transforming a community into a just society."
That is true, but the essence of planning lies in trying to identify and where possible to quantify the problems and then seeking to work out in the light of the available resources the policies that best promote their solution.
These are the very objectives which have guided the Government in dealing with the Welsh economy. In recent years an economic strategy has been pursued with two overriding aims—first, to reduce inflation and, second, to regenerate industry. The success achieved in the fight against inflation is self-evident and cannot be denied, so I turn to the other priority of regenerating industry.
The most important single feature of the structure of the economy of Wales is the fact that it is the nearest of Britain's peripheral assisted regions to the dual centres of economic and political power, whether by road, rail or air. Our ports supply modernised and specialist facilities for rapid import and export. The acceptance of the Cardiff-Wales Airport as the official airport for Wales and the West gives a further guarantee of its future growth, with an increase in its direct connections with continental centres.
The Welsh ports handle between a quarter and a fifth of all foreign and coastwise traffic passing through British ports. Consequently, the nearness of Wales to market centres provides her with a permanent advantage over peripheral regions. The completion in the
830
near future of the M4 across South Wales —the Secretary of State can rightly take pride in this—together with the highspeed trains, will improve communications in the most significant way.
All this, together with the selective assistance available from the Welsh Office industry division and the increased incentives recently announced for special development areas, presents an impressive array of weapons with which to tackle Welsh economic problems.
Industrially, however, Wales has long been dominated by its heavy industries. Since Wales was more specialised than any other region in coal and steel, so the need for new jobs to replace the rundown in those basic industries has been and remains greater than elsewhere. For example, it is estimated that over the past decade Wales has lost over 80,000 male jobs. Employment in mining has fallen by 52,000 or 55 per cent., in agriculture by 13,000 or 33 per cent. and in metal manufacture by 16,000 or 16 per cent.
The concern about unemployment is not confined to one party. Every hon. Member is disturbed particularly over youth employment, which I gather the Welsh Grand Committee is to debate next week. I welcome this month's figures, which show that unemployment has fallen again. I think that the figure now is 86,534, which means a reduction of about 7,000 since last January—within six months.
A necessary accompaniment of the rundown in labour in the traditional industries is an extensive modernisation programme with substantial investment, but the speed of the rundown in employment in those basic industries has meant that Wales could not possibly have supplied the required number of jobs simply from the extension of smaller industries. In other words, Wales has had to rely heavily on attracting new industries from outside, notably from overseas.
Incidentally, these overseas firms account for the employment of over 60,000 people, or almost twice as many as are employed now in the coal industry. It is fortunate that, in the highly competitive business of attracting overseas firms, Wales has cumulatively acquired an impressive record. I wish that we had heard a bit more about that.

831
Despite the unfavourable economic environment of the world recession, confidence in Wales as an industrial location has been amply demonstrated. The latest example, of course—there has already been reference to it—is Ford's decision to invest £250 million at Bridgend, in the face of strong international competition from Germany, Spain and Ireland. Moreover, investment on an even greater scale is in process by the oil firms in the constituency of the hon. Member for Pembroke.
It is significant also that four out of the six Japanese manufacturing firms in Britain have chosen to locate themselves in Wales. The new extension by Hoover at Merthyr and the additional investment by Alcoa at Swansea are impressive developments, too.
This overseas investment in Wales is not simply a verbal expression of confidence but is, rather, a practical declaration of faith, and is in direct contrast, if I may say so, to the attitude of some politicians.
After many years when the economic environment in Wales has been on a low key, it is now vital for the confidence shown in Wales by overseas firms to inject itself into the stimulation of indigenous industries. This is the great need now, for one of the most remarkable facts of the past few decades has been that nearly two-thirds of the new jobs in many industries have come from outside Wales.
Although outside investment will continue to play a vital part, it is essential—I agree here with what was said by the hon. Member for Pembroke—to raise the growth rate of indigenous industry, and this applies especially to the smaller firms in Wales. The Welsh Development Agency has a great part to play in this direction in particular by aiming to build on the small and medium-size firms already located in Wales, in addition, of course, to its highly successful achievements in promoting Wales as a location for new industry.
Despite the substantial progress which has been made to achieve a balanced economic order through the diversification of the economy in the Principality, Wales is still very much dependent upon the traditional industries of coal and steel.
832
The future for coal looks considerably brighter—brighter, indeed, than has been recognised by some hon. Members in the debate—with a £16 million investment in Europe's largest anthracite mine at Bettws, which will give employment to over 500 miners for 25 years. This investment is part of an already agreed programme of £54 million currently being spent by the National Coal Board in Wales.
Neither past nor present economic difficulties should blind us to the promising fact that Wales has an abundant supply of anthracite and coking coal, both of which are becoming increasingly scarce and highly valuable products throughout the world.
It is regrettable that the same promising account cannot be given for the steel industry, which has been caught up in the most savage world recession. Nevertheless, the steel industry remains, and will always remain, the supplier of the lifeblood of all our industrial activities. In this context I take the opportunity of urging upon the Government and the British Steel Corporation—I am confident that I carry with me the Joint Steel Committee of the West Wales area—that there should be no delay in proceeding with the selective investment at Port Talbot as agreed and confirmed by every recent report on the industry. This investment is essential to ensure and sustain the quality of production. Wales still produces virtually all of Britain's tin plate at Trostre and Velindre in my constituency and in Ebbw Vale. Since they are Port Talbot's biggest customers, the quality of production there is a vital factor for the future of these industries in world markets.
There have been encouraging signs of the expansion of our economy in the report from the Central Statistical Office and the Government's economic progress report. The report says:
"The index of industrial production was over 14 per cent. higher in the first quarter of 1978 than in the previous quarter; that for manufacturing alone was a little over 1 per cent. higher. There are now some signs of resumed growth in the underlying level of industrial production."
Given a reasonable expansion of the economy combined with a dynamic attitude within Wales to equal the inspiring faith shown by overseas investors, I am confident that Wales stands on the threshold of a new economic order. I believe

833
that, although our problems are formidable, they can and will be overcome.
9.6 p.m.
Mr. Geraint Howells: I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that there is a need for a balanced economy in Wales. How do we achieve that? Every political party produces its own plans. We have had such plans for the past 20 or 30 years. Some have been good, others have been bad. Over the years, successive Governments have taken heed of the views of various organisations which have said that they ought to improve the economy of rural Wales, North and South Wales and even Mid-Wales. I confine my remarks to rural Wales. I believe that the Welsh Development Agency has done excellent work in many parts of the country.
Mid-Wales is greatly dependent on agriculture, on the Rural Development Board, the servicing industries and small business men. I am sure that all hon. Members are aware that there are more small businesses and more self-employed people in Mid-Wales than in any other part of Britain. The importance of the small business to the Welsh economy, especially to rural Wales, is great. Perhaps not many hon. Members on the Tory Benches will give the Liberal Party due credit for what it has done in the past 18 months, but the majority of small business men and farmers have said to me that as a result of the Lib-Lab agreement the Liberal Party has done more good in the past 18 months than the two major parties have done in the past 20 years.
The average working wage in Mid-Wales is one of the lowest in the country. Many workers in the servicing industries and in factories there have said that it is not worth working because the social security benefits are higher than the wage packet. What plans has the Minister to improve the average wage of the working man in rural Wales? I confess that times are much better in rural Wales in 1978 than they were in 1938. I remember that my school males in those days had to leave rural Wales to look for work in South Wales, the Midlands and London. Fortunately, today we are able to keep our young people in the rural areas. With the benefits that accrue to them—and perhaps one day the Development Board for Rural Wales and other organisations will be able to help them—
834
they may stay with us in Mid-Wales, improve the economy and stop rural depopulation.
One of the greatest tragedies of Mid-Wales has been the failure over the years to attract enough industry capable of using the potential of the work force. Although I applaud the efforts of the Development Board, as yet it has not the necessary teeth and finance to effect a transformation. But it has done excellent work to date. The number of vacant factories on 1st April 1977 was 36. The number of factories let between 1st April 1977 and 31st March 1978 was 22. That is not a bad record. Factories under negotiation at 31st March 1978 totalled seven. The number of factories still available is seven.
The Development Board says that it now owns 104 factories, of which 44 are in Newtown and 60 are in other Mid-Wales towns. It intends to build another 14 factories in Newtown, four in Rhayader, two in Cardigan, two in Lampeter and a few in Merionethshire and Montgomeryshire.
I wonder whether too many factories are being erected in one town in Mid-Wales, because 44 plus an extra 14 will make a total of 58, while we have only 60 for the rest of Mid-Wales. It is the Liberal Party's wish that more factories should be built in other towns in Mid-Wales in case the tendency increases for people to move from other parts of Mid-Wales to Newtown in Montgomeryshire.
The biggest problem of all in rural Wales and Mid-Wales is communications. Without better roads and rail services we cannot possibly hope to see firms risking money and reputation to set up factories there. We must improve incentives to industrialists. We must use EEC funds. If we could upgrade the road between Shrewsbury and Aberystwyth, that would entice many industrialists to the Welsh coast. I hope that the Minister will repeat the assurance that the railway line —the only one in Mid-Wales—from Aberystwyth to Shrewsbury will remain open for the future development of the economy of rural Wales.
There are many other aspects that I should like to discuss, but because of the shortage of time I will conclude by saying that when we have a Welsh Assembly we shall be able to devote more time to

835
the economy of rural Wales instead of debating the future economy of Wales in this House for two hours now and again, which is not enough. Once we have the Assembly, its Members will get together, and I hope that there will be a great improvement in the economy and that it will be a balanced economy.
9.14 p.m.
Mr. Ioan Evans: Before the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) spoke, I intended to say what a delight it was to be talking about Welsh affairs without having to talk about the Assembly, and I was going to welcome that as a pleasant change. I applaud Plaid Cymru for choosing to speak about the economy. It appears that Plaid Cymru is now getting its priorities right. There is more concern in Wales about the economy and about jobs than there is talk about the Assembly.
The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) has already been complimented on the mild and moderate way in which he presented his case. It was thought that there would be talk about independence for Wales. That is a policy put forward by people who I believe have lost their sense of value. However, we have heard nothing about it in this debate so far. What we have had is a discussion of economic affairs.
The hon. Member for Cardigan referred to advance factories, which was also a point mentioned by the hon. Member for Caernarvon. There is concern when advance factories are empty. I should tell hon. Members that if their constituencies contain advance factories which are not wanted, they would be welcomed in the Valleys. They would be welcome in the Cynon Valley. One of the problems in the past has been that industrialists have come into these areas, but those industries have been lost because advance factories were available in other areas. I therefore appeal to my hon. Friend the Minister to continue the policy of making sure that advance factories are available.
I thought the hon. Member for Caernarvon was rather unfair when he made reference to the Welsh Development Agency and compared it with the Development Board for Rural Wales. They are both new organisations with different
836
tasks. I believe that the Welsh Development Agency has got off to a good start, and it is wrong to compare one with the other. I am sure that we all wish both of them well in the future.
I should like briefly to make special reference to the Valleys of South Wales. Let us not talk about Wales as being an economic unit which can be separate from the rest of Britain. That view has not arisen in the debate, and it is jest as well. But within Wales itself there is concern about the Valleys, which spread from Newport to Llanelli, because there has been a development of the economy in certain parts rather than in others.
As the Minister knows, I joined the Mid-Glamorgan deputation earlier this week when it came to see the Secretary of State and himself. We were courteously received at the Welsh Office. The representatives of the Mid-Glamorgan County Council pointed out—as the Secretary of State is well aware—that the problems of the Mid-Glamorgan county are widespread and include poor quality housing, outdated school buildings, inadequate highways, polluted rivers and high unemployment. In many ways, these are interrelated, especially in the sense that the quality of the environment and infrastructure can be an important factor in influencing the decisions of firms to locate in an area.
However, I should like to concentrate on the difficulties of obtaining employment because in the main the deputation was most concerned about jobs. I believe that the Mid-Glamorgan county has submitted its county structure plan in which priority is given to development in the Valleys. I believe that an important contribution was made by the socioeconomic research group of Ty Toronto which, following its conference in the Year of the Valleys, brought forward a document referring to the Government White Paper produced by the Welsh Office in 1967 entitled "Wales: the Way Ahead". It stated:
"For both economic and social reasons the Government reject any policy which would assume the disintegration of the substantial valley communities, and they propose instead to seek a solution in an integrated plan of development for South Wales as a whole, recognising the close interlocking of economic and social activity and interdependence of interest between the valleys and the rest of South Wales".

837
The Valleys of South Wales are distinct from the rest of South Wales as an identifiable area, and the Government's policy must continue to be to reinvigorate Valley life and to bring about a renewal of life in the Valley communities.
The statement by those who participated in the Year of the Valleys Conference made three affirmations. They said:
"First, the situation in the valleys is urgent. It is deteriorating, and this deterioration has inevitable long-term consequences. Secondly, the primary need is to develop a sound economic basis. This demands an explicit up-to-date regional policy for South Wales within which regional planning can operate and of which the participating public is aware. Thirdly, for this purpose the valleys must be recognised as a distinct entity within the region both by the Welsh Office and central Government on the one hand and by the separate valley communities and local authorities on the other."
There is a deep concern that the substantial Valley communities could be losing out to the non-Valley parts of the Welsh region. Although obviously we welcome the development of the M4—and my hon. Friends the Members for Gower (Mr. Davies) and Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) referred to the tremendous achievements by this Government to improve the community—there is a fear now that, unless there is deliberate Government policy, the positive development will shift from the Valleys to the areas along the M4. Obviously we want to see development along the M4. We do not want to argue one area against another. But there is concern in the Valleys that they must get their fair share of what is to be allocated by the Government.
The Valleys have an unusual strength of community feeling, a real sense of belonging, a fine physical and historic setting and a powerful economic motive for making the effort to re-create an urban life based on the highest standards. We have the schools, the churches and the chapels. We now have coming the sports centres. There is a real community life, and we have to ensure that the jobs are brought into these areas which means factories going there.
As well as developing the manufacturing side, there should as well be some provision of jobs in the service industries. We talk about planning, but we find that there are certain areas where there are
838
service jobs. In the Valleys, there has been a complete dependence in the past on the coal industry, and even now there is an imbalance because what development there has been has been in manufacturing jobs. The Government have been moving civil servants down from London into Wales. As well as moving them from one city area to another, why do not we have some office development put into the Heads of the Valleys. Why do not we ask the Welsh Development Agency, as well as building advance factories, to build advance office premises so that the Government can direct service jobs into these areas?
Mid-Glamorgan has the largest area of derelict land. I say again that the Welsh Development Agency has taken up where the Derelict Land Unit left off, and it has done a tremendous job. When derelict land is reclaimed, we should ensure that it is used for the siting of new industries. There is a tendency to take good agricultural land for factory building. Why not use this derelict land?
The record of this Government, which we shall be putting before the country in the forthcoming months, is one of achievement while we have been going through a period of world recession, and it is no use people talking about unemployment without relating it to the unemployment figures of other countries.
There are still tasks which need to be determined, and I hope that greater financial resources will be put at the disposal of the Welsh Development Agency and the rural board so that these matters can be tackled. The real problem concerning the people of Wales is not whether they should have an Assembly. The vast majority of people look upon that as an irrelevance. The real problem is the lack of jobs.
I believe that the Government have started well. Let them ensure that we get back to full employment as soon as possible and continue to demonstrate their concern about the problems of those who live in the Valleys of South Wales
9.25 p.m.
Mr. Gwynfor Evans: When we were considering the subject for discussion in this debate, one of the matters that came to mind was the splendid report of the Welsh Language Council.

839
I hope that there will be an opportunity to discuss that very important report. But the subject that we have chosen bears a close relationship to the question of language and culture in Wales. The effect of depopulation and migration, following heavy unemployment, has been disastrous for the Welsh language and culture.
There is another relationship as well. When a culture is thriving and healthy it affects the morale of the people, and this reflects itself in their economic life. I had an example of this a few weeks ago, when I was in the Basque country, where I was deeply impressed by the people's enthusiasm and loyalty for their language and culture. The Basque language is spoken by only 23 per cent. of the people —it is similar to ours in that sense—yet it reflects itself in the economic life of the province in many ways.
It is reflected in the extraordinary complex of the co-operatives—the Mon-dragon complex. I visited a number of these co-operatives, which employ more than 17,000 people. The first one was started as recently as 1956, and in the period of more than 21 years since then not one person has lost a job.
One noticed that in the very sophisticated and highly computerised industries—the main computers are to be found in a beautiful building above the valley of Mondragon—all the notices were bilingual and all the publications of the Mondragon centre were also bilingual. This reflects the value of a healthy culture and the attachment of the culture to the economic life of the people.
Mr. Michael Roberts: I appreciate the lion. Member's very important points about the relationship between the economy and the culture of a country. I refer to the publication "The Future for the Welsh Language", where it is suggested that the Welsh language should be built into considerations of economic planning. Is there not something of a dilemma here The publication refers to the monolingual key workers who come into the community and change the nature of it. Is there not a dilemma in developing the economy and protecting the culture of our country?
Mr. Evans: That is the kind of situation that I am trying to illustrate. We have had a great influx of non-Welsh speaking people into our community and we have the difficulty of trying to assimilate them fully. In the report it is suggested that we begin with the children—the three, four and five-year-olds. The report suggests that that is the best way in which to act.
One has to admit that nationalism in a country such as Euzkadi is a great moral power. People seem to approve of nationalism there, as they do in Catalonia, Romania, Hungary, Poland, Latvia, and Lithuania. But for some reason nationalism is derided in Wales. However, if we can release that moral power in Wales it will have a tremendous effect not only on our cultural life but economically.
We therefore approach the subject of a country's balanced economic order as if it were a seamless web, in which action in each part of the life of the country affects every other part.
This argument also applies to the infrastructure of the country, such as with roads. That infrastructure is basically important to any balanced development. For example, in terms of communication the M4 is a great accomplishment, as is the magnificant piece of motorway as far as Abercynon. But if we consider Wales as a national entity, we believe that there should be a spine road through Wales and that the roads running from the middle to the West and to the East, should run from that spine. In that way every part of the country could be developed. In the West, industry suffers because of inadequate roads.
The kind of industry we can expect to be developed in the West must depend on adequate road communications more than is the case in the East. I doubt whether the Ford Motor Company would have come to Bridgend if it were not for the proximity of the M4. Even in highly industrialised parts of Wales, a good road system immensely important.
If we want to develop light industry in the rural West, we must certainly have the right kind of roads. We have been told time and again by industrialists who are trying to operate in the West that the transport problem is their main difficulty. There should be an effort in the West to

841
develop the kind of industries that would use the products of animals and other native materials. There is room, for example, for a canning industry and for all the products one finds in a cow, a sheep or whatever the animal may be. We should be in a position to develop our raw materials in the country, which means in a position to develop our coastal fishing and to use our slate waste in some parts of Wales. We should also use the peat we have in many areas. That kind of industry depends very much on good transport and adequate communications.
I am glad to see that the Development Board for Rural Wales is adopting a more aggressive policy, which is to be commended. I wish that the Welsh Development Agency would pursue an equally aggressive policy in rural parts of Wales. I am glad that the Agency is showing a greater interest in rural Wales, but it is not yet in the position of the Scottish Development Agency, which has invested about £17 million in 30 sophisticated industries and thereby saved 8,000 jobs. It has done so often in cases involving considerable risk. I wish that the WDA would take more risks in its investment.
I believe that central Government could do more than they are doing, because they are major customers in respect of many industries. The Government could use their influence to direct more work towards those parts of Wales which are so lacking in industry.
Local government could also do more in this respect. It is foolish that local government, which uses so much furniture and other products in schools, imports all this material from outside Wales. We should be manufacturing that furniture and other items in Wales. The fact that we are not doing so is part of the reason for our economic imbalance.
I have mentioned roads. I wish also to mention the railways. British Rail made a great mistake in closing the line between Carmarthen and Aberystwyth. When that line existed, one could travel from Swansea to Carmarthen in a matter of hours. It was also possible, in those days, to make a circular journey round Wales. That is not now possible. That line was important to the tourist industry. We should not depend too much on the tourist industry, but it is the fastest grow-
842
ing industry in Wales and will bring in something like £300 million this year.
Evidence of the neglect of our railways is demonstrated by the failure to electrify any of them. I do not apologise for returning to this subject, which I have mentioned more than once. In England, there are 2,350 miles of electrified railway, which accounts for about 40 per cent. of train mileage. Yet England, even with that amount of electrification, is only 17th in the league of countries with electrified railways. Wales has not a single mile of electrified railway.
We have also failed to take advantage of the tremendous asset represented by our Welsh ports. There is certainly room for development there. Even now, they are responsible for 32 per cent. of the profits of the British Transport Docks Board respite the fact that trade in these ports has been declining steadily since 1974.
These ports have advantages which are not found in most ports in the United Kingdom or on the Continent. They have deep water close to the shore, plenty of room for manoeuvrability, they are well placed for world trade, and there is none of the congestion that causes so much trouble in the English Channel. One of those ports should have become a Europort by now. With the right sort of land bridge between the ports and the populous Midlands of England and London, and an Assembly of the sort that the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) does not wish to see, we would have stimulated development among our ports. A person who speaks with great authority on these matters told me recently that if Wales had a Parliament of her own, the ports would really take off.
We have heard that great numbers of people have lost work in agriculture and coal and are losing jobs in steel. It is not always realised that one Welshman in 10 works in the steel industry. It is still immensely important to us and it must see a greater technological mix and a greater mix of products. We must also reduce our dependence on steel and old-fashioned industries generally.
We need plenty of jobs for young Welsh scientists. We have next to nothing for them in Wales. We need jobs for highly technically trained Welshmen. We have

843
no computer industry, and not one Government scientific research centre. It is an extraordinary situation.
Mr. D. E. Thomas: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Institute of Geological Sciences recently relocated its headquarters in Nottingham? The Secretary of State for Education, who is ultimately responsible for the work of the Institute, told me in correspondence that it was not possible for the Institute to be devolved to Wales, even for its Welsh functions, because the geological structure of Wales was linked in with that of England. This has meant that at least 30 top geological jobs have been lost to Wales. Apparently, the geology of Scotland is separate because the IGS is devolved in Scotland.
Mr. Evans: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention.
I draw my remarks to a close to allow the Under-Secretary of State to reply. We have 100,000 fewer jobs for Welsh men in Wales today than we had a decade ago. Wales is the only area in this island which in the past six months has seen a deterioration in employment opportunities. The only comparable area is Northern Ireland, which is outside this island. This is a heavy condemnation of the Government and emphasises the pressing need for greater development inside Wales.
Professor Glyn Davies has said that by the early 1990s we shall need at least 1,500 new manufacturing industries in Wales to cope with the task with which we are faced. That is where the importance of a plan comes into being. I know that the idea of a national plan is rejected by the Government, but I emphasise that it has the enthusiastic support of the Council for the Principality. Even the leader of the Conservatives on the Cardiff City Council has spoken of the need for a strategy for the whole of Wales. The same thinking is found in the support given by the Welsh Council to the Welsh TUC's demand for a Welsh "Neddy". That is an area of immense importance, and precisely the area in which the work of a Welsh Assembly could be shown at its best. It should be in a position to supervise that area with effect.
9.42 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alec Jones): When I first read the
844
terms of the motion—the need for a balanced economic order for Wales—I was not quite sure what Plaid Cymru Members meant. Having listened to the debate, I am not a great deal wiser. What we have, heard in the debate has been rather similar to saying that one is in favour of virtue but not quite sure how to define it or spell it out.
In the past the nationalists have always spoken as if the problems of Wales were unique and could be solved by action in Wales alone. However, I detected a glimmer of hope. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Davies) did not detect the same glimmer. It seems that Plaid Cymru Members have learned something from the experiences of the past few years, which have demonstrated clearly the interdependence of the economies of the developed nations of the world. I hope that they now accept that action in Wales by Wales alone, or in the United Kingdom by the United Kingdom alone, could not solve the problems arising from a generally depressed level of world economic activity. It requires a combined effort from many countries to put us back on the path of higher growth rates.
I cast my mind back to what the nationalists said in their economic plan for Wales of the early 1970s. I assure the nationalists that I have not reread it today. As I recall, the essence of the plan was the assumption that if Wales were a self-governed entity, cast adrift from the rest of the United Kingdom, but not too far adrift, substantial cuts in the defence budget for Wales would make money available, without any increase in taxation, to build up the industrial structure at selected growth centres. There was the assumption that certain specified industries—those with good prospects for expansion—would be located at those centres.
I recall that the nationalists talked of selected growth points—nine main centres and 17 secondary centres. By implication, if there is a concentration of growth in those centres there will be nil growth in other parts of Wales. That would not be acceptable to the hon. Member for Rhondda or to the people of Rhondda. We in Rhondda welcome the development of Llantrisant. I would not want to contemplate a nil growth in that sort of area. Many other areas in Wales

845
were not included as main or secondary centres for growth. There are areas that desperately need growth at this moment.
Mr. Wigley rose ߞ
Mr. Jones: No, I shall not give way. I lost some time and I did not take advantage of an opening speech. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will take that into account.
I looked at Powys. That great plan of 1970 listed Newtown as a main growth centre. I do not think that we needed a plan. Newtown had already been designated as a new town for that purpose; and it has been a very successful new town. It has a population topping 8,000, 800 new houses and 1,100 new jobs in the Development Board's 44 factories, which are now all let.
What about the rest of Powys? There is not even a secondary growth centre of Llandrindod, Builth or Welshpool. I hope that the people resident there will recall that. But, most important, the plan did not indicate how the growth was to be achieved. One can paint all kinds of castles in the sky, but how does one get the growth that is needed?
Many people make a respectable argument for the direction of labour. But the plan did not say that was how the nationalists would induce growth into those areas. The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) said that Plaid Cymru would seek to encourage industrial investment from outside. However, I suspect that direction would not be regarded as encouragement.
The plan went even further than selecting specific spots. It nominated specific industries for those centres. Does that mean that other non-nominated industries would be turned away from those selected spots? Glan Menai was nominated for electronics, yacht building, aluminium and marine food processing. If we had followed that plan, we should have turned down the Rehau plastics factory at Blaenau Ffestiniog.
The plan is not a plan. It is hardly worth the paper on which it is written. Had we adopted and adhered to that kind of plan, the Ford development at Bridgend would not have fitted in, because Bridgend was not designed for that kind of development. I believe that
846
Shoni bob ochor himself must have been the architect of that plan. I suspect that he is very much alive in the nationalist party at this moment.
In the nationalists' plan, Llantrisant is designated as a secondary growth point. But as I read in my local paper and as my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) tells me, the nationalist candidate at Pontypridd is actively opposed to any further industrial development on the most suitable site in that specified secondary growth centre.
I do not wish to spend any more time on what I believe is cloud cuckoo land. The problems affecting Wales are too important for that.
I refute the charge made by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) that we are complacent about unemployment. One may criticise or say that the Government should have done something else, but I do not think that it can fairly be said that we have been complacent about unemployment.
Unemployment remains far too highߞthere is no dispute in the House about that—but we are grappling with the problem, and I believe that it will be overcome. However, it would be to mislead the people of Wales if we did not indicate that it is a difficult task and likely to he a long task before it is finally resolved.
In the meantime, the Government have introduced a most wide-ranging set of measures to preserve or to create employment. I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Pembroke is in favour of those measures. I make no apology for the 60,000 jobs saved or created in Wales by these measures or for the £55 million expended in the process. What would those who criticise have done? It is simply not good enough constantly to parrot cry about the need to reduce public expenditure without specifying what services would be cut.
Would he cut the selective financial assistance which has been of such enormous benefit to us in Wales? Would he cut the special help that we have given to the Cardiff and Ebbw Vale steel closure areas? Would the Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board be axed, or has the newly-found support come to their aid? If it were none of those things, would it be the temporary

847
employment or youth employment programmes or schools, hospitals or roads that would be cut?
It is no good arguing for cuts in public expenditure without saying where those cuts are to be made. We are justified in seeking answers to these questions, but as long as the hon. Member for Pembroke goes as far back as 1946 for a quotation from Dalton, I do not believe that we shall get answers from him for dealing with 1978. If Press reports are to be believed, the hon. Member has not made up his mind whether the Government's incentives for industry should be retained. The hon. Member should perhaps have a word with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Denbigh (Mr. Morgan) or his hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer). They have been advocating the extension of development area status for parts of their constituencies. If I remember correctly, the hon. Member for Pembroke came with a delegation to see the Minister of State for Industry urging the upgrading of parts of his constituency.
Conservative Members therefore say that cuts and reductions in spending can be made anywhere provided they do not affect their own constituencies. In those cases, the reverse should apply and there should be more public expenditure.
Let us consider the theme of the speeches of the nationalist Members. It was that without some all-embracing detailed blueprint of an economic plan for Wales we shall always remain behind other parts of the United Kingdom and the serious problems will never be overcome. I believe that part of the answer is that the health of the economy in Wales depends on the position in the United Kingdom. Plans for Wales must therefore be kept broad and flexible. They must be kept broad because new developments such as major changes in oil and other commodity prices, or innovations such as micro-miniaturisation of electronic components profoundly change the direction of industrial development.
When the so-called plan was drawn up in 1970 its architects did not envisage a fivefold increase in oil prices. That fact, I believe, justifies my saying that any such plan must be kept flexible.
Mr. D. E. Thomas rose—
Mr. Jones: I cannot give way. I have indicated that the lack of time, the fact that my speech has been cut short, and the fact that the Government have deliberately chosen to have only one Front Bench speaker, gives us the right to put our case fully now.
Any plan must be flexible, so that central and local Government can respond quickly to problems. The accelerated closures of steelmaking at East Moors and Ebbw Wale Vale could not have been foreseen years ago.
Each part of Wales has its own separate characteristic and special needs. Planning has to be flexible enough to encompass them. I believe that we have the broad framework of objectives to contain inflation and return to full employment. The hon. Member for Caernarvon referred to roads. The roads priorities are clear. They may not be the ones that hon. Members want. They are to proceed with the M4 and to follow that with the A55. As a consolation prize for the hon. Member for Pembroke, let me remind him that whereas 31 miles of motorway were open in Wales last year, there was not even one man digging one hole when we came into office.
The Welsh Development Agency is developing industrial sites at key points or in places of special need, as well as in the community at large. I am glad that even now the sinner repenteth and the hon. Member for Pembroke supports the Welsh Development Agency. The people of Wales, however, should remember that the Agency would not exist if the Conservatives had had their way. It has done considerable work in the construction of new advance factories.
There is a more important factor still. The hon. Member for Caernarvon spoke of empty advance factories. Up to mid-May of this year, 53 factories had been provisionally or formally allocated. That represents 500,000 sq. ft. That would cater for about 2,740 jobs. That is to be compared with 13 factories, 192,000 sq. ft. and 750 jobs in factories that were allocated in the same period last year. This is a significant improvement. Whether one is talking of the work of the Agency or of the Development Board, it is quite clear that the take-up of the factories that we had the foresight to build is now occurring.

849
Many hon. Members have indicated that part of the problem of evolving and improving the infrastructure is related to the clearance of dereliction. We must take into account the fact that when all the schemes which the WDA is in process of dealing with are completed, at a cost of £36 million, those schemes will have cleared 4,700 acres of derelict land. Whilst we would all want everyone to do more, I do not think that anyone can deny that the WDA has been a success.
Similarly, I believe that the Development Board for Rural Wales is just the same. It started out with 36 factories, as the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) said. Those factories were not let; they were not even subject to any negotiations. But last month, I believe that only seven of them remained empty. The Development Board has published its policy document, after consultation with local authorities. Apart from the factories that have been left, the Development Board has 104,000 sq. ft. of factory space under construction at present, and a further 68,000 sq. ft. is planned.
Time will probably go against me. I think that all hon. Members will have probably received the document from the Development Board showing that those factories are not specifically and solely related to Newtown but are spread outߞCardigan, Lampeter, Tywyn, Brecon, Ystradgynlais, Machynlleth, Welshpool and a number of other places.
I believe that the Development Board, in publishing the policy document and in consulting local authorities, has shown a very good example of practical planning by people on the spot who know local needs and conditions. That is what I want to say about the structure plans and to link this in. I believe that any
850
sort of regional planning must take account of local views. It must not ride roughshod over the views of the people grappling with problems of their own localities. I do not believe that that is a democratic approach to the subject.
What my right hon. and learned Friend seeks to do, instead, is to make use of the structure plans, to use them as building bricks to do what my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) asked for, namely, planning in a meaningful way, so that the planning leads to action. I do not believe that planning on its own is much use at all. As I have said in many other places, the wallpaper and cupboards of council offices throughout the country must be cluttered up with plans. I have certainly seen far too many of them in my own part of the country.
But these structure plans are to be considered in a coherent way, having regard to the interrelationship of one with the other. This is no abrogation of planning but, rather, a recognition of the realities. We can differ as to our attitudes towards planning. Considerable differences have been expressed today in the debate. But there is no substitute for hard work in providing infrastructure and incentives to stimulate new ventures in Wales. This is what my office, the WDA and the Development Board for Rural Wales, and many others, are doing. We are not handing down, as it were, academic blueprints from on high. This is the way to progress towards the more diversified economic structure for Wales which we are all seeking.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East did pay particular—
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

GENERAL PRACTICE FINANCE CORPORATION
The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Roland Moyle): I beg to move,
That the draft General Practice Finance Corporation (Increase of Borrowing Powers) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 6th June, be approved.
I am presenting this order in conjunction with the Secretary of State for Scotland in exercise of our powers under Section 6(3) of the National Health Service Act 1966. The object of the order is to increase the borrowing powers of the Corporation to £25 million as a top limit.
The National Health Service Act 1966 initially authorised the Corporation to borrow £10 million. This was increased to £18 million with the approval of this House under the General Practice Finance Corporation (Increase of Borrowing Powers) Order 1971. I am now seeking the approval of the House for the further limit.
The order is an indication of the general success of the operations of the Corporation in that it has been able to make a substantial service available to the medical profession over the years, and now the need has come to make more money available.
The General Practice Finance Corporation has its origins in the wide-ranging discussions which took place in 1965 between the British Medical Association and the then Minister of Health, Mr. Kenneth Robinson, about ways of bringing about fundamental improvements in the organisation of general practice in this country. It was common ground at that time between the Government and the representatives of general medical practitioners that doctors were experiencing great and increasing difficulty in raising the capital needed to provide adequate modern surgery premises. We accepted that doctors needed help with the provision of finances and agreed with the profession's proposal that an independent Corporation would be a useful way of providing such assistance.
The 1966 Act received all-party support for the setting up of a General Practice Finance Corporation to make loans available to doctors working in the
852
National Health Service to provide or improve surgery accommodation for their patients. Members will be pleased to know that the Corporation, since it began business in May 1967, has helped more than 5,000 doctors in Great Britain by making nearly 2,500 loans to a total value of more than £20 million. At the end of the last financial year, the Corporation had made firm offers to lend doctors a further £2 million.
The Corporation is an independent body controlled by its members. The members, who include general practitioners, have legal and financial expertise as well as experience of estate management. Nominations for membership of the Corporation are discussed with representatives of the medical profession and appointments are made by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Social Services and for Scotland.
I would like to take this opportunity of paying tribute to the chairman, Mr. Stebbings, and his predecessor Sir Frederick Hoare, and to members of the Corporation both past and present for all the work they have done in helping doctors provide better surgery accommodation—an aim which will, I am sure, be welcomed in all parts of the House.
The Corporation is continuing to look for new ways in which it can fully discharge its function of assisting doctors who wish to provide new practice premises while at the same time avoiding unnecessary financial risk. The Corporation is, of course, expected to break even, taking one year with another, and this year showed a small operating profit. The staff of the Corporation have given valuable assistance to the members by keeping the operating costs down to below 4 per cent. of loans made. The activities of the Corporation make virtually no charge on the National Health Service Vote.
The Corporation is responsible for its own financial policy and raises finance by issuing stock and by temporary borrowing, both of which are guaranteed under the terms of the 1966 Act by the Treasury. The stock is taken up by the National Debt Commissioners and temporary borrowing takes the form of a bank overdraft, limited to £1½ million, which allows the Corporation some flexibility in choosing the best time for stock

853
issues. Nevertheless, the issue and redemption of stock and the limit of temporary borrowing are and will continue to be subject to the approval of the Secretaries of State and the Treasury.
The Corporation has outstanding stock to the value of £16¼ million. Since May 1967, when it first started making loans, it has issued stock amounting to £19½ million, £3¼ million of which has been redeemed. Within the next few months, further stock issues will be required to meet the demand from doctors for loans. With temporary borrowing of up to £1½ million, the limit under which it has been working has become too restrictive.
I have given the House the essential outlines of the purpose of the order and of the way in which the Corporation works. If necessary, I shall, with permission, reply to any points which are raised.
10.5 p.m.
Dr. Gerard Vaughan: That was an extremely disappointing speech. The Minister has not referred to the important matters which the order will affect. I suppose that that, in a way, may account for the lack of enthusiasm with which he read his speech.
The truth is that on this apparently straightforward and simple order, we should be discussing the conditions in which patients are seen and treated by many family doctors. The order affects whether some general practitioners will be able to see their patients in modern properly equipped surroundings or be forced to continue to see patients in old, uncomfortable and often very unsuitable surgeries. As we all know, from going about the country and hearing what they have to say, doctors are in many cases still seeing patients who wait in long queues in the old familiar cartoon surroundings in dilapidated premises. That is not right.
One cannot have modern surgeries unless one has the money with which to build and equip them, and that money is simply not available to general practitioners, especially young general practitioners, or, when it is, it is on terms which the majority of them cannot afford. Thus, they either have to continue to work in poor surroundings or they have to borrow money to build new surgeries
854
to work on their own, or perhaps go into a group of doctors on conditions which are financially penal. The other course for many of them is to turn to a health centre, with all the drawbacks which they see in such centres.
I agree that the order increases the money available to the General Practice Finance Corporation from £18 million to £25 million, but this is the first increase for seven years and during that time, especially under this Government, the value of money has fallen so disastrously that even the increase which we are now considering does not put the financial position back where it was seven years ago.
Since there is no cost to the National Health Service here, I had hoped that the Minister would seek a larger increase in the amount which the Corporation can raise. Why is there not a greater increase? As he said, this is money which is raised publicly, is then lent, and is later returned.
Not only do we question the amount of money available but we question the use to which the money is put. We consider that it is not as readily available as it ought to be, and that the terms on which it is lent are not sufficiently low. One has only to look at the report of the CorporationߞI must say that we receive these reports very late, and this report is considerably out of date nowߞto find that the interest rates range up to as high as 18 per cent.
Such a rate of interest puts a heavy burden on a doctor, especially a young doctor seeking to set up in life. The result is that many doctors, I understand, are now asked to produce between £30,000 and £40,000 to go into a really modern group practice and buy their share. This is beyond them, or, if they do raise it on the Corporation's terms, particularly if they are young people with a family, they have a financial burden hanging over them which is a disadvantage to the way they carry out their practice.
When I was in the West Country recently, I met several groups of doctors. One of them has the land and it has planning permission, but it does not have the money to set up proper premises

855
and the local authority is trying to persuade this group of doctors to go into a health centre, which they do not wish to do.
I know that health centres are attractive to the philosophy of the Government. They appeal to a tidy bureaucratic mind. It is felt that it is attractive to have the doctor working with the rest of the primary health care team, in the same building. But the same advantages of the primary health care team can be obtained in a proper group practice. There is the advantage that the doctors concerned are able to exercise their skills and professional freedom in a way best suited to the patients in their area. This is important and is something to which the Government pay little regard. In the long run, the way in which doctors work materially affects the standard of care that they are able to offer their patients.
I ask the Minister to think again about the affairs of this Corporation. He says that it has made general progress, but I query that. I think that it has made a small amount of progress, and rather unimaginative progress at that. I ask the Minister to realise that we are discussing effectively the whole pattern of modernising general practice in this country. I ask him to look at the report of the Corporation and at the small number of doctors who have taken up loans from the Corporation. That number is smaller than the number who applied for loans. When the figures are compared, one country with another, it will be seen that there is a small number in this country, a negligible number—sevenߞin Scotland and only two in Wales. Why are there discrepancies between one part of the United Kingdom and another? That is not a satisfactory situation.
Further, there are areas which clearly have a need for financial help but to which no loans have been made. We ask the Government to think a little more about the work of the corporation, to accept that the health centre programme should be drastically reduced and to agree that health centres should be provided only in places where they are suitable, namely, in inner city areas. Health centres ought not to be forced upon
856
groups of doctors who do not want to work in them but who are unable to get premises in any other way.
The Government should develop a proper financial policy for helping general practitioners to modernise their premises and improve their skills. This means allowing the Corporation to raise larger sums than those we are discussing and to make the money much more freely available to general practitioners, particularly the young ones, by offering it at a low rate of interest. On those grounds we are uneasy and dissatisfied with this Statutory Instrument. We think that it shows a lack of imagination, that it is complacent and that it shows that the Government are out of touch with a great deal of what is happening in general practice.
10.14 p.m.
Dr. M. S. Miller: The hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) and I have in common the fact that both of us are intensely interested in the family doctor section of medicine, among other things, and believe that there should be a greater emphasis on primary care. Where I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman is in his remarks about health centres. I am not at all satisfied with his dismissal of practice in health centres, which he says has drawbacks.
There is only one drawback for the doctor practising in a health centre and that is that it will probably cost him a little more money than it would if he practised from old premises. For the patient there is only one drawback about the health centre, and that is that it may mean that he will have a little further to travel. Everything else is a plus. It is sad that, 30 years after the beginning of the Health Service, we should be having a debate on the necessity to provide reasonable premises from which the general practitioner can practice. I am sure that I am not giving anything away when I say that the hon. Member for Reading, South and I are old enough to remember the days when doctors practised in premises which were deplorable. I am sorry to say that there are still some places where that description applies.
If the only alternative to the removal from deplorable premises were the building of custom-built surgeries for the GP

857
such as the lion. Gentleman has envisagedߞthe kind of premises which some 25 years ago three of my colleagues and I built in a district in GlasgowߞI would say that he was right in his utter condemnation of the restrictions which my right hon. Friend has implied. Incidentally, I think that the hon. Gentleman is right about the cost today, because those premises in Glasgow cost us about £10,000 25 years ago. But that is not the real alternative.
I contend that the real alternative to premises which are unsuitable for doctors to practise from and for patients to consult them in is the health centre. Contrary to the hon. Gentleman's views, I urge the Minister to push ahead as fast as he can with the building of health centres. I know that there are objections, and I have indicated what I think the two main objections are in each category. But there is no doubt, with all the experience that one can gather from many years of looking at the problem, that it is only in a health centre, with several groups of doctors getting together, that it is possible to provide all the services required for primary care. It is possible to do it only on the basis of four or five groups of doctors getting together, perhaps 20 in all, making the money available not only to have ancillary medical and paramedical staff but also to have social services involved, health visitors and all the adjuncts necessary in practice today.
I know that there are some areas where this is less possible than in others. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that health centres should be restricted to inner cities or densely-populated urban areas. I think that they can be erected in parts of the country where the population is not nearly so congested. I know that there might be difficulties, but they can be surmounted.
Dr. Vaughan: But does not the hon. Gentleman agree that health centres are far more impersonal, are less easy places in which doctors can see some kinds of patient, that patients are often upset by them, and that there are problems over the confidentiality of the records?
Dr. Miller: I could not agree that there are any such constraints. There are disadvantages in health centres, but those are not among them. I do not think that there is any problem over confidentiality
858
or a problem of an impersonal atmosphere. If the hon. Gentleman will come to the Hunter health centre in East Kilbride, I will show him an atmosphere as good as that of any good family hotel. It is an excellent atmosphere, where patients can get a cup of tea and have a chat with their friends. There is no difficulty whatever. Where there are difficulties with health centres is where, for example, a patient has to travel a bit further from home and therefore has to pay a little more for his visit to the doctor.
I think that the custom-built group practice centre still plays a part. Of that I have no doubt at all. But it should not be put against the health centre as the ultimate idea. It should be put against the deplorable, unsatisfactory, and very often insanitary, conditions in which some doctors work. If we looked at it from that point of view, and made sure that any doctor who for whatever reason could not be persuaded to work in a health centreߞI admit that there are some who might not be persuadedߞwas at least persuaded to take part in a group practice centre, and if finance was made available to a few doctors in order to erect a group practice centre, that at least would be a satisfactory compromise.
I again counsel my right hon. Friend not to go too far along the line of making it easier for doctors to opt out of the possibility of health centre practice, because in the immediate and in the long term that is best for the general practice aspect of the medical profession, the ancillary services which go with the GP's and also for the patients themselves.
10.21 p.m.
Mr. Robin Hodgson: I would not want to argue with the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller), particularly on matters affecting medical practice. But as a layman, the two points which occur to me about a health centreߞto be fair, the hon. Gentleman mentioned one of themߞis that the people in our society who use the medical services the most are mothers with young children and the elderly and the more elderly they are, the more they need to go to the doctor. Yet these are the people who find travelling the most difficult of all. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the problem of travelling, and that is not a difficulty to be skipped over

859
lightly. I believe that it is a very grave difficulty, particularly for an increasing number of very elderly people.
The hon. Gentleman also tends to underestimate the fact that the basic medical relationship in this country is the doctor-patient, a one-on-one, relationship, rather than the patient-group practice of doctors relationship. I would have thought that the concept of an individual patient dealing with an individual doctor was a fairly fundamental part of our medical organisation. However, I take the points which the hon. Gentleman made.
I should like to begin with a plea to the Minister about the explanatory note, This is ground which we have covered before with regard to other Statutory Instruments. The explanatory note on this Instrument states:
"This Order raises the maximum aggregate amount which may be borrowed by the General Practice Finance Corporation whether by the issue of stock or temporarily to twenty-five million pounds. The amount was previously fixed at eighteen million pounds by S.I. 1971/382."
We could have guessed most of that from the title of the Statutory Instrument. Either we should have explanatory notes which tell us something new and novel or we might just as well scrub them. The only interesting thing which we learn from this one is the existence of the previous Instrument, passed in 1971. It might interest more of our colleagues if we had explanatory notes on this and other Statutory Instruments which were more explanatory of the purpose of the Instrument as opposed to merely repeating the title.
The timing of the debate has already been briefly touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan). We are debating this Instrument at the very worst possible time of of the year, because if one looks at the most recent annual report of the GPFC, which covers the year ending 31st March 1977, one will see that it was issued on 5th July 1977. Presumably the statistics for the year ending 31st March 1978 are due out within the course of the next couple of weeks. Indeed, if one looks at the date of the signatories of the assistant secretaries in the Department in London and Scotland, one sees that last year's re-
860
ports were signed on 14th and 15th June. Therefore, there must be one which is just about to emerge. It would have made our deliberations a little more meaningful and helpful, and our comments a little more pertinent, had we been able to hold back this Instrument until we received the report for the year ending 31st March 1978.
The other matter that I wanted to take up concerned the financial management. My hon. Friend referred to the rates of interest being charged. But in respect of this last year for which we have full statistics, the Corporation raised money on three different occasions. It raised £250,000 on each occasion, at 14½ per cent. in May 1976, at 14½ per cent. in July 1976, and at 15¾ per cent. on 11th October 1976. Over the same period it changed the rates of interest that it was charging to 15½ per cent. on 7th May, 16½ per cent. on 13th September, and 18 per cent. on 8th October. That means that on 11th October it raised money in the market place at 15¾ per cent., when only two days earlier it had increased its basic lending rate from 16½ per cent. to 18 per cent. That is a differential of some 2¼ per cent. and, even for a Corporation designed to break even year on year, that seems a quite substantial variation and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, South said, at the highest rate, the interest rates represent a very considerable burden for a young doctor.
In that connection, I was interested to see in Table 6 of appendix B in the annual report that, although the Corporation made a loan of £10,667 at a rate of 18 per cent., in fact no loans had been made. I cannot see how the number of loans can be nil and the sum of £10.667 is being loaned out. That appears to be a minor discrepancy which I hope the Minister will be able to clear up for us.
The other area of interest is the scope of what is available for grant under the scheme. Again, I was interested in the tables in the appendix, which are very full and informative, to see the subheading E "conversion, repairs and improvements", and I wondered what was covered by "improvements". I should have thought that one of the matters on which the hon. Member for East Kilbride and I could agree was that in all modern

861
practices there was a great need for permanent fixtures to ease and help administrationߞfiling equipment of one kind or anotherߞand I wondered whether this kind of improvement qualified for assistance by ways of loans under the provisions of the Corporation. It is most infuriating to patients to have to wait while records are found and collected and to wait in waiting rooms while searches are made and checks are being run on their previous clinical histories. If it were possible to make loans for improvements of this kind, it would be extremely helpful.
The report is less informative about the average life of a loan. We see that there is a total of some £13.4 million in loans outstanding and that repayments are £650,000 in the year in question. One can calculate from that that it is about a 20-year life for a loan. But I shall be interested to know what variation there is in the life of loans that are granted, whether they are all fixed and for the same term or are sufficiently flexible in their terms to enable doctors at various stages of their careers to a take on loans of this kind. A doctor may be 55 years of age and in the last 10 or 15 years of his career. Are the terms of loans sufficiently flexible to allow him to take advantage of the facilities of this scheme?
I underline what was said my my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, South about the variations between different regions, especially between the different countries. My hon. Friend talked about variations in grants. The additional point that I make is to draw attention to the difference between inquiries and applications. In England, about four-fifths of inquiries eventually became applications. In Scotland, less than one-fifth do. I know that the numbers are very different, but about 200 of 250 inquiries become applications in England, but only seven out of 36 do in Scotland. There is a considerable regional discrepency on which we should appreciate the Minister's comments.
It would be helpful in future to produce some statistical averages showing the population in each area in order to get some idea of the number of loans made per doctor population and per patient population. In this way we could see whether there were any discrepancies in the treatment afforded to the different regions of the country.
862
I underline the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, South. While the scheme is worth while and is helping to develop general practitioner care, which we all agree is very important, it is only a fleabite, and there is room for a great many more imaginative approaches to broaden and bring up to date the ways in which the loans are made. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to the points that we have made.
10.32 p.m.
Mr. Ronald Brown: I want to follow what the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson) said, but I do not wish to go too far into the statistical issue. I am more concerned with the human side.
I intervene because the Minister came to my constituency 18 months ago, and tramped around with me in most inclement weather to count the number of general practices in my area and to take the opportunity of looking at them. My right hon. Friend will remember the deplorable premises that he saw. Many of them were deplorableߞwe even saw one with barbed wire outside it. Those premises are still there—and it is 18 months since he looked at them.
I intervene to ask him whether there is any possible chanceߞor dangerߞthat any of this extra £7 million might come to the doctors in my area because they practise in such terrible premises. Will he find out before the end of the debate how much of the previous £18 million came into my area? Then he might ask himself how the doctors spent it on those deplorable premises.
My right hon. Friend came, he saw, he was impressed, and then he went away again. Will anything be done? We are fighting, and rowing and arguing and nothing is happening. If my right hon. Friend thinks that I will sit here and accept this Statutory Instrument unless I get some assurances, he is wrong. I shall call a Division. Eighteen months is long enough to wait. In that lime there has been no action from his Department to put matters right.
I know that things are just as bad as they were 18 months ago. Recently I took a television team around my area.

863
It is exactly as it was before, and we recorded it as such. I find the attitude of the Department extraordinary. There are enough civil servants to have brought forward a plan for some crash action by now to put right the appalling circumstances existing in my area. It is no good going to the Family Practitioner Committee, because that is a complete waste of time.
The Minister should have been able to satisfy himself about the so-called emergency service that runs in my area. The emergency service in my area is the doctor. When the hon. Member for Walsall, North talks about the one-on-one relationship, he should realise that in my area it is on the end of a telephone—802–2066, and anybody comes. I have never heard such rubbish in my life as when he talks about the one-on-one relationship. In my area we do not get it.
Mr. Hodgson: That is the ideal. That is what we are aiming forߞnot what we are actually at. The fact that we are not at that situation is one of the reasons that we are dissatisfied with the organisation of the National Health Service at present.
Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. In some areas there is a one-on-one relationship. In Bromley there is a delightful one-on-one relationship, and that is also the case in Blackheath where my right hon. Friend the Minister lives, and in Dulwich. But in Hackney, South and Shoreditch, which my right hon. Friend has visited, it is more comfortable in the local betting shop than it is in the doctor's surgery. There should be telecommunication between the betting shop and the surgery. The betting shop is warmer, nicer and also has music.
My right hon. Friend saw what was happening and I should like him tonight to tell me what he has done about the situation. What proposals is he putting forward to put the matter right? I have had a long-standing row with the area health authority, the Family Practitioner Committee and the whole caboosh. My right hon. Friend also knows that I am rather displeased with the chairman of the regional health authority whom he has just reappointed. To have given that
864
gentleman a knighthood in addition seems to be about as far as one can go to be rude and offensive to a parliamentary colleague.
I shall not vote for this order tonight unless I have from the Minister a categorical undertaking that he will come down to my area and examine these general practitioner conditions and see that some urgent action is taken. I do not want him to institute a long, two-year inquiry. Two days will be enough, and I want to see some action.
Another problem is that my area health authority has a closure syndrome. It takes the view that the National Health Service could be a wonderful service, but the only problem is the patientߞand the authority is trying to get rid of them. If only that were done, one could build a beautiful Health Service. My right hon. Friend has already assisted the authority by closing two hospitals. He has closed one permanently and claims to have saved £1 million. I have not yet seen the rewards that have flowed from that saving. Perhaps I shall soon be asking him to justify where that £1 million went when he closed that hospital against my objection.
My right hon. Friend then changed the use of another hospital, and even that is a disaster. Hackney Hopsital is a disgrace. He knows what an appalling state it is in. What is his Department doing about the matter? He has more civil servants to the square foot than I care to count. Are any of them doing anything apart from looking after their pension rights? It is about time my right hon. Friend understood that areas such as mine should be closely examined and dealt with seriously.
We are dealing with a modest order which, until I heard my right hon. Friend's remarks, I supported. I am sure that this order is an excellent way of going about the matter, but my right hon. Friend must not pretend that there is no problem in my area. I hope he will assure me that he is facing up to the problem in Hackney, South and Shoreditch. He understands the problem, and I want to know what he intends to do about it.
10.38 p.m.
Mr. Moyle: We have had an extremely wide-ranging debate on a very

865
limited order. Some of the points seem to have dealt with matters well outside the scope of the order, but I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in view of your wise supervision of the debate, that that was not the case and that it was merely an aberration on my part that I considered it to be so. I shall try to deal to the best of my ability with the points raised in the debate, although I have not had a great deal of notice of some of them.
I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Reading South (Dr. Vaughan) attack health centres. Certainly the Government have no intention of reducing the health centre programme. Indeed, we desire to expand the programme as fast as we can persuade general practitioners of the wisdom of practising in them. I stress the word "persuade" because the hon. Gentleman said that health centres should not be forced on general practitioners and we have made no attempt to do so. In fact, we have no powers to do so. A general practitioner is an independent contractor. He is not an employee of the Health Service. He can be part of a group practice, he can practise in his own front room, or he can practise in the ganger's hut to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) was referring.
The whole object of area health authorities, if they wish to get GPs into a health centre, must be to persuade them. One of the problems is that after a group of GPs have been persuaded to go into a centre one or two of the leaders of the group may die or retire and different attitudes may develop among the rest. On other occasions, there may be personality clashes so that when the centre is ready for occupation the GPs find it difficult to agree to move in and the centre can stay empty for some time. I mention this problem to convince the hon. Member for Reading, South that there is no compulsion in these matters.
I was surprised when the hon. Gentleman said that health centres should be confined to inner city areas. Some of the best health centres that I have seen were those in rural areas of Northern Ireland which I visited when I was the Minister of State at the Northern Ireland Office. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) said in his
866
good defence of health centres, there is no reason to believe that they are a technique for solving the general practice problems of inner city areas only.
The hon. Member for Reading, South eventually turned his attention to the order, but it was difficult to follow some of his criticisms because he said that, given the fall in the value of money, the upper limit for borrowing that the Government were seeking would not put the situation back to where it was in 1971.
I do not understand that criticism because until 1971 the Corporation was entitled to borrow up to £18 million without coming to the House for further authorisation. It has substantially used up that power and now wants power to borrow more moneyߞup to £25 million. That is the Corporation's figure. There is no question of offsetting inflation. That is the figure required to allow the Corporation to carry on with its activities. The hon. Gentleman asked why we did not give the Corporation more power; but the power in the order is all the Corporation wants.
In addition, the hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that if we increased the limit the time within which the Corporation would need to come back to the House to account for its activities would be extended still further. There would be less accountability of the Corporation to the House.
I entirely agree with 'what my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride said, even when he mentioned one or two weaknesses in the health centre system. There are strengths and weaknesses in everything and, on balance, the Government see health centres as a sound proposition for the development of general practice within the community. They are purpose built and there is nothing to prevent a one-to-one relationship. In most of the centres that I know, the patients are those of a particular doctor. Of course, if there is an emergency the doctor's colleagues can give cover, but that happens in group practices and even in small partnerships.
Dr. Vaughan: Will the Minister be discussing the high rates of interest? He should not discuss the total sum without discussing the high rates of interest which will materially alter the amount that is required.
Mr. Moyle: I shall deal with that. I admit that the one area in which the Corporation is criticised occasionally by members of the profession relates to the high rates of interest. The hon. Gentleman made a plea that rates of interest should be lower. However, rates of interest are a function of the money market. The Corporation must have regard to that in its interest rate policy and the way in which it charges interest rates. The alternative to interest rates that follow the market are subsidies to hold down the interest rate. Subsidies would lead to increased public expenditure, which I know is the last thing that the hon. Gentleman would want to incur. He will readily see that there is no alternative but to follow the money market.
The Corporation attempts to offset interest rates by borrowing in small amounts when interest rates are low in an attempt to ensure that it can take advantage of a fall in interest rates when that occurs. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson) quoted 18 per cent., but the current rate of interest charged on loans is now down to 13 per cent. as a result of the policy that I have been describing. I think that that answers a number of the questions asked by the hon. Member for Walsall, North.
Broadly speaking, loans are for 20 years at fixed rates of interest, or until such time as the junior member of the partnership reaches the age of 65 years, whichever is the earlier date.
It seems that the relationship of loans made to inquiries received is much more to do with the flow of business than in gaps in demand in any one country in the United Kingdom. Although in the year that the hon. Member for Walsall, North quoted there were 36 inquiries made in Scotland which resulted in only six loans, in the following year ending 31st March 1978 there were eight inquiries and eight loans. That does not signify anything much because in Wales in the same period there were nine inquiries and 10 loans. In England there were 195 inquiries and 212 loans. It seems that it is very much a matter of the flow of business. I shall consider the matter to ascertain whether there is a further explanation.
Mr. Hodgson: It is good of the right hon. Gentlemna to produce the figures, but if the debate had taken place at a later stage we would have had the figures ourselves. That underlines the inappropriateness of the debate taking place now. Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the 20-year loan policy has the flexibility to meet the doctors' needs? Is there not an argument for having a more flexible approach?
Mr. Moyle: At present the 20-year loan approach must be sufficiently flexible to meet the desires of the profession. No doubt there are doctors who would make suggestions for alterations, but on the whole we do not get any substantial criticism of the operations of the Corporation from the profession other than the level of interest rates, which is a function of the money markets and the general economy.
As for the timing of the debate, the object is not to debate the annual report of the Finance Corporation but to meet the Corporation's desire to increase its borrowing limits. It is knocking hard against the limits that were laid down in the previous order. That is what controls the timing of the debate.
Mr. Hodgson: It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say that this is not an inappropriate time for the debate because we are talking only about the extension of the Corporation's borrowing limit. However, this is a question of parliamentary control, which means that we review the Corporation's operations and the effectiveness of its work. We have no figures that are less than 15 months out of date. I do not consider that to be a satisfactory way of reviewing the efficiency of the Corporation before we decide whether to extend its borrowing requirement, as the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) has already said.
Mr. Moyle: The timing turns on the Corporation's need for a higher borrowing limit. This is the controlling factor. It would be ideal if we could combine the latest flow of figures with the order raising the borrowing limit but these matters do not always work in that way.
Dr. Vaughan: Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that he should have

869
made available the figures that are in his possession? He knew that we would wish to discuss the function of the Corporation before authorising an increase of its borrowing limits.
Mr. Moyle: I have given the figures for the inquiries received and loans relating to each country in the United Kingdom. I have given that factual information and the amounts borrowed. Therefore, I have attempted to plug the gaps in the knowledge of the House for the purpose of the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch is understandably upset about the standard of general practitioner services in his constituency. Indeed, I had an opportunity of seeing for myself when I visited Hackney 18 months ago. There have been certain improvements in the general approach towards inner city areas. My hon. Friend will appreciate that the problem in his constituency is a problem in inner city areas generally. Often the conditions that he finds in his constituency are repeated in other parts of London and in inner city areas in Liverpool, Manchester and other great provincial cities.
Action hs been taken since my visit. The Department is taking a full part in the partnership areas, which have been set up by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, in developing policies and services to attract back the population. But the problem is intractable and will not be solved quickly.
As a result of my visit to Hackney, I came to the conclusion that the general practitioner services in the area were inadequate and that the social services were under considerable strain. Therefore, one of the first actions was to increase the bed norm for acute beds in the area, because hospitals in that part of London will have to bear a greater strain than was forecast for the general run of the country.
In addition, Barts is using a health centre in Hackney for training its medical students in general practice. That has been a development since my visit. I am talking off the cuff, because I did not have notice that my hon. Friend intended to raise this matter. However,
870
I shall write to him with more precise details of this arrangement. Of course, it means that general practitioner services in Hackney have been strengthened.
There is a fairly vigorous debate within the medical profession and health administration generally on how the problem of general practitioner services in the inner city areas should be solved. One school of thought believes that these services should be directly strengthened. Another school of thought believes that it will be difficult to strengthen these services and that we should develop the services of the hospitals to fill the gaps which general practice seems incapable of fulfilling adequately. That matter has not been resolved. Fairly strong views are held on either side.
I agree that Hackney Hospital is not attractive, but I have every confidence that the nucleus hospital on the site of the Eastern Hospital will be developed and that building will start in the not too distant future.
Obviously, with inadequate general practitioner services in the Hackney area, not only are the deputising services used, but there seems to be a deliberate attempt to try to put as much of the general practitioner services on the deputising services as possible. Since my visit to the area we have engaged in intensive consultations with the medical profession, and a code of practice has now been agreed by the profession, by the Department and by Ministers for application to all general practitioners. I advise my hon. Friend to get hold of a copy of the code of practice and make sure that the general practitioners in his area observe it. If they do not, the matter can be drawn to the attention of the family practitioner committee which is now under a compulsion from its professional association to take disciplinary action against a general practitioner who fails to observe the arrangements for using deputising services as laid down in the code.
Although I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch that there is a great deal more to be done before a proper general practitioner service can be said to exist in his part of London, there is no doubt that some action has been taken as a result of my visit. Progress has been made

871
towards the solution of the general practitioner problem in inner city areas in general and in his area in some respects. I hope he will on that basis appreciate that there is some good will.
Mr. Ronald Brown: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for identifying these matters for me. Is he aware that he gave me an undertaking when it was agreed to close the hospital in my area that the concomitant of that would be the injection of funds into St. Leonard's Hospital for the improvement of certain departments such as the X-ray department and the outpatients department? Is he further aware that the area health authority is now arguing that since it believes that the hospital has a life of only five years it is not worth spending that money? While he says things in this House in all honesty and sincerity, there is a big difference between what he says and what happens "on site". Will he investigate this matter to ascertain where the communication breaks down? The authority is not planning to spend the money that my right hon. Friend assures me will be spent.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. The hon. Member is going rather wide. He knows full well that this matter is entirely outwith the scope of what we are discussing. I have been generous in allowing the Minister to deal with it, but the subject that the hon. Member is raising is more suitable for an Adjournment debate than for question and answer with the Minister during a discussion about an increased loan.
Mr. Ronald Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I enlighten you? This matter is pertinent to the debate. If the general practitioners had proper facilities and were able to use money in this order they could provide adequate accommodation in my constituency. The hospitals would not then have to be used as they are being used. I am urging the Minister to see whether general practitioners can use the money to avoid the problems with the hospitals.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I heard the hon. Member discussing the question of the hospitals and so in in the area. Has the Minister finished?
Mr. Moyle: I was about to conclude on the question of St. Leonard's Hospital. In view of your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker, I had better tell my hon. Friend that I shall look into the matter and leave it at that.
My hon. Friend asked about resources for general practitioners in his area. One can lead a horse to water, but one cannot make him drink. I suspect that a number of the general practitioners we have been discussing this evening and whose premises we inspected 18 months ago do not want to drink. That is the basic problem against the background that they are independent contractors.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft General Practice Finance Corporation (Increase of Borrowing Powers) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 6th June, be approved.

ST. NICHOLAS HOSPITAL, PLUMSTEAD
Motion made, and Question proposed.
That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]
10.58 p.m.
Mr. John Cartwright: I am grateful for this chance of raising the subject of the St. Nicholas Hospital Plumstead, which has been threatened by a variety of rationalisation proposals for the past seven years.
At the outset, may I say how much I regret the absence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I know that because of his personal involvement in the case he wanted to reply to the debate. It is a matter of great regret that his presence in hospital prevents him from so doing.
St. Nicholas is not, as are most other threatened hospitals, a small run-down unit in a decaying area. On the contrary, it is a 300-bed district general hospital serving the greater part of my constituency, one of the few areas of inner London to have a growing population.
The story begins in late 1971, when the South-East Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board announced a plan to develop the Brook as the district general hospital for the Woolwich area and to rationalise

873
services at St. Nicholas. This rationalisation, like all the others which were to follow, simply meant cutting the services provided to my constituents. St. Nicholas was to become a complementary community hospital providing a few bits of minor surgery and out-patient services under the general umbrella of the Brook. There were widespread public opponents of this scheme, and it died with the regional hospital board in 1974.
However, no sooner had the new National Health Service administrators settled into their spacious new offices than we were once again being told that the area had too many hospital beds. In an unofficial discussion document produced in December 1975, the Greenwich and Bexley Area Health Authority suggested scrapping all but 20 of the 287 acute beds at St. Nicholas and adding 87 for psycho-geriatric care and a further 120 for mental illness.
The regional health authority went still further. It wanted to remove all the acute beds and to replace them with 100 for geriatrics and 87 for psychogeriatrics. The area health authority took little notice of the public opposition in drawing up its formal consultation document, issued in November 1976.
Faced with the unyielding mathematical dictatorship of the regional bed norm, they decided that acute beds had to be cut. The two super-colossal prestige hospitals, Queen Mary's, Sidcup, and Greenwich District, were sacrosanct, and the choice for the chop therefore lay between the Brook and St. Nicholas.
The Brook had the advantage of massive new investment in the recent past, plus the siting of the regional units for neurology, cardiothoracic and neuro surgery. The AHA therefore decided that
"The retention of acute services at St. Nicholas Hospital cannot be justified."
However, the discussion document did enter one caveat. If the regional units were to leave the Brook the whole question of the future of the two hospitals would have to be re-examined. In what has become one of the most quoted statements in the discussion document, the AHA conceded:
"This is acknowledged to be perhaps the most difficult area for recommendation and decision, particularly as St. Nicholas Hospital,
874
sited within a densely populated area and with direct access to Thamesmead, is from the geographical viewpoint, in an excellent location."
In other words, a hospital ideally sited to meet the needs of a genuine local community was to be closed in order to direct patients further afield.
Faced with the total opposition of a community, the AHA hesitated. On 25th May 1977, it issued a statement referring to the
"public reaction generally and particularly the support for the retention of St. Nicholas Hospital."
As a result, the AHA asked its officers to examine the possibility of retaining at St. Nicholas general medicine, general and orthopedic surgery, gynaecology and maternity beds, together with the geriatric unit.
However, on 12th July there was yet another U-turn, when the area authority confirmed its previous policy of total closure of all the beds at St. Nicholas. This decision was rubber-stamped by the regional health authority within a week, and the problem then landed on the desk of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
To his credit, my right hon. Friend received a number of deputations and he also visited Plumstead to see for himself not only the hospital but the area that it serves. As a result, he wrote to the chairman of the regional health authority on 13th December 1977, saying:
"I do not believe it can be right to close this hospital and I am unwilling to do so."
He went on:
"It seems to me that the best course is to link St. Nicholas with Greenwich District Hospital and provide at St. Nicholas a viable acute service of, say, 50 medical and 50 surgical beds together with an out-patient unit and daytime casualty service."
He added that it would be
"advantageous to concentrate other services at St. Nicholas."
He proposed the retention of obstetrics and the gynaecology unit.
In his public statement issued on 14th December 1977, my right hon. Friend justified his decision by saying:
"St. Nicholas is a valued hospital, well situated to service a community whose population is growing. It is in Plumstead where social conditons are poor and there are many old people living in bad housing. It is also central tor Thamesmead, a locality of industrial development."

875
The local reaction to this decision was one of quiet satisfaction. At last, a Cabinet Minister had listened to ordinary people rather than anonymous officials. At last, patients were being seen as real people in need and not just decimal points in the lunatic logic of the bed norm formula.
Not surprisingly, the Health Service mandarins were less pleased. In fact, they were furious. They claimed that St. Nicholas in its new form would be no more than a second-class hospital and that it would cost at least £1 million to bring it up to standard, thus giving ample proof of their policy of deliberate neglect of the hospital over the years.
So we had deadlock. The area health authority wanted to shut the hospital; the Secretary of State wanted it kept open. Suddenly, help appeared on the horizon. Galloping to the rescue, like the US Cavalry in the last reel of those well-loved Westerns, came the regional health authority, clutching a so-called compromise formula. It turned out to be a very strange compromise. It kept the hospital open, but only just. The 235 acute beds were to be cut to just 20 for minor day surgery, plus another 20 to 25 for the use of GPs. There were to be minor casualty facilities and the possibility at some unspecified date of a psychogeriatric unit, first suggested in 1975.
With a sigh of relief which was audible all the way from the Elephant and Castle to Plumstead High Street, my right hon. Friend fell on this plan as the best way of getting himself off an increasingly embarrassing hook. It was produced by the regional authority on 20th April but by 4th May the Secretary of State had accepted it—lock, stock and psycho-geriatric unit. What my right hon. Friend has so far failed to explain is how this pale shadow of a hospital can possibly provide the "viable acute service" which he believed was needed last December.
How will it help with the poor social conditions? What contribution can it make to the growing population? What will it do for the many old people in bad housing? How can the needs of local industry be met by minor casualty facilities?
876
The medical staff at the hospital are quite convinced that the compromise cannot and will not work. The surgeons discredit the idea of day surgery being undertaken at an isolated hospital, possibly by unsupervised junior staff. The local GPs have dismissed as "unwanted" the proposed general practitioner beds. The geriatrician believes that the services for the old will be substandard.
Perhaps the most damning rejection of the whole idea came from the area health authority itself in November 1976 when it withdrew its own earlier proposal to make St. Nicholas a community hospital. it said then:
"the combination of geriatric work, some GP medicine and day surgery…would not, of itself, constitute a viable hospital for in-patients. From a medical and nursing staff viewpoint, very grave doubts have been expressed as to whether the minimum requirements by way of recruitment would be achieved."
Yet it is just this role that my right hon. Friend has now imposed upon St. Nicholas. Why? First, because it will save money. The regional health authority suggests that £550,000 a year will be saved by dismembering St. Nicholas. The latest available figures show that the cost per in-patient day at St. Nicholas is £34.88 compared with £36.56 at Greenwich District and £41.82 at the Brook. In other words, the beds to be closed are currently the least costly to operate. As always, the figures are totally one-sided.
We are not told what would be the capital or running costs of the regional authority's proposed psychogeriatric unit. They will obviously eat substantially into the savings. Nor are we told what is to happen to the rest of the St. Nicholas buildings if only 80 beds are to be kept in use However, there is a clue in the region's assumption that £125,000 will be saved by transferring staff from rented offices to vacated hospital buildings. That would mean giving up all the space that is now rented at Marlowe House, Sidcup, and Morgan Grampian House, Woolwich, amounting to 25,000 square feet. That we can seriously contemplate turning purpose-built hospitals into offices seems to be a sad commentary on the present priorities of our National Health Service.
The second reason for this massive cut-back at St. Nicholas was underlined

877
as recently as this week by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when he again claimed that the main problem facing the area was the over-provision of acute beds. I very much doubt whether those of my constituents who are waiting for operations would agree, particularly when the downgrading of St. Nicholas will remove at a stroke over 200 acute beds. Faced with a cut of this magnitude the question must arise: what will happen to all the patients now being treated at St. Nicholas? The beds to be lost are not empty. They are full of warm bodies.
If the area is so seriously overburdened with acute beds one would expect waiting lists to be insignificant. Yet the latest available figures show 363 people awaiting admission to St. Nicholas for general surgery. Compared with 311 five years previously, that indicates no slackening of demand. The total number on the St. Nicholas waiting list is now 488 and there is no obvious slack to be taken up at the neighbouring hospitals, with 506 people waiting for beds at Greenwich District and 392 at the Brook.
Although waiting times have certainly improved, for general surgery they still range from three months at Greenwich District Hospital to seven months at St. Nicholas. The scrapping of so many beds at St. Nicholas can hardly fail to make those lists longer still.
This is the central core of the argument. Despite all the thousands of words that have poured out from every Health Service level about the need to cut services in Greenwich and Bexley, no one has yet produced any assessment of the end result on the people who matter, the patients. The beds that are to go are not now empty; they are fully used. Their removal must therefore mean a cut in the number of inpatients being treated in the Greenwich and Bexley area.
I know that my right hon. Friend denied this in a radio programme earlier this week, but he should look again at the sums. I had some calculations done for me which show that it is physically impossible to treat the number of inpatients dealt with in 1976 with the number of beds that will be left after the cuts at St. Nicholas and elsewhere.
Assuming that the remaining beds are 90 per cent. occupied, I am advised that
878
there will be a shortfall of 33 in general medicine, 61 in general surgery, 21 in gynaecology, and 42 in orthopaedic surgery, making a total deficiency of 157 beds. Put another way, the reduced number of beds available will be sufficient to take only 5,400 fewer patients than were treated in 1976.
I have deliberately been generous in assuming a 90 per cent. bed occupancy. At 85 per cent., which is much more likely, the shortage of beds rises to 211, and the shortfall of patients treated goes up to 6,780. The shortage of beds revealed in these calculations is roughly equivalent to the number to be lost at St. Nicholas, which is why the future of this hospital is so important to so many people. I hope that my hon. Friend will not give the easy answer that the shortage of beds can be made good by cutting the time spent in hospital. That would assume an improvement in primary care and community health services which is just not happening.
I repeat that this is the central question, which I hope my hon. Friend will try to answer. What is to happen to the patients who are now being treated at St. Nicholas when their beds have gone? I hope my hon. Friend will not seek refuge in the antiseptic anonymity of the regional bed norm. I am concerned about real flesh and blood human beings who need hospital care.
Two other issues arise. St. Nicholas is frequently on call for the whole Greenwich district when the hospitals are full. At present, for example, it is accepting emergency cases because the operating theatres at the Greenwich District Hospital have been closed by the unfortunate industrial dispute there. Clearly, that facility will be removed with the downgrading of St. Nicholas. Where will the emergencies go then?
Secondly, the area health authority made it clear in November 1976 that it would want to re-examine the future of St. Nicholas again if the special regional services were removed from the Brook. It therefore regarded the closure of St. Nicholas as being provisional. In a Written Answer on 26th October 1977, I was assured by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State that the regional health authority was not currently proposing the

879
transfer of these specialties. However, on 26th May this year, I was told in another Written Answer from my right hon. Friend that the future of these units was being examined by the regional medical committee with a view to putting proposals to the regional health authority. I must say that there will be very considerable suspicion and cynicism if these regional units are removed from the Brook when it is too late to re-open the future of St. Nicholas.
I have raised a number of detailed questions. I realise that my hon. Friend may not be able to reply to them all. Nevertheless, I hope that answers will be forthcoming quickly, because, after seven years of talk and double talk and twists and turns, the people of Plumstead and the staff of the hospital are entitled to some straight answers on these vital questions.
Finally, I underline again the total opposition of the medical staff to the current plan for St. Nicholas. If it is imposed, it will be against their advice, and they do not believe that it can provide an acceptable level of service. Nor are they willing to co-operate in a phased rundown of services. If the cuts are forced through, therefore, I believe that there is a real risk of a total withdrawal by all the present consultants. On that ground alone, I believe that my right hon. Friend should think again, even at this late stage, and honour the public commitment he gave last December to retain the viable acute service at St. Nicholas.
11.14 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Eric Deakins): I must first apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) that I am replying to this debate. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State intended to do this himself in view of his personal involvement in the discussions which led up to his decisions last May. Unfortunately, as my hon. Friend has acknowledged, the Secretary of State is now in hospital him-self and cannot be here tonight. I apologise for him.
I welcome my hon. Friend's action in raising the subject of St. Nicholas Hospital tonight in the House and giving me
880
the opportunity to clarify how the decisions were taken and why my right hon. Friend has agreed to the change of use of this hospital. I must also congratulate my hon. Friend on the skilful and balanced way in which he has presented the case for maintaining the present level of services at this hospital.
The reduction of services at St. Nicholas Hospital must be seen in the context of the provision of health services in the South East Thames region as a whole and in the Greenwich and Bexley area. My right hon. Friend has made it very clear that we are determined to achieve a much greater measure of fairness in the distribution of resources and move towards much greater equality of access to health care. To do this there needs to be redistribution of resources not only between regions but within regions, as some of the biggest inequalities are between over-provided and under-provided areas in the same regions. My right hon. Friend has asked regional health authorities to assess resource targets for areas to provide a measure of relative needs. I am sure that the House and my hon. Friend would not wish me to spend time now in explaining how these targets are assessed.
The principles adopted are those recommended by the Resource Allocation Working Party and have been explained to the House on previous occasions. I should make it clear, however, that we do not believe that targets worked out in this way can be used without modification in allocating resources, particularly to areas and districts. There are a number of factors which cannot be fully taken into account. For example, housing, environmental health, employment and even transport facilities may have relevance to the needs for health care. My hon. Friend emphasised a number of these points in his quotation from the Press notice of December last year.
We should also like to develop a more accurate measure of morbidity. Accordingly, we have told the authorities that they should not seek to apply mechanistically a formula or a predetermined rate of change from existing allocations towards targets. The pace of change must depend on the ability of above-target areas to rationalise services without unacceptable disruption to the existing level of provision or to teaching or other specialist

881
needs. Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend has said that he expects to see significant progress towards the redistribution of revenue resources. This is our general policy.
The South East Thames Regional Health Authority has calculated targets for its areas which show that there is a wide disparity between the present resources available to those areas. Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham teaching area is £28 million above target; Greenwich and Bexley is £6 million above target; while Kent is £27 million below target and East Sussex £7 million below target. These targets are, of course, based on catchment population and not just resident population. Even allowing for the crude nature of mathematical targets, there can be no doubt that there needs to be substantial redistribution of revenue within this region.
My right hon. Friend is engaged in discussions about how quickly, and to what extent, expenditure in Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham teaching area can be reduced without damage to essential teaching and specialist needs and without unacceptable disruption to existing services. The House, I know, would not wish me to dwell on this aspect of the situation but would prefer me to concentrate on the Greenwich and Bexley area, and, in particular, on St. Nicholas Hospital.
The central problem facing this area, as my hon. Friend recognised, has been the over-provision against national standards of acute beds. The construction in this area of two new hospitals over a period of years left the area with over 300 acute beds more than national standards would indicate it needs. The area health authority and the regional health authority, after prolonged consultation, submitted to my right hon. Friend a plan for concentrating services in the area and this joint plan included a proposal to close St. Nicholas Hospital altogether. As my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. Friend visited the area and spent some time at St. Nicholas Hospital. He has met staff of the hospital, the community health council, and has, I know, had discussions with my hon. Friend. He also considered the representations made to him by local organisations and petitions and letters
882
signed by individual members of the public.
Last December my right hon. Friend announced that he did not believe it could be right to close this hospital and that he was unwilling to do so. He agreed that it was exceptionally welt sited in a locality where the population is expected to increase and where it provides effective and valued service to the local community. At that time, my right hon. Friend gave no specific undertakings about the future use of the hospital. However, he made it clear then that there was scope for a significant reduction in the number of acute beds at the hospital, and he said clearly that he could see no justification for retaining a full accident and emergency service in view of the major accident and emergency departments a short distance away at the Brook and the Greenwich District Hospitals.
He asked the health authorities to consider whether a practicable plan acceptable to both authorities could be prepared on the basis of retaining at St. Nicholas Hospital a viable acute medical and surgical service, the obstetric and gynaecological unit, out-patient department and day-time casualty service. This proposal was linked with a request to the authorities to consider the practicality of transferring geriatric provision fom the Memorial Hospital to St. Nicholas Hospital and closing the Memorial Hospital, and with the closure of the British Hospital for Mothers and Babies.
The area health authority considered these proposals carefully, and came to the view that it would be wrong to transfer the geriatric services from the Memorial Hospital to St. Nicholas Hospital. The authority told my right hon. Friend that the necessary ward adaptation would involve further capital cost of approximately £500,000 and that even then the environment would inevitably not equal the standard of care at the Memorial Hospital. The area health authority regards the continuing care services for the elderly at the Memorial Hospital as amongst the best in the region and wishes to see them developed still more in the future. The authority could not accept that these services should be transferred to accommodation at St. Nicholas Hospital, which could not be as satisfactory.
On maternity provision, the authority did not consider that the retention of the

883
obstetric beds at St. Nicholas was desir able as the ward is sub-standard and uneconomical of staff. Paediatric medical cover is not satisfactory and the unit is not approved for midwifery training. The authority also wished to correct the imbalance in maternity beds between the Greenwich district and Bexley district. The area health authority's view was still that the sensible course in the situation it was facing would be to close St. Nicholas Hospital.
The regional health authority, however, after its own officers had analysed the situation again, felt that the strong local case for the continuation of hospital services on the St. Nicholas site should be met. Accordingly, the regional health authority proposed a compromise and suggested that St. Nicholas Hospital should change its role to become a community hospital having out-patient and minor casualty facilities, theatre and the supporting services for day surgery, 20 to 25 general practitioner medicine beds and also retain its two geriatric wards of 41 beds. The authority also suggested that as soon as practicable a psychogeriatric day centre should be established on the St. Nicholas site.
My right hon. Friend accepts the view of the regional health authority that the proper function of St. Nicholas Hospital is to be a community hospital providing treatment in the local community for those patients who do not need the full resources of the district general hospital. It really is not practicable to retain in a single district three district general hospitals, and it is obviously essential that full use is made of the new facilities at Greenwich District Hospital.
In this connection, I think there may be some misunderstanding about what a community hospital is. I know my hon. Friend would not object to a community hospital. I think that his objection is to the facilities which are provided in it. The simplest definition that I can quote is in our planning guidelines which we sent out in March of this year to area and regional health authorities. These guidelines comment on the standards set out in our two priorities documents of the past two years:
"…a community hospital should be regarded as a local hospital which…it is intended to retain to provide services for patients living locally who do not need the
884
full specialist facilities of a DGH; does not form part of a DGH complex; provides services for patients under the care of general medical practitioners as well as patients under the care of hospital consultants (precise arrangements for the management of medical care are for local discussion); is not confined to one specialty; where appropriate and practicable, provides, among other services, rehabilitation and continuing care of elderly patients, including the elderly severely mentally infirm."
I know that local people and local industries and organisations in Plumstead and Thamesmead think highly of the accident and emergency service at St. Nicholas. But there are major accident and emergency facilities at both Greenwich District Hospital and the Brook Hospital. Much has been said about the time it can take an ambulance to take patients to these hospitals. Even at the most pessimistic assessment, the time cannot be regarded as unacceptable by national standards.
The day-time casualty service will provide treatment for minor injuries and this will minimise the inconvenience to patients who suffer such injuries, whilst those who need the full resources of a major accident and emergency department can be taken by ambulance to where such facilities are available. There have been difficulties in manning the accident and emergency unit at St. Nicholas Hospital, and it really is better for patients for services to be concentrated so that reliable cover in fully-equipped departments can be provided. This is more important than a small saving in time in getting a patient to an accident and emergency unit, particularly as ambulance crews are trained in first aid measures.
On obstetric services, my right hon. Friend fully recognises that many mothers would prefer to have their babies near to home. It is understandable. But the retention of a small maternity unit at St. Nicholas is not necessary to provide for the number of births in the district and concentration of maternity facilities in hospitals where the full resources of modern medicine, including paediatric care, are available is in accord with professional opinion and national policy. It would not be realistic to leave gynaecological provision on its own once the maternity service is concentrated and, therefore, retention of the obstetric and gynaecological service at St. Nicholas is not justified.

885
My right hon. Friend is satisfied that by making full use of the new hospitals in the area, supplemented by keeping the hospital as a community hospital, a good service can be provided for my hon. Friend's constituents. Clearly the reduction of acute beds will have some effect on waiting lists at the other hospitals. The area health authority will need to consider some changes in bed provision at Greenwich District Hospital and the Brook Hospital and ensure that full and intensive use is made of the facilities at these hospitals.
My hon. Friend has mentioned figures comparing the utilisation and costs of hospitals in the district. I do not believe that it would be helpful for me to follow him in these sorts of comparisons. So much depends on the mix of specialties and case load that comparisons based on statistics of individual hospitals can often be misleading.
We recognise that there will inevitably be transitional problems in changing the role of the hospital, particularly in resolving medical staffing difficulties. It is for the area health authority to work out, in consultation with its advisory committees, community health council and the staffs of the hospitals affected, the right solutions to these problems. I know that some clinicians have expressed doubts
886
about the viability of the plan—a point emphasised by my hon. Friend—but the problems are still being considered by the various professional advisory committees and it should not be impossible for the difficulties to be resolved in these local discussions. However, I take note of my hon. Friend's point, which is a matter of practicality, which will obviously affect the final outcome of the discussions.
Given the firm objective of retaining an effective hospital, albeit with a reduced number of beds, as a community hospital, these problems can surely be overcome.
My right hon. Friend believes that the authority will make every effort to establish St. Nicholas as a viable and effective community hospital. We feel confident that the authority will be helped in this task by the affection my hon. Friend's constituents have for their local hospital and the enthusiasm they have displayed in the "Save St. Nicholas" campaign. St. Nicholas' Hospital has been saved, but the best way now of making sure that it continues is to support it in its new role and show just how effective a community hospital can be in meeting the needs of the local community.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Eleven o'clock.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Food (Nutrition)
  Food (Nutrition)
  Danish Bacon Subsidy
  Danish Bacon Subsidy
  Milk Sector
  Milk Sector
  European Community Council of Ministers
  European Community Council of Ministers
  Veterinary Investigation Service
  Veterinary Investigation Service
  European Community Council of inisters (Fisheries)
  European Community Council of inisters (Fisheries)
  Potato Marketing Board
  Potato Marketing Board
  Horticulture (Energy Policy)
  Horticulture (Energy Policy)
  Farm Fires (Livestock Protection)
  Farm Fires (Livestock Protection)
  European Community (Food Surplus Subsidy and Disposal)
  European Community (Food Surplus Subsidy and Disposal)
  Cooked and Canned Beef (Republic of Ireland)
  Cooked and Canned Beef (Republic of Ireland)
  Sheepmeat
  Sheepmeat
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Intervention Stocks
  Intervention Stocks
  White Fish Authority
  White Fish Authority
  Sugar
  Sugar
  European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund Grants
  European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund Grants
  Food Manufacturing (Plant and Machinery)
  Food Manufacturing (Plant and Machinery)
  Protein from Hydrocarbons
  Protein from Hydrocarbons
  Milk Prices
  Milk Prices
  Bread and Flour
  Bread and Flour
  Warble Fly Eradication Order
  Warble Fly Eradication Order
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  CBI
  CBI
  TEWKESBURY
  TEWKESBURY
  COWDENBEATH
  COWDENBEATH
  GOVERNMENT COMPUTER FACILITIES
  GOVERNMENT COMPUTER FACILITIES
  TUC
  TUC
  DURHAM
  DURHAM
  CITY OF LONDON
  CITY OF LONDON
  WELFARE BENEFITS (TAXATION)
  WELFARE BENEFITS (TAXATION)
  HEADS OF GOVERNMENT SUMMIT MEETING
  HEADS OF GOVERNMENT SUMMIT MEETING
  CROMARTY
  CROMARTY
  ROME
  ROME
  TOP SALARIES REVIEW BODY
  TOP SALARIES REVIEW BODY
ENERGY
  Electricity and Gas Bill Payment (Code of Practice)
  Electricity and Gas Bill Payment (Code of Practice)
  Mining Employment (Scotland)
  Mining Employment (Scotland)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Departmental Employees (Records)
  Departmental Employees (Records)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Further Education College Courses
  Further Education College Courses
HOME DEPARTMENT
  American Citizen (Benefits)
  American Citizen (Benefits)
  Mr. Andrew Wershof
  Mr. Andrew Wershof
  National Television Licence Records Office
  National Television Licence Records Office
  Political Refugees (Argentina)
  Political Refugees (Argentina)
  Animals (Experiments)
  Animals (Experiments)
  Mentally Abnormal Oflenders
  Mentally Abnormal Oflenders
  Saudi Arabian Nationals
  Saudi Arabian Nationals
  Local Authority Lotteries
  Local Authority Lotteries
WALES
  Gwynedd (Geological Survey)
  Gwynedd (Geological Survey)
  Dwellings-Households Ratio
  Dwellings-Households Ratio
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
  Fees
  Fees
  Retailers' Margins
  Retailers' Margins
  Price Stability (Formal Undertakings)
  Price Stability (Formal Undertakings)
  Chester
  Chester
  Stabilisation Undertakings
  Stabilisation Undertakings
  Industrial Accidents
  Industrial Accidents
  Factory Inspectors
  Factory Inspectors
ENVIRONMENT
  Listed Buildings (Greater London)
  Listed Buildings (Greater London)
  Humber Bridge
  Humber Bridge
  Coast Erosion
  Coast Erosion
  Ancient Monuments
  Ancient Monuments
  Oil Spill Protection Devices
  Oil Spill Protection Devices
  Water Supplies (Hose Bans)
  Water Supplies (Hose Bans)
  Rents
  Rents
  Houseboats
  Houseboats
  Lyceum, Liverpool
  Lyceum, Liverpool
  Holyrood House
  Holyrood House
  Wingrove House, Alnwick
  Wingrove House, Alnwick
  Olympic Games 1988
  Olympic Games 1988
  Sport (Exhibition)
  Sport (Exhibition)
  Inner Urban Areas Bill (Guidance Notes)
  Inner Urban Areas Bill (Guidance Notes)
  Aerosols
  Aerosols
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  United Kingdom Citizens Overseas (Legal Aid)
  United Kingdom Citizens Overseas (Legal Aid)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  St. Christopher-Nevis-Anguilla
  St. Christopher-Nevis-Anguilla
SCOTLAND
  Royal High School, Edinburgh
  Royal High School, Edinburgh
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  South of Scotland Electricity Board
  South of Scotland Electricity Board
TRANSPORT
  Motorway Accidents
  Motorway Accidents
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Benefits (United States Citizen)
  Benefits (United States Citizen)
  Maternity Units
  Maternity Units
  Mouth Diseases
  Mouth Diseases
  Royal College of Nursing (Secretary of State's Message)
  Royal College of Nursing (Secretary of State's Message)
  Brookwood Hospital (Staffing Ratios)
  Brookwood Hospital (Staffing Ratios)
  Hospitals (Patient Transfers)
  Hospitals (Patient Transfers)
  Children (Care Proceedings)
  Children (Care Proceedings)
  Secure Psychiatric Units
  Secure Psychiatric Units
  Royal Homoeopathic Hospital, London
  Royal Homoeopathic Hospital, London
  Mr. D. P. Merfield
  Mr. D. P. Merfield
  North-West Surrey (Staffing Ratios)
  North-West Surrey (Staffing Ratios)
  Supplementary Benefits
  Supplementary Benefits
  Health Service Costs (Firemen's Strike)
  Health Service Costs (Firemen's Strike)
  General Practitioners' Lists
  General Practitioners' Lists
  National Health Service (Employees)
  National Health Service (Employees)
  Myolectric Hands
  Myolectric Hands
  National Health Service (Health and Safety)
  National Health Service (Health and Safety)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Calves (Export)
  Calves (Export)
  European Community Council of Ministers (Fisheries)
  European Community Council of Ministers (Fisheries)
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
TRADE
  Fish (Import Duties)
  Fish (Import Duties)
  Films
  Films
  Olympic Games 1988
  Olympic Games 1988
  Oil Tankers (Spillage Pollution)
  Oil Tankers (Spillage Pollution)
  Compulsory Purchase Orders (Inquiries)
  Compulsory Purchase Orders (Inquiries)
  Tourism (North Pennines)
  Tourism (North Pennines)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Building Allowances
  Building Allowances
  Tax Exemption Certificates
  Tax Exemption Certificates
  European Community (Court of Auditors)
  European Community (Court of Auditors)
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  Dividends
  Dividends
  National Land Fund
  National Land Fund
  Government Departments (Banking Arrangements)
  Government Departments (Banking Arrangements)
  European Community Finance Council
  European Community Finance Council
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  European Community
  European Community
DEFENCE
  Carrier Ships
  Carrier Ships
  Royal Air Force Regiment
  Royal Air Force Regiment
  North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
  North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
  Air Force Bases (Protection)
  Air Force Bases (Protection)
  Invincible Class Cruiser
  Invincible Class Cruiser
  Army Boards of Inquiry (Records)
  Army Boards of Inquiry (Records)
  Soviet SS20 Missile
  Soviet SS20 Missile
  USSR (Naval Activity)
  USSR (Naval Activity)
  Parachute Forces
  Parachute Forces
INDUSTRY
  Jojoba Plant
  Jojoba Plant
  European Community (Investment)
  European Community (Investment)
  Olympic Games 1988
  Olympic Games 1988
  Merchant Vessels
  Merchant Vessels
  Shipbuilding
  Shipbuilding
  Post Office Philatelic Bureau
  Post Office Philatelic Bureau
  Cobalt Supplies
  Cobalt Supplies
  Post Office (Carter Review Committee)
  Post Office (Carter Review Committee)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Homosexual Practices (Legislation)
  Homosexual Practices (Legislation)
  Postal Rates
  Postal Rates
  Prisoners (Applications for Transfer)
  Prisoners (Applications for Transfer)
  United Kingdom Laws
  United Kingdom Laws
  Leader of the Opposition (Visit)
  Leader of the Opposition (Visit)
  Buildings (Disabled Persons' Facilities)
  Buildings (Disabled Persons' Facilities)

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Rochester.

AIR TRANSPORT USERS' COMMITTEE: STATUS
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: 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 Airline Users' Committee, now renamed the Air Transport Users' Committee, is recognised as the consumer body covering air travellers and, if so, whether it is the only public service consumer council to which the Government do not propose to give statutory status.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the Government recognise the Air Transport Users' Committee as the consumer body specifically promoting the interests of all air travellers. There are also individual Airport Consultative Committees which protect the interests of airport users. At present, we have no plans to make the AUC statutory.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, apart from the unfairness, I think that that reply has serious implications and I hope the House will agree with me. Might I ask the Minister whether I am correct in my understanding that, at the moment, the Post Office Users' National Council and the National Gas Consumers' Council, being statutory bodies, have the right to be informed and consulted beforehand by the industries concerned on major consumer plans? Am I also right in understanding that it is the intention of the Government to give statutory standing and similar rights to the National Electricity Consumers', the National Transport Consumers' and the Domestic Coal Consumers' Councils, and that legislation to this effect is to be introduced as soon as possible? Finally,
1376
might I ask the Minister what pressures have been brought to bear to exclude the Airline Users' Committee from this list?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. The Airline Users' Committee is the only one that is not likely to have statutory status in the near future. But there are difficulties in giving the AUC statutory rights similar to those that are enjoyed by the nationalised industry consumer councils, since the AUC is in a position to consider the services of all airlines, whether private or nationalised, and not only British Airways.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, might I ask the Minister whether she recalls that I have a communication in writing from the Ministry, which stated that there would be no insuperable difficulties in making the Airline Users' Committee statutory, if the Government really wished to do so?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I do not know that there would be no insuperable difficulties, but there would be difficulties about it. The Government believe that the consumer councils ought to be seen to be financially independent of the industry, and the position of the AUC is different from the others, because they get their finance from the Civil Aviation Authority. The situation is rather different in the airport industry, because British Airways have their own consumer councils which they consult about changes in services, fares and so on. British Airways also face the possibility of having to defend any proposed changes, including fares variations, before a public inquiry. This is a powerful constraint on them, but there are difficulties, because the Airline Users' Committee has some responsibility for what all the airlines, private or nationalised, do, and not just British Airways. That is where our difficulties lie.
Lord BOYD CARPENTER: My Lords, will the noble Baroness agree that the noble Lord who set up this Committee—modesty forbids more precise definition—gave to the Committee something much more valuable than statutory status, by appointing her noble friend, the noble

1377
Baroness behind her, as a member of that Committee?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I am sure that I, and all those who preceded me in my position at this Dispatch Box, welcome the fact that my noble friend is a member and is able to keep the House advised on what is happening.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I must pay a reciprocal compliment to the former chairman of the Airline Users' Committee, who was always most fair in dealing with most recalcitrant members. But may I ask the House whether it does not agree that nobody can equal the Government for putting up reasons for not doing something which they ought to do?

NAMIBIA: PROGRESS OF NEGOTIATIONS
3.10 p.m.
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: 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 they will make a Statement about the progress of negotiations on the future of Namibia.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, my right honourable friend, the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary met the Foreign Ministers from the other four Western members of the Security Council in Paris on 14th June to discuss developments, particularly the Front-Line Presidents' meeting in Luanda on 10th and 11th June. We are in touch with all the parties involved and are resolved to resume discussions as soon as possible.
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, while accepting that that report contains some welcome progress, may I ask whether my noble friend agrees that it is rather a pity that the South Africans should have chosen next week
1378
to go ahead with their plan for the registration of voters, just as SWAPO was on the point of resuming the talks? Does he feel that going ahead with that registration next week is likely to impede progress? So far as the resumption of talks by SWAPO is concerned, can my noble friend say whether their participation is to seek to renegotiate the terms of the proposed settlement, as has been reported, or to seek clarification of certain points, which would clearly be much more welcome? May I also ask whether those points include, in particular, Walvis Bay and the disposition of forces during the election period, and whether he thinks that progress is likely on those points?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the proposals of the five, as my noble friend knows, state that proper registration of voters will,
"… have to be conducted to the satisfaction of the special representative";
that is the special representative whom we expect will be appointed by the UN Secretary-General when he is authorised to do so by the Security Council. As to the point of clarification with the South-West African Peoples' Organisation, SWAPO, we are most ready to see them for reasons of clarification on any point that gives them concern. We appreciate, of course, that their concern is primarily addressed to the two points that my noble friend has mentioned: the location of the residual forces—some 1,500, as compared with the present presence of, I am told, between 20,000 and 30,000; and also the future of Walvis Bay. Certainly, I do not think that those two points—the question of the location of the residual forces and the future of Walvis Bay—should present insuperable difficulties to a final settlement.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, while welcoming the information from the Minister that SWAPO has resumed taking part in these talks, may I ask whether the Minister would confirm that the Government will in no way renege on the final terms which were negotiated between the five Western Powers in the United Nations Security Council and South Africa, whose Government accepted those terms? I should be grateful for this confirmation. I should also like to know whether the Government will seek to implement a

1379
satisfactory solution in the UN Security Council.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, my Lords, certainly. Regarding the last point, the sooner the Security Council discuss this question, the better we shall be pleased. As to the first two points, SWAPO have indicated that they are willing to resume discussions with the Five. I take it that they are particularly interested in clarification of the two points which we have mentioned this afternoon. There may be others. For our part, we are ready to meet them at any time. The South Africans have accepted the proposals. This is not, so far, the precise position of SWAPO. The South Africans have accepted the proposals, but there are, no doubt, certain reservations—I make no complaint about this—which SWAPO may consider to be deterrents to their own acceptance of the proposals. We hope that the Five can now get together everybody who is concerned in order to continue the discussions, certainly with regard to any points of clarification, and also to discuss practical steps to implement the executive action which is mapped out in the proposal of the Five—a copy of which I believe the noble Baroness already has, although I should be delighted to make my own copy available to her—and which I regard as a most workmanlike paper for a peaceful and expeditious transfer of sovereignty to an independent Namibia.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend two questions? First, does he agree that it will facilitate negotiations if the South African Government desist from any further incursions into Angola against the SWAPO freedom fighters there? Secondly, what is the position of Her Majesty's Government so far as the question of Walvis Bay, an essential outlet for a future Namibia, is concerned?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the House will know, of course, that we have made very clear our view of the South African raid on Kasinge. Indeed, we voted for the United Nations Resolution which denounced this action. I do not think that it will be repeated. Indeed, with the diminution of the South African military presence in South-West Africa—Namibia—the residual force
1380
will hardly be in a position, either locationally or in view of their strength, to repeat this piece of adventurism. Equally, I expect that the South African leaders will have learned the lesson that this kind of action is not to the advantage of anybody, least of all to the South African Republic. As to the second point that my noble friend made, I wonder whether he would be kind enough to repeat it for me.
Several noble Lords: Walvis Bay!
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, would my noble friend tell the House what is the position of Her Majesty's Government regarding Walvis Bay as a future outlet for an independent Namibia?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend, and in part to the rest of the House, for making it possible for me to be reminded. The fact is that occasionally one's handwriting runs ahead of one's mind. We take the view that Walvis Bay is part of Namibia. No doubt a declaration by all concerned in that sense would be very helpful. In any case, we think that SWAPO could, with advantage, accept the proposals of the Five and hand over the question of Walvis Bay to negotiation between an independent Namibia and South Africa after independence. I can see no contingency in the future in which Walvis Bay will not indeed be part of Namibia. This is inevitable. It is equitable. Let us do it in a way which enables the South Africans to co-operate with Namibia in a peaceful, orderly and productive transition of sovereignty.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, with regard to the first part of the last question which the noble Lord answered, instead of warning the South African Government against their security forces' incursions into Angola, would it not, in his judgment, be more effective if the Government, in negotiations with SWAPO, backed by Russia—although SWAPO have already said that they do not want to join in any discussions—were to use their influence to discourage the guerrillas from Angola proceeding into South-West Africa?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, we do everything that we can

1381
to discourage guerrillas, whether official or unofficial, whether governmentally promoted or otherwise supported. As to the future of Namibia, we aim at an independent Namibia that is independent of all external influences, except proper ones. As I once said, the way to preserve Africa from going red is to remember that it is black.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that those of us who sought to influence SWAPO to resume these discussions are delighted by the announcenent that he made? Is he also aware that his statement on Walvis Bay is likely to make an agreement much easier to reach?
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether Walvis Bay was in fact a part of the League of Nations mandate? Was it part of German South-West Africa?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I think that it has always been a peculiar enclave. I could not, off the cuff, answer the legalistic point put to me by the noble Lord. Perhaps others may be able to do so. However, I should prefer to do so in my own way if the noble Lord would put the question separately to me.

DESALINATION PLANT: DEVELOPMENT AND EXPORTS
3.22 p.m.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: 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 technical and financial support continues to be given for development of desalination plants and whether figures can be given of the value of desalination plant exports from the United Kingdom for the years 1975, 1976 and 1977.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, technical support for development of desalination plants has been provided in the past through Government funded R & D programmes, mainly with the
1382
United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. There are no such programmes in progress at the moment, the last having been completed very recently. Desalination plant development nevertheless continues to be eligible for technical and financial support through the various schemes operated by the Department of Industry. Unfortunately, it is not possible to give the value of UK desalination plant exports, as these are not separately identified in the overseas trade statistics.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, would he not agree that it is rather disappointing that we seem to have come to a standstill as regards Government support for what I believe other Members of your Lordships' House will agree is one of the great new developments of recent years which can be of enormous industrial use to this country, and of enormous value to the parched deserts of the Third World?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I share the noble Lord's view of the importance of this operation and new development. It seems that the relationship at the moment between Government-supported research and development and the input from private industry is not in as good balance as it might be. However, the facilities for Government support are there and can still be called on.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, whilst agreeing very much with the remarks of the noble Lord in relation to the tremendous importance of the development of desalination, may I ask whether Her Majesty's Government are keeping in constant contact with other Governments, and in particular with Israel which is investigating this problem and is to a very considerable extent proceeding towards a possible solution of the whole desalination question? In those circumstances does he not consider that we should spend more than we are spending at present on research, in combination with other countries as well as on our own account?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I can only speak today on the activities of Her Majesty's Government within this country. The point made by my noble friend is, of course, of great interest.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, in view of the importance of this subject, will the noble Lord see that the figures are kept separate in future? Can it be that our lagging in this field has something to do with the fact that we have been lagging in the field of nuclear exports?
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, we are in advance in the nuclear field.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I will see whether it is possible to get a specific number related to desalination plants, which is a growing major industry. I think that there is no question of lagging. There is no relationship between our activities in the nuclear field and those in respect of desalination.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, with regard to the question by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye, would it not be right to say that the British firm that is prominent in this industry is probably the most prominent in the whole world in its progress in new methods of desalination?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, yes, our record is good. We have done well. However, as the noble Lord feels, we could do better.

SOVIET SHIPPING: UNFAIR COMPETITION
3.26 p.m.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: 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 they will report on the meeting of the appropriate European Community Members and what action was proposed with regard to the difficulties of dealing with unfair competition by Soviet shipping with British merchant shipping.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the Transport Ministers Council agreed at its meeting on 12th June to adopt a decision enabling the Community to monitor the activities of the fleets of countries whose practices threaten EEC shipping. There is also provision for the
1384
possible subsequent use of concerted counter-measures. The question of applying the monitoring system to State-trading countries, including the Soviet Union, and to flag-of-convenience fleets, will be studied further with a view to a decision at the next Transport Council in November.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask him whether, as a member of our country, he will take every possible step to help those who are really interested in the unfair competition between the Soviet Union and ourselves, and to get moving before our shipping is almost swept off the oceans of the world? This is the problem. Will the Minister act always with the greatest possible care to protect our shipping?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, since the noble Baroness started questioning me on this matter the present Government have made substantial progress. This is a serious matter. The noble Baroness has been very pertinacious in following up the interests of the British shipping industry. I congratulate her on that. The fact that we are getting to the point where the European Community is acting in concert on this matter is of great importance. One of the problems that we face is not that we disagree with our colleagues, but that one of the member countries feels that flags of convenience must also be included in any study and monitoring of action that we must take.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the appropriate EEC Commission has made inquiries about wages and conditions on these Soviet vessels? If it has discovered that the unfair competition is the real cause of the trouble why not refer the matter to the International Labour Office and condemn the Soviet Union for unfair competition arising out of the abominal wages and conditions obtaining on Soviet vessels?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, unfortunately we cannot control the way that the Soviet Union runs its economy. Commercial factors do not enter into its pricing policy. What we in Europe can do in concert is at least to act and make

1385
certain that it at least obeys the rules, and agrees to the rules, of the various conferences regulating shipping prices and so on throughout the world.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that there has been deliberate uneconomic undercutting in freight charges by the Soviet Union on routes between third and fourth countries in different parts of the world, not involving Soviet imports or exports, with the express intention of taking over the business of shipping on those routes?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the Soviet Union has been following a very aggressive commercial policy in this area, for instance between Australia and the United States. But I think it can be regulated only by concerted action between interested nations. The Common Market, which includes the United Kingdom, has a very substantial influence in the world decision to make certain that the Soviet Union in fact follows the example of the other members of the Comecon nations in falling in with the regulations of the shipping conferences.
Lord KILMARNOCK: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that the results of the monitoring system are due to be reviewed every six months, and, if that is the case, say whether in fact any results will be available for consideration at the Council of Ministers in November?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I would assume that since the Council sits every six months, once in the lifetime of the presidency of each of the Member Nations, that a six-monthly review will take place, although I cannot confirm that.

ADOPTION (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
3.30 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on re-commitment of this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE in the Chair.]
The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Greenwood of Rossendale): If no noble Lord objects, I propose to call the clauses and Schedules en bloc.
Clauses 1 to 67 agreed to.
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Consequential amendments]:
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill)The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill) moved the following Amendment:
Page 47, leave out lines 14 to 16 and insert (" "Act 1958" to "removal" there shall be substituted the words "Act 1958 or section 34 of the Adoption Act 1976 or section 34 of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978 for the removal".
3. In section 17 of the said Act of 1958, for the definition of "relative" there shall be substituted the words " "relative" has the same meaning as in the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978".").
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment which has two effects. First, it preserves a reference in Section 6(1)(f) of the Children Act 1958 to orders made under Section 43 of the now to be repealed Adoption Act 1958 as well as to orders made under the corresponding provision in the Consolidation Bill. Secondly, it substitutes in Section 17 of the Children Act 1958 for the definition of "relative" contained in the Adoption Act 1958 a reference to the corresponding definition contained in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I understand that this is a matter which came up in the Committee on Consolidation Bills and I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, whether he can confirm that the Committee are now happy with this Amendment and that there is no question of a change in the sense in what is proposed as a consolidation.
Lord KIRKHILL: I can confirm both those points.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with an Amendment.

WALES BILL
3.35 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor).
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord GREENWOOD of ROSSENDALE in the Chair.]
The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: I understand that at the last sitting we reached the Motion that Clause 47 stand part, and Clause 47 was stood part; so we begin today at the top of page 5 of the Marshalled List with Amendment No. 89.
[Amendment No. 89 not moved].
Baroness ELLES Baroness ELLES moved Amendment No. 89A:
Page 19, leave out lines 28 to 30.
The noble Baroness said: This Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 57C.
Baroness STEDMAN: Dependent, of course, upon what may happen to it when that Amendment goes to another place.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 90 not moved.]
Clause 48, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 49 [Welsh Comptroller and Auditor General]:
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE moved Amendment No. 91: 1388
Page 20, leave out lines 14 and 15 and insert ("Secretary of State, after consultation with the Assembly, recommends the removal to Her Majesty.").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment relates to the manner of the removal from office of the Welsh Comptroller and Auditor General. Subsection (3) of this clause provides for his appointment or his removal from office to be made by Her Majesty if the Assembly resolves that the Secretary of State be requested to recommend such removal. The effect of this Amendment is that it would be for the Secretary of State, after consultation with the Assembly, to make such a recommendation if he thinks fit. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: This is the first of a series of Amendments concerning the Welsh Comptroller and Auditor General and it may be for your Lordships' convenience if at this stage I indicate the Government's views as to his office and the various arrangements relating to it which are set out in the Bill. Briefly, the Government wish to see a relationship between the Welsh Comptroller and Auditor General and the Assembly which resembles as closely as possible that between the United Kingdom Comptroller and the House of Commons. That may not be a particularly helpful formula, since that relationship is a unique one and depends largely on custom rather than definition, but we hope to see the office of the Welsh Comptroller established as that of an independent public official responsible in a very generalised sense to the Assembly and to its Accounts Committee for the proper discharge of his duties, but not, in the way of an ordinary official, for his particular actions. The Comptroller's independence of the Assembly in a day-to-day political sense is symbolised by his appointment by Her Majesty and by the fact that as the Bill stands his salary and pension are charged directly on the Welsh Consolidated Fund and are not subject to appropriation annually by the Assembly.
I do not think there is any difference of view between noble Lords opposite and those on this side as to the desirability of ensuring that the accounting and audit arrangements set out in the Bill should operate as effectively as possible. It is clearly important that the examination of the Assembly's accounts should be

1389
carried out clearly and punctiliously, that the reports of the Welsh Comptroller and Auditor General should be full and should be objective, and that with his assistance the Assembly's accounts committee should pursue its examinations in a searching manner. Much will clearly depend on the creation of a close and trustful relationship between the Welsh Comptroller and the accounts committee and on the Committee's emergence as a strong back-bench watchdog for the Assembly, analogous in its standing to the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons.
I acknowledge that there are differences from both Westminster and the Scottish Assembly, in both of which there is an Executive constituted separately from the main body of Back Bench Members. But the Bill confers certain important functions on the Assembly's Executive Committee, as established by Clause 18, which must seek credits for expenditure from either the Welsh Consolidated Fund or the Welsh Loans Fund, and which must account, under Clause 52(1)(a), for payments into and out of these Funds. Only one member of the Executive Committee may be a member of the accounts committee, and under Clause 22 Party balance must be reflected in its membership.
The question we have to ask ourselves is whether these aecounting arrangements are likely to operate more successfully if the Welsh Comptroller and Auditor General is seen to be an officer of the Assembly as a whole, independent of the Executive Committee, or as a place-man of the Government, as he would be turned into by a number of the Amendments we are about to come to. There is no discipline like self-discipline, and so far as the Government are concerned they are in no doubt that responsible attitudes to expenditure can best be induced by giving responsibility fro the Assembly for ensuring that the accounting arrangements are properly administered. It is with this philosophy in mind that the Government have carefully considered all the Amendments put down on this subject, and for reasons which I will be happy to explain when we come to the later Amendments, we believe there are good reasons why some of them should be resisted.
1390
However, so far as the present Amendment is concerned, I must confess that we have some sympathy. It has been suggested that the existence of a power for the Assembly to resolve to request the removal of the Welsh Comptroller could prevent the proper kind of relationship, such as I have been speaking about, from developing. In the Government's view, this risk is a theoretical one, but we do agree that there is a case for saying that an Assembly which itself has executive power to request the removal of a public official responsible for examining its public accounts could be held to be anomalous. It might lead to public misunderstanding as to the extent of the Welsh Comptroller and Auditor General's authority and in certain circumstances might affect public confidence in him. For these reasons, provisions on the lines proposed in the Amendment do have a value in reinforcing the independence which is symbolised by the Comptoller's appointment by Her Majesty and by the special charging of his salary to the Welsh Consolidated Fund. The Government are happy to accept the Amendment.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: This is a very encouraging start to the afternoon. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 91A not moved.]
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 20, line 17, after second ("the") insert ("Scottish or").
The noble Lord said: I think the purpose of this Amendment is really very obvious. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: It is my job to be handing out the goodies this afternoon. It may be arguable whether there is any essential constitutional incompatibility between membership of the Scottish Assembly and the office of Welsh Comptroller and Auditor General, but we do accept that as a matter of practice active membership of the Scottish Assembly could not be reconciled with the efficient discharge of the Comptroller's duty. Moreover, it is hardly fitting that a senior public official in one part of Great Britain should be an active politician in another

1391
part. Therefore, once again, we are prepared to accept the Amendment.
Lord HAWKE: Is the noble Baroness denying the Assembly the ability of a Scottish accountant, because that would be a very retrograde step?
Baroness STEDMAN: No, we are not denying them the benefit of a Scottish accountant. What we are saying is that the Welsh Comptroller and Auditor General should not also sit in one of the other Assemblies as a politician.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: I hardly know how to thank the noble Baroness.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 92B not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 49, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
3.46 p.m.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: I am not sure that I have fully taken in what the noble Baroness said in her long speech about the Welsh Comptroller; it may be that the notes I have prepared need a little amendment. I ask the Committee to be patient. Having dealt with the matter of the Comptroller's removal from office, I should now like to ask the Government how he is to be appointed. The very fact that sub-section (1) provides that there shall be a Welsh Comptroller and Auditor General shows that the Government recognise the need for this ultimate safeguard, as the noble Baroness explained.
Government spokesmen have frequently explained that the Welsh Assembly is a new body; it is not a local authority; nor is it similar to the Scottish Assembly, as it has no legislative powers. Finance will be of prime importance, and we on these Benches fully endorse the decision by the Government to build a provision into the Bill for an officer to oversee the financial doings of the Assembly. Of equal importance will be the qualifications and experience of the Comptroller, and presumably his duties will be analogous to those of the United Kingdom Comptroller.
I should like to make a suggestion here for consideration; if that is the case—that his job will be so analogous—I would
1392
have thought the most suitable person for the job would be somebody in the United Kingdom Comptroller's office. I would think that the best idea would be to second a member of that Department to the Welsh Assembly, particularly in the early stages of setting up this unique body. I hope that this is just what the Assembly will try to arrange. This would be in no sense a derogation from the powers of the Assembly. Rather would it give confidence to the Welsh people, who will be assured that his voice will speak with the force of independence and disinterest.
I see no reason why the Assembly itself would not agree to this proposal. In fact I hope that it might welcome it, as the Members of the Assembly, of all people, will be well aware that this is a brand new and untried body and that they will need all the independent expertise that they can get. I am not being in the least dogmatic. I just think it would be a better arrangement. But if this proposal does not find favour with the Committee, I would think that the next best thing would be for the Secretary of State to be not only the person who may recommend his removal from office but also the person to appoint him. I beg to move.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: I am sure that noble Lords who speak Welsh in this Committee will agree with me that questions of expenditure can be very sensitive in certain parts of Wales. I have been wondering whether the words "after consultation with the Assembly", which have been accepted in Amendment No. 91, require further clarification. As that Amendment has been accepted, the Welsh Comptroller and Auditor General,
"may be removed from office by Her Majesty if the Secretary of State, after consultation with the Assembly, recommends the removal to Her Majesty".
This may be considered to be a minor point, but what does "consultation with the Assembly" mean? Does it mean, as in the original words, that a resolution of the Assembly would be required? And what is the scope of that consultation? I raise this matter only because I can see that there will be very considerable anxiety at some stage to get rid of the Welsh Comptroller and Auditor General. Therefore, I wonder whether the words,

1393
"after consultation with the Assembly", should be further considered by the Government.
Baroness STEDMAN: So far as the Comptroller and Auditor General is concerned, provision is made in this clause about the tenure of the office. He will be appointed technically by the Crown, but it will be on the advice of the Government to the Assembly. He will hold office during "good behaviour", which is a phrase which cropped up in the Scotland Bill, as well. He will be completely independent of the Executive Committee, but he will be ultimately responsible to the Assembly as a whole. He will have the right to resign if he so wishes, but only the Assembly will have the power under subsection (3)(b) to take the initiative to secure his removal from office. That will have to be done by requesting the Secretary of State to recommend the removal to Her Majesty.
He will be responsible for the staff numbers which again the Assembly will control because it will hold the purse strings in the form of the Welsh Consolidated Fund. He will be able to delegate to his officers such powers to the extent laid down in subsections (6) and (7). As regards whether the most suitable person is someone in the United Kingdom Comptroller's office, that is something that would have to be considered when the necessary advice was being given to the Assembly.
I take on board the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. I should like to look at them further to see whether there is any way in which we can clarify his suggestions. However, as regards the appointment, that is made on the advice of the Government by the Crown. So far as getting rid of him is concerned, it is for the Assembly to take the necessary initiative for his removal from office via the Secretary of State who will make the necessary recommendation to Her Majesty.
Lord LYELL: Before the noble Baroness sits down, I wonder whether she could enlighten me as to whether there will be any method of appeal or what will be the mechanism for the removal of the Auditor. I can see that there might be a clash or a differing of opinions and possibly
1394
a personality clash. The Auditor might interpret his duties in a fairly strict way and the Assembly might feel that he was being unduly harsh or restrictive. The Assembly might, by resolution, ask the Secretary of State to propose to Her Majesty that the Auditor be removed. However, would there be any method whereby the Secretary of State would have to accept that resolution, or could he take a broader view than the elected Members of the Assembly? Could the Secretary of State suggest to Members of the Assembly that they pause for thought or that their views—even though they have made the resolution by a majority view—might be unduly hasty? Would there be any mechanism under subsection (3)(b) for such a cooling off period?
Baroness STEDMAN: There is no such mechanism written into the Bill. We do not envisage that this is the sort of situation that will arise. I take the noble Lord's point that there perhaps ought to be some means of consultation It need not necessarily be written into the Bill but it should be clarified before the next stage of the Bill and that I shall certainly undertake to do.
Clause 49, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 50 [Salary and pension of Welsh Comptroller and Auditor General]:
The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: The next Amendment is No. 92C.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: The Committee will be pleased to learn that I am moving into a sort of "not moved rhythm". Consequently, Amendment No. 92C is not moved.
[Amendments Nos. 92C to 92H not moved.]
Clause 50 agreed to.
Clause 51 agreed to.
Clause 52 [Appropriation and other accounts and audit]:
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge)The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge) moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 21, line 32, leave out ("lay") and insert ("send").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 93 which I should like to link to Amendment No. 94. These are the first of a series of Amendments which also affect Clauses 53, 55 and 77 and Schedule 11 and which standardise the wording applied to the making of reports to the Assembly, by requiring that they should be "sent to" or "made to" the Assembly and be "published by" the Assembly. The Amendments eliminate the use of the phrase "laid before" the Assembly. The Amendment is purely for the sake of good English and I feel sure that noble Lords will support it. However, I should like to explain the situation for the record.
In the case of a report made to a Minister it is appropriate to require him to "lay" it "before" Parliament, and Parliament can then resolve that it be printed. But in the case of a report made to the Assembly, it is less clear how the Assembly can "lay" it "before" itself. One observes the difficulty here. And without a publication requirement it might have been possible for reports whose contents should be generally known not to be made available even to all members of the Assembly.
The Amendment accordingly proposes that the Comptroller and Auditor General's reports on the Assembly's acounts should, together with the certified accounts, be "sent to" the Assembly. There is already a publication requirement in Clause 54, which is unaffected. In this case, therefore, the Amendments are designed to standardise as explained above. The later Amendments which I shall mention as they arise, relate to various matters: Clause 53—reports of the Assembly Accounts Committee; Clause 55—reports by the Welsh Comptroller and Auditor General on the accounts of transactions into and out of the Welsh Loans Fund; Clause 77——a standard conversion for reports at present laid before Parliament but which relate to matters with respect to which the Assembly will exercise functions. There will be sent to the Assembly which will have to publish them; paragraph 87 of Schedule 11—reports to the Assembly from the Welsh Development Agency; paragraph 91 of Schedule 11—reports to the Assembly from the Development Board for Rural Wales; paragraph 96 of Schedule 11—reports to
1396
the Assembly from the Health Service Commissioner for Wales.
It may sound trivial, but we thought it better to get it right and I hope that noble Lords will support the Amendment. I beg to move.
The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: Is the noble Lord moving the two Amendments at the same time?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I am moving Amendment No. 93.
Lord ELTON: We are always glad to welcome improvements in the use of English and also increasing clarity in legislation. However, I rise to my feet at this stage to ask the noble Lord whether he will be kind enough, if lie has the information before him, to tell us the numbers of the other Amendments which are linked to this Amendment because it makes much more sense of the Marshalled List if we can tick off those Amendments in advance.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: Amendments Nos. 93 and 94 are the two concerned. There is also Amendment No. 95 which deals with Clause 53. I think that perhaps it would be better, having had notice of the question, to sort the matter out properly.
The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: Yes, I should have thought that that would be for the general convenience.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4. p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 21, line 32, leave out ("before") and insert ("to").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 94A not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 52, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord HAWKE: Can the noble Lord assure me that the interval of time is not too great? The clause states the month

1397
of November, and if I am correct that would mean eight months after the close of the financial year. If it was eight months instead of November everybody might think that was rather too long an interval. I should have thought that six months would be adequate for the purpose. Moreover, if he is going to delay receiving the accounts until the end of November, then Christmas creeps on very soon, and I do not suppose that the Welsh Comptroller and Auditor General will report until well into the New Year on events that happened nearly a year before. Surely, six months would be better than eight months. Naming a month creates complications if we should ever change the Parliamentary year. That, of course, has been discussed in various Select Committees. Perhaps one day we may get round to it.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS: BRIDGE: If a change were made, of course it would be possible to make a change in this, too. I have not given consideration to this point. It was recommended by the financial people who were advising the Government on how to set this up. We are takling not on an Amendment, but on the Question, Whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill? I shall certainly talk to them about it and if they think there is anything in the suggestion I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord HAWKE: I am glad the noble Lord took the view rather than the financial people. They always like plenty of time.
Lord DONALDSON o KINGS-BRIDGE: I spoke eliptically. After some discussion, I will take a view, and I shall discuss with my ministerial colleagues and write to the noble Lord.
Lord LEATHERLAND: When the noble Lord discusses the matter with his ministerial colleagues, and when he comes to consider whether September shall be substituted for November, will the Minister bear in mind that in the months of September, August and probably July quite a number of people are on holiday and therefore the machinery might not be functioning fully.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I think one must accept that this is rather an elementary point which, if the advisers have not already regarded it, they should have done so.
Lord LYELL: Before we conclude this clause, may I commend the Government for the drafting of Clause 52. I believe that subsection (1), particularly paragraphs (a) and (b) provide a very sound basis for the accounting of moneys paid into and out of the Consolidated and the Loans Funds. I think it is fairly safe to assume, as we found in the case of the Scotland Bill, that these accounts are going to be in a complicated form which will be alien to almost anything which has been seen by many members of the Assembly. Thus, we think it is absolutely right that the Auditor should carry out his duties which have been very plainly and clearly set out in subsection (2). It seems to me more clear that the Scotland Bill although I am loth to admit it.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I cannot understand the insertion of the phrase "alien to many members of the Assembly". If the noble Lord knows a Cardiganshire farmer, if he knows a good Welsh housewife, and if he knows a good Welshman who cannot add up and work out sums of money, then nobody else in the world can. I do not like the phrase "alien to members of the Assembly". They are well-versed and numerate.
Lord LYELL: I think those remarks were aimed at me. Fair enough—I will always accept comments and admonitions from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek. I do not know whether the noble Lord was present in your Lordships' House when the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, produced some accounts which were very alien to what the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, had seen in business. Certainly my attempts to unravel some facets of the Consolidated Accounts on a Governmental or even a local authority basis do not involve the mere question of adding or subtracting. It is a question of seeing what lies behind the figures. I shall probably have more to say on that point when we come to Clause 53. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, and I are at one.
Clause 52, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 53 [Accounts Committee]:
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE moved Amendment No. 95: Page 21, line 36, leave out ("laid before") and insert ("sent to").
The noble Lord said: This is the third Amendment to which I referred when I spoke a short time ago. It applies to Clause 53, page 21, line 36, and the second Amendment No. 96 refers to Clause 55, page 22, line 34, in each case altering the words from "laid before" to "sent to".
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 53, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord LYELL: Before we conclude the discussion on this clause, I believe it is right to show that it provides for the appointment of the Accounts Committee. This is an admirable concept, but I wonder precisely what is going to be the role of the Accounts Committee. There are several that I have in mind. First, how is the Committee going further to examine the accounts? These accounts will in all conscience be difficult enough to comprehend—hence my comments with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek—even to those members of the Accounts Committee in the Assembly who have experience of local authority or even Government accounting.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, will be aware, as certainly will other noble Lords in the House—and again I look at the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, who I know has experience in this field—that one aspect of the art and skill of accountancy is to haze, to de-emphasise, to provide so much information that the relevant information is effectively camouflaged. Who is going to assist the Committee in their work in trying to dig through and unravel much of the witting and unwitting camouflage of this form of accounts? I wonder whether the Auditor General could fill this particular role of helping the Accounts Committee in their deliberations and investigations, since it is his handywork, if I may call it that, which is under discussion?
Secondly, how is the Accounts Committee going to report further on the accounts over and above the report of the Auditor General? That seems fairly difficult. There is a way round it, but I
1400
wonder how it is that the Accounts Committee is going to report on the Report of the Auditor General. Are they going to criticise the way he has gone about his work? The clause means to be clear, but to my mind it is not entirely clear. It is far away from much of what I found in auditing and similar investigation work in the financial world. This particular aspect means little to me, but the Committee must have some duties which will not be just as set out in the clause. I would hope that they would find some other duties, even of scrutinising various aspects of expenditure and receipts.
A third point came to my mind with the Accounts Committee. Would the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kings-bridge, be able to suggest any imaginative new concept so far as the Accounts Committee is concerned? I venture to think that he or any other noble Lord who has not explored fully the wonderful world of accountancy with its enthralling symmetry of debit and credit will be bogged down as are all of us in finance in the wide world.
Lastly, I consider that this Accounts Committee could adopt a completely new role which would be akin to the Public Accounts Committee in another place, or even would be able to scrutinise other aspects of Assembly spending. However, I do not think that the Bill appears to grant the Committee power to do anything other than to carry out a pale shadow of the audit which has already been carried out by the Auditor General. I just wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, would be able to give me his thoughts on this matter. He might like to read the full text of my remarks; I have fired one or two rather sharp balls at him and he might like time to reflect. These are thoughts that have come to my mind; I hope that they are relevant. I support the concept of the Accounts Committee, but I just wonder whether its duties and scope are adequately spelled out in Clause 53.
Lord HAWKE: Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, might care to answer me at the same time. If he followed what I said on a previous "clause stand part" debate on the timetable, he will know that this Accounts Committee will report on the report of the Auditor General, and

1401
literally it will be catching trains in the year-before-last Bradshaw. I believe that that may happen in the United Kingdom at the moment, but when a new arrangement is set up, can we not do something a bit better? It is no good indicting people for being extravagant the year before last. That is what will happen.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I do not quite know what the fuss is about. Subsection (2) of Clause 52, which we discussed with moderate intelligence, says that copies should be laid before the Assembly. The Assembly will then pass these copies on with reports that will be submitted. I would judge that Clause 53 is doing a wise thing in appointing an Accounts Committee. That committee, being composed of an intelligent band of men and women, would be a pragmatic organisation because it is new. I entirely agree about the difficulty of modern accountancy; it is changing year by year. However, expert advice would be given to that Committee, as is the case in all types of Committees in this place and in the other place. Without any doubt, I believe that that expert advice will be available to the Members of the Assembly. I do not disagree with probing at all; I think that the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, were wise. I believe that that advice would ultimately create an Accounts Committee that would be responsible and would understand what it was doing for the Welsh Assembly.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: First, may I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, that the time issue should not be very seriously altered by an Accounts Committee looking at accounts. Of course, it could be: the Committee might take six months; but if it did, it would be very bad organisation and I see no reason whatever why that should be so. I have accepted that there may be some virtue in the noble Lord's main criticism, but I do not believe that it really makes any difference.
The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, is asking for something which we already have. The Accounts Committee, which is described in this clause, has the power, though not the duty, to behave exactly as he suggested, which is matching the existing practice at Westminster, where the
1402
Financial Secretary to the Treasury is ex officio a member of the Public Accounts Committee and advises that Committee on the import of the accounts submitted.
Happily, I am not a businessman, but I think that the normal drill of business is for an auditor to go through the business firm's accounts which are submitted to and scrutinised by a sub-committee of the board—that is not invariable, but it is very usual—and then, with the sub-committee's comments, they are passed on to the board. I see nothing in what the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, said—which I thought was very sensible—which is not entirely available to the Assembly, if that is how the Assembly wishes to do it, although it is not obliged to. I do not know whether that covers the noble Lord's point, but, as he suggested, I will read his remarks with the greatest care and see whether I have anything to add to what I have said.
Lord LYELL: I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, for what I believe is a very honest attempt to come close to my points. I do not have much experience of large-scale business, but I think that the noble Lord would accept from me that as far as I am aware the relationship which exists between the auditor and the board of directors in large companies is a somewhat distant one, whereby the auditor tries to remain at arm's length. I will not go into the ramifications of the relationships between an auditor and a public company where—as I am sure the Committee will be aware—the auditor is appointed by the shareholders. If there is a dispute with the board, it is the shareholders and the company in general meeting which decide whether or not the auditor shall stay and whether or not he has performed his duties adequately.
I take the noble Lord's point that it is believed that Clause 53 produces an Accounts Committee which is, to all effects, analogous to the Public Accounts Committee in another place. However, perhaps he would look at line 34 on page 21 of the Bill, which states quite clearly that the Accounts Committee shall be appointed by the Assembly and this Accounts Committee:
"shall examine and report … on the accounts and reports"
et cetera. Taking those words on a very restrictive basis, it seems to me that the

1403
Committee will just be examining the accounts as submitted; it will not scrutinise. It does not seem to me that the two words "examine" and "report" give the Accounts Committee of the Assembly power to scrutinise a little further or to carry out a much deeper audit than the Auditor General would wish to do, or perhaps even to have a special examination of one particular item of expenditure which might be of great interest to the people of Wales.
Through its Accounts Committee the Assembly could, of course, exercise all its care in examining this especial problem and these especial figures of expenditure, or perhaps income, in any one year. It seems to me that the method of "examine and report" is somewhat staid. I believe that the Government wish this Accounts Committee to have somewhat wider powers than are set out in subsection (1) of Clause 53. However, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, and I are thinking along the same lines.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I really do not believe that the noble Lord has a point of substance here. I have been a director of one very large company, even though it is not my habit. When the accounts are received surely somebody looks at them very carefully to see what they reveal about the progress of the body concerned. The Assembly will have a very large sum of money at its disposal. It may overspend it; it may underspend it; it may wrongly spend it. The accountant's business is to produce these facts and the Committee's business is to comment on them and to say that one department has clearly behaved in a way in which it should not, and so on. I do not believe that there is anything between us at all. I believe that the clause covers exactly that which the noble Lord is asking for, though it does not insist on it. I repeat, I will read with the greatest care what he has said and see whether I have anything to add.
Clause 53, as amended, agreed to.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 95A:
After Clause 53, insert the following new clause—
(" .In relation to any accounts examined by the Welsh Comptroller and Auditor General in accordance with the provisions of section 52
1404
of this Act, section 161 of the Local Government Act 1972 shall apply as if—

(a) such examinations were an audit of accounts under Part VIII of the Local Government Act 1972;

(b) The Welsh Comptroller and Auditor General were a district auditor;

(c) members of the Assembly were members of a local authority;

(d) any reference in the said section 161 to a person being disqualified for being a member of a local authority were a reference to that person being disqualified for being a member of the Assembly; and

(e) subsection (13) of the said section 161 provided as follows:—

"(13) The Court having jurisdiction for the purposes of this section shall be the High Court."").
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friends, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne and Lord Gowrie, I beg to move this Amendment. After my comments on the previous two clauses—Clauses 52 and 53—I think that the Committee will certainly be satisfied, as indeed I am, that the powers of the Auditor General are well-defined and, I submit, well-understood. However, the powers of the Accounts Committee are—subject to the comments which I hope to be receiving from the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson—I believe a little less well-defined and a little more difficult to understand, especially to the Assembly and to the people of Wales. But I think that we shall come to understand this role more clearly as the Committee stage and the other stages of the Bill proceed.
The Committee may bear with me if I consider the implications of Section 161 of the Local Government Act 1972. Noble Lords will be aware that this section deals with the powers of the district auditor in local government and the court. The section commences by giving the auditor power to seek a declaration from the court that some item in the accounts is, as the section has it, "contrary to law." In this case no declaration need be granted should the person, against whom it were to be granted, be found to have acted reasonably. There is a safeguard here and I think that is excellent.
However, it seems that under this section the auditor has power to recover from any person the sum total of any loss of discrepancy in the accounts for any sum which has been misspent. We

1405
find particularly in subsection (7) of this section that the section permits disqualification from being a member of a local authority. I believe that this is a powerful deterrent to any malfeasance, manipulation, or to any misappropriation of money for which the authority and indeed we hope the Welsh Assembly, is going to be responsible.
By moving this Amendment I seek in no way to down-grade the Assembly by bringing it to, or even suggesting that it will be at, the level of a local authority. But, indeed, there are local authorities in England and Wales—and at least one in Scotland—which are of colossal size and would rival in size and responsibility as well as finance the responsibility of the Welsh Assembly. There are various mentions in Section 161 of a parish council. However, I think that this section provides a useful guide to what ought to be, or what could be, done in the Assembly which will be handling, or indeed will be responsible for, sums a lot larger than any other authority, as is mentioned in the Bill. It is likely that many Members of the Assembly will already have had considerable experience of local government, and certainly I should have considered that some members of the accounts committee that we have been discussing on Clause 53 would not be overly intimidated by the form and scope of the accounts presented to the Assembly. For all these reasons, I beg to move this Amendment.
4.23 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: As the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has said, it is Section 161 of the Local Government Act which makes the detailed provision for handling irregularities arising from the audit of local authority accounts. The basic objection to this clause is that the Welsh Assembly will not be a local authority, and it will not be exercising local authority powers nor engaging in the kind of direct provision of services in which local authorities are involved. The Assembly will be acting on behalf of the Crown, and exercising functions which are at present exercised by Ministers of the Crown. Heaven forbid that I get into discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, on Ministers of the Crown, as I did with one of his colleagues on Scotland.
1406
In these circumstances, the accounting and audit arrangements which provide the best analogies are those which relate to Ministers and the Comptroller and Auditor General, and not those relating to local authorities and the district audit system. The system provided in Clauses 49 to 54 of the Bill is therefore based on the Westminster arrangements. I readily acknowledge that the absence of a separate Executive gives the Welsh Assembly certain superficial resemblances to a local authority when compared with either the Government or the Executive provided for in the Scotland Bill. But I say advisedly superficial resemblances, because there are a number of important provisions in the Bill which clearly distinguish the organisation of the Assembly from that of a local authority, and these are of particular significance in the context of finance.
Clause 18 provides for a separate Executive Committee. The Executive Committee must recommend all orders appropriating sums from the Welsh Consolidated Fund (Clause 42) and must take the initiative to seek the credits on that Fund and the Welsh Loans Fund (Clauses 41 and 43), which must be obtained from the Welsh Comptroller or Auditor General before any sums may be withdrawn from either Fund. It is the Executive Committee under Clause 52(1)(b) which prepares the accounts of payments into and out of the Funds. The Assembly accounts committee, as I said on an earlier Amendment, may include no more than one member of the Executive Committee, and its membership must reflect Party balance in the Assembly.
We think it is important that the Accounts Committee should be encouraged to develop into a strong back bench "watchdog", which will be the guardian of the public interest in expenditure matters and can be counted on to bring any irregularity to the notice of both the Assembly as a whole and the general public. It will then be for the Executive Committee, or individuals concerned in any irregularity, to justify their actions to the public in Wales. In the case of an important political body elected by the whole electorate of Wales and exercising functions on behalf of the Crown, the political disciplines should be, and must be, made to be effective. That will not be

1407
achieved by procedures of the kind applied by the new clause, which seem to be designed to deal with problems arising at local level in bodies with functions of a quite different nature.
It is important, in the Government's view, that the arrangements for accounts and audit should encourage self criticism and self-discipline in the Assembly. We want—and we expect—to see an Assembly which is confident, mature, and responsible in its handling of all such matters. The Government fear that the new clause would in practice operate in diametrically the opposite direction from that which we want the Assembly to take. I therefore ask noble Lords to reflect on this further, and not to press this Amendment at this particular time.
Lord LYELL: I am sure that the whole Committee is grateful to the noble Baroness for giving a particularly full reply to the question that I raised and to the questions raised on this particular Amendment. I think that it would be unwise of me to bandy further comments on Ministers of the Crown, or indeed to start discussing Crown Prerogative, with the noble Baroness this afternoon. I am sure that the Committee would think that there are better things to do.
All we sought in this Amendment was to set up a guideline, or suggest a guideline. However, I take the noble Baroness's comments that the authority exercised by the Assembly will be that of Ministers of the Crown. I accept that, so far as their responsibility for funds spent and received is concerned, although I do not believe that there is much between Section 161 and the methods which have been suggested by the noble Baroness. I do not believe that there is a lot between them.
If the noble Baroness would allow me to reflect on the full reply she has given, I would be grateful, and I am sure that the Committee would be. I was impressed that the noble Baroness included comments on the Accounts Committee, and included comments that she hoped that the Accounts Committee would be able to conduct its affairs in a new and imaginative light. These were exactly the kinds of comments I had received from the noble and learned Lord, Lord 1McCluskey, at an earlier stage on the Scotland Bill. Indeed, I was surprised that these comments came from
1408
the noble Baroness and not from the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, although of course the noble Lord had no knowing of the points I was going to raise on Clause 53 stand part. Certainly I am grateful to the noble Baroness, and if she and the Committee will forgive me I shall read her comments carefully and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: Before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment, may I say that I would support quite strongly the principles and motives behind the suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, and I sympathise with what the noble Baroness said. However, I feel that this Committee should give firm indications that considerable control should be exercised by the Welsh Assembly over the actions of the Auditor General and the Comptroller General.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 54 agreed to.
Clause 55 [Modification of enactments providing for payments into or out of Consolidated Fund or authorising advances from National Loans Fund]:
4.30 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 22, line 34, leave out ("laid before") and insert ("sent to").
The noble Lord said: This is another of the Amendments to which I referred earlier. The noble Lord opposite asked whether I could give the numbers of all the Amendments. I am now in a position to do so. Amendment No. 95 is in relation to Clause 53; Amendment No 96 is in relation to Clause 55; Amendment No. 106 is in relation to Clause 77; and Amendments Nos. 108B and 113 are both in relation to Schedule 11. I beg to move formally Amendment No. 96.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 55, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 56 agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Enactments authorising the lending of money]:
Baroness ELLES Baroness ELLES moved Amendment No. 96A:
Page 64, leave out lines 14 to 16.
The noble Baroness said: This Amendment is consequential on an earlier Amendment. I beg to move.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: The Amendment is perforce agreed to by the Government, but I wish to add our usual proviso that this is without prejudice to returning in another place to the question of restoration of Part IX of Schedule 2.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 57 agreed to.
Clause 58 [Rate support and other grants]:
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE moved Amendment No. 96D:
Page 23, line 31, at end insert ("and shall be made to the full extent of the amount specified under section 44(1A) above.")
The noble Lord said: I propose to be honest to the point of naivety, in that I had expected my noble friend Lord Gowrie to move the Amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: With slightly less brevity, I should like to reply to the Amendment. We feel that the Amendment rests on a misunderstanding of the financial proposals in the Bill. The block fund to be paid over to the Welsh Consolidated Fund, under Clause 44, will be designed to cover that part of devolved public expenditure which falls to be met by the Assembly after allowance is made for contributions to devolved spending from other sources, such as local rates. Obviously, certain assumptions as to such contributions will have to be made when the block fund is settled. We dealt with this in our White Paper on devolution.
The Government, in deriving the amount of the block fund from the United Kingdom estimates of total public expenditure, will have to make assumptions about the contribution of local rates and about the amounts local authorities will borrow for capital expenditure. It can then be worked out what their remaining expenditure will he and what will he the requirement, on certain further assumptions, for rate support. But these assumptions do not commit the Assembly
1410
or the Welsh local authorities. They must get together separately, and work out a rate support grant settlement in accordance with the procedures of the Local Government Act 1974. The relevant powers are transferred to the Assembly by Schedule 2 and Clause 58. It would not be practicable to identify a sum within the block fund as a kind of embryo rate support grant, and in fact no sum will be earmarked for any devolved purpose. Whatever assumptions may be made when the block fund is being discussed lose their validity as soon as the total is settled. It is an integral amount, and it is for the Assembly to decide how to divide it up between different devolved purposes. That is what having a block fund means.
How could the Government, even if they wanted to, work out the rate support grant? They will have no direct concern with education, roads, personal social services, planning, water, or other important local government services. They will have no means of conducting the kind of dialogue with the associations representing the Welsh local authorities which is required by the legislation as a preliminary to the fixing of the grant. It would be quite improper for the Government when they settle the block fund to pre-empt all the discussions which ought to take place between the Assembly and the local authority associations by laying down a rate support grant figure which must be applied regardless of the course those discussions may take. That is a course which would deny the local authorities rights of consultation which they have always enjoyed.
I find it difficult to understand the suspicion that somehow or other the Assembly may be out to do down the local authorities, which is half implicit in the Amendment. The extent to which the work of the Assembly will link with that of local government is likely to create a close working relationship between them and a ready understanding on the part of the Assembly of the problems of the local authorities. Moreover, there will be fairly close coincidence between the Assembly's constituents and the local ratepayers, and that, too, should result in greater understanding. We appreciate that noble Lords opposite are anxious to ensure good relations between the devolved Administration and

1411
local government. For the reasons I have given we think that they are perhaps unnecessarily anxious and concerned, hut, in any case, the Amendment is not compatible with the system of devolution provided for in the Bill.
Lord CULLEN of ASBHOURNE: I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for a very educational speech. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 58 shall stand part of the Bill?
4.37 p.m.
Lord MONSON: This seems the right moment to discuss the merits, or other wise, of introducing a Speaker's Conference clause into the Bill, possibly at the next stage, given that it was at the precisely equivalent point in the Scotland Bill that a Committee of your Lordships' House approved an Amendment which introduced just such a clause into that Bill. Many of us had little enthusiasm for the Speaker's Conference Amendment so far as the Scotland Bill was concerned, because we felt that the case for a reduction in Scottish representation at Westminster, in the event of legislative devolution becoming a reality, was so overwhelming and unarguable that a Speaker's Conference would merely fudge the issue.
However, the case for a reduction in Welsh representation—and Wales is over represented to the tune of about 15 or 16 per cent. compared with England—is more finely balanced; or at least it seemed so until yesterday evening. At that point the Government made absolutely clear their rigid determination to bestow the luxury of absolute privilege upon the Welsh Assembly. This luxury was hitherto confined to the sovereign Parliament itself, and, incidentally, has never been bestowed, and is never likely to be bestowed, upon any other non-legislative body in the United Kingdom, however large.
It seems to me that there are only two possible explanations for this attitude on the part of the Government. The first is that it is a ploy to delude the Welsh Nationalists—or to be more precise, those erstwhile Labour voters who may be toying with the idea of switching their allegiance to the Nationalists—into think-
1412
ing that the Government plan before very long to expand the powers and privileges of the Welsh Assembly.
The alternative explanation is that it is not a ploy at all; that the Government really do have an undeclared plan to expand the powers and privileges of the Assembly in this way, possibly by means of a short, simple amending Act, if, and when, they obtain a larger majority in the House of Commons. I am sure the Committee will agree that in this eventuality we should obviously have to take a long, hard look at Welsh representation at Westminster. Therefore, I wonder whether there is not something to be said for putting down a Speaker's Conference Amendment before the next stage, as a precautionary measure. I should be interested to hear the views of the two Front Benches upon this suggestion.
Baroness STEDMAN: I have been interested in what the noble Lord has been saying, but, quite frankly, it does not have much relationship to the rate support grants and other grants that we are discussing on this clause. Certainly, the noble Lord has every right to make up his mind—in the light of what we say as we go through the Bill—as to what action he takes at the next stage. However, at this point I do not think that what he has said is really relevant to the clause, which deals with rate support grant.
Lord MONSON: I should like to explain to the noble Baroness that it was at the precisely equivalent point in your Lordships' consideration of the Scotland Bill—at the beginning of this Part—that a Speaker's Conference Amendment was introduced and approved.
Baroness ELLES: If I may say just a word from these Benches, I do not think that this is a matter which should be discussed at this stage of the Bill. I believe it is a matter which should be discussed, and I hope it will be discussed later, during the proceedings in Committee on this Bill. I therefore reserve the right from these Benches to speak on this matter later, at the appropriate stage.
Lord MONSON: I am very pleased to have heard what the noble Baroness has had to say.
Clause 58 agreed to.
Clause 59 [Power to make new provisions as to certain bodies]:
[Amendment No. 96C not moved.]
4.41 p.m.
Baroness ELLES Baroness ELLES moved Amendment No. 96B:
Page 24, line 43, at end insert—
("(6) No provision made by order under this section shall effect any change in the law or government of any part of the United Kingdom other than Wales.").
The noble Baroness said: I believe that this Amendment is a very important Amendment; a fundamental one to the purposes of the Bill and to the system of devolution which is envisaged by the Government to the Welsh Assembly. I advise the noble Baroness—and I should like to thank her for all the help and co-operation we have had so far on this Bill—that this is only a probing Amendment at this stage. It is in order to elicit some information during this Committee stage of the Bill that I put this Amendment forward now. It is particularly to elicit from the Government clarification on the powers which are being devolved under this clause, and to define the areas within which the Welsh Assembly may or shall operate, in particular in relation to the exercise of its authority over certain statutory bodies which are listed in Schedule 7 to the Bill.
I must say that I was not reassured as to the powers of the Welsh Assembly in relation to United Kingdom matters by the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, during the discussions in Committee last night. Of course, I have not got the column reference because we have not yet had Hansard, but I can inform the noble Baroness that it was the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, speaking between 1.45 and 1.50 a.m. I hope that I may be taking up something which he had not perhaps meant to say, but I think I should repeat what he did say, and that is that the Government do not think it necessary to provide a power of policy override in respect of possible repercussion on what might be termed the "English dimension" of a devolved matter.
As the clause stands, and as I read it—and this is why I should be grateful for clarification—it seems to be giving the Welsh Assembly the most sweeping powers
1414
of an unconstitutional nature. To my knowledge there is no elected body which has ever been given powers to be exercised over an area outside the power base of the body concerned. Indeed, if the Bill were to go through as it now stands and as I read the clause—I hope I may be mistaken, and that the noble Baroness will be able to clarify this point for us and reassure us—I cannot but see that this clause will enable intervention by the Welsh Assembly in areas within England; and this will undoubtedly sow the seeds of conflict, or may sow the seeds of conflict, between the English and the Welsh peoples. I am not here to speak in any scaremongering sort of way—that is not my intention at all—but I think that there are such matters in the Bill, and I should now like to go into it in a little detail to show where I think there is going to be some difficulty.
In Clause 59 there is a bundle of provisions. I will not go into them all because it will take up too much of the time of the Committee and I do not think it is necessary to do so in order to show the points that I wish to make. But under this clause a Minister may confer powers on certain bodies which are listed in Schedule 7 to the Bill. These bodies are very important bodies. I have to name only some of those in Part I: the Forestry Commissioners, the Housing Corporation—both of which, of course, are United Kingdom national bodies; and I use the words "United Kingdom national" as opposed to "Welsh National"—the Severn-Trent Water Authority and the Welsh National Water Development Authority. In relation to these four bodies, which are contained in Part I of Schedule 7, according to Clause 59(2) of the Bill, as I understand it, a Minister may by order modify or exclude any provision of the Act in relation to these bodies.
Again as I read it—and I shall be grateful for clarification if I am wrong—this would enable the Minister to change the lists in Schedule 2, which we have debated for so long, in relation, for instance, to the Forestry Commission or the Welsh National Water Development Authority, and to remove functions from the right-hand side, column 2, "Excluded functions", into the functions which have been devolved to the Assembly. It might well seem to your Lordships that we have

1415
wasted a considerable amount of time discussing Schedule 2 when all along the Government have had up their sleeve this power, which a Minister can use to change totally the contents of Schedule 2 in relation to the listed bodies under Part I of Schedule 7.
The other area in which the Bill operates is in Clause 59 (3), which gives to a Minister the right to make provision:
"enabling powers to be exercised or requiring duties to be performed by the Assembly".
It also gives the Assembly powers, under subsection (3)(b), which will allow them to require or authorise the appointment of additional members. This is one of the key provisions of this clause, because the Committee will realise that these boards which are referred to in Clause 59 and listed in Part II of Schedule 7 are not Welsh bodies; they are not bodies which are set up within the areas of Wales for the benefit of the Welsh people. They include the British Waterways Board; the Council on Tribunals, which is a council of major importance in the administration of justice throughout the United Kingdom; the Health Services Board; the Housing Association; the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council, and the Medical Practices Council. I will not weary your Lordships with a continuation of this list, but it will be been from the ones I have already mentioned that there is a considerable number of very important bodies, all of which are of United Kingdom national composition and not local bodies reserved entirely for the benefit, in their operation, of the people of Wales.
Under this clause the Welsh Assembly would be able to require these bodies to appoint, or authorise the appointment of, additional members, to which there is apparently no limit. I am not saying that this will happen, because I am not in any way commenting on the attitude or the content of the Welsh Assembly; I am merely saying that these are powers which are being given to a local body to interfere with, to intervene in and possibly, in the end, to overtake and control bodies which are of national importance to the whole of the United Kingdom. I am just wondering whether I have read this clause correctly. I should be very pleased to know that I have read it incorrectly; but, if not, I should be grateful if the noble Baroness could reassure me on these particular points.
Is it a fact that the Welsh Assembly will be entitled to meddle in any way with these national bodies? Will they in fact, in their subordinate Instruments and through the operation and control that they might take of these bodies, therefore be able to affect territory or interests which are outside the Principality of Wales? Because, if so, this Bill is a mockery and, I would call it—I hesitate to use the word, and it is certainly not a word that I would use to any individual noble Lord opposite—a major piece of deceit: that, when you are talking of devolution to the Welsh people, you are in fact giving the Welsh people powers which will affect the lives and interests not only of the Welsh but also of the English and other members of the United Kingdom. I beg to move.
4.50 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: Over the years, Governments of both Parties have created large numbers of public bodies which are appointed in the main by Ministers and on which extensive statutory functions have been conferred. In certain cases the substantive powers to provide a service or regulate an activity are vested in the public body and not in the Minister himself; and his functions are supervisory and, perhaps, financial. When we come to devolution, it is only these limited ministerial functions which can be devolved. But if a single public body operates in both England and Wales we cannot devolve the ministerial function as it stands. We have to create a reserved ministerial function relating to the body's activities in England and a corresponding Assembly function relating to its activities in Wales.
The functions of these bodies and the arrangements for ministerial oversight are so varied that it is not practicable to make detailed provision in the Bill either in general terms relating to all the bodies or in specific terms relating to each of them separately. Accordingly, provision is made for the necessary 'adaptations to the constitution of the existing bodies to be made by order. Many of the bodies in Schedule 7 currently operate on an England and Wales, Great Britain or United Kingdom basis. The purpose of Clause 59 is to allow for a division of responsibility to take place to take account of the devolution of functions to the Assembly. There will therefore be some consequentials which

1417
have an effect on the law and government of the United Kingdom outside Wales. This is inevitable: a change in the government of Wales is bound to have some impact upon the government of the rest of the United Kingdom given the present unitary system. This is particularly so when the ministerial functions are concerned with bodies operating beyond the boundaries of the Principality.
The effect of this Amendment would be to make substantial inroads into the Government's devolution proposals, because it would make it virtually impossible to make an order under Clause 59 in respect of a Schedule 7 body. I appreciate the fears of the noble Baroness and her colleagues, but I would remind them of the safeguards which already exist in the provisions of Clause 59. First of all, the Assembly has to convince the Minister that an order should be made. Then the Minister has to consult the body itself to see whether they are willing for the order to be made. The order has to be laid before Parliament for Affirmative Resolution. In the Government's view, all of this will ensure that the interests of the United Kingdom beyond Wales will be fully taken account of when the time comes for an order to be made.
I think that we have written sufficient safeguards into the Bill: the use of subsection (2) of Clause 59 to devolve further powers in relation to Part I of the Schedule 7 bodies. We have all sorts of bodies, and this was raised in the Commons when they were discussing it. All the bodies are concerned with functions, all operate on the general basis of United Kingdom or Great Britain; so we have to have provision to divide their responsibilities so that they can account satisfactorily to and be responsible to the Welsh Assembly for what are their activities in Wales while they remain responsible to the Government in the United Kingdom for the other operations. If we had made detailed arrangements, we should have burdened the Bill with immense and unnecessary detail about accounts, appointments, finance and other matters which are normally best dealt with by orders. We should have imposed detailed arrangements on the various bodies in respect of their activities in Wales without any opportunity for the Welsh
1418
Assembly to be consulted either about their nature or their details.
In practice, the Assembly may be content that only minor changes are made; for example, enabling them to make a nomination to a board of management. But it was in dealing with these bodies that it was necessary to distinguish between those whose devolution is so central to the devolution of functions in the field in which they operate that provision must be made for them from day one—and those are the ones listed in Part 1 of Schedule 7; for example, water authorities, the Forestry Commission—and those whose devolution can be postponed without producing administrative chaos. So those bodies shown in Part I have already had most of their relevant functions transferred by entries in the appropriate part of Schedule 2. Some of the functions which need to be divided as between England and Wales are at present expressed in a way which makes them "unsplittable"—which, perhaps, is not a very usable word: but I think noble Lords will find it is what we mean—without some modification. The effect of the order will be to re-express the functions in a way which makes them operable separately by both the Assembly and the Minister. The safeguards that are written into Clause 59 will, I hope, allay the noble Baroness's fears.
Baroness ELLES: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that explanation. As I understood it, it has confirmed my worst fears. It appears to me that there is nothing in the Bill which will prevent, for instance, the Welsh Assembly under subsection (2) of the clause being able to acquire considerable powers over say, the Forestry Commissioners and to take measures which undoubtedly will affect England as well as Wales. There seems to be nothing written in this clause which prevents it. I accept what the noble Baroness has said: that the Welsh Assembly must convince the Minister and that the Minister must go to Parliament and he must lay an Affirmative Resolution before both Houses. Nevertheless, these are not mandatory prohibitions against the Welsh Assembly interfering at any time with geographical areas or matters outside the Principality either for geographical or interest reasons. It seems to me, therefore, that the provisions

1419
in this clause are not satisfactory, but I should like to study carefully what the noble Baroness has said and to come back to this at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Clause 59 agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Public bodies]:
The Marquess of TWEEDDALE The Marquess of TWEEDDALE moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 64, leave out lines 21 and 22.
The noble Marquess said: This is a consequential Amendment on forestry. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: Just to make the usual proviso, this is without prejudice to the Government's attitude when it is considered in the other place.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.58 p.m.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 97A:
Page 64, leave out lines 27 and 28.
The noble Lord said: Noble Lords may well have been slightly confused by this Amendment which seeks to leave out "The Welsh National Water Development Authority" from the provisions of Schedule 7. I hasten to say that this is a probing Amendment and there is no design to have a major water debate on it. Two things which concerned us were, first, that, by order, on 1st April this year the Welsh National Development Authority changed its name to the Welsh Water Authority. It has occasioned no little confusion to have both these titles running through these debates and in my own mind and in that of several of my noble friends. May I ask the noble Baroness whether it would not be appropriate to transpose, wherever they appear within the Bill, "The Welsh National Water Development Authority", and "The Welsh Water Authority"?
The second point is a little different. The Water Acts (or those bits which remain) will, through the interaction of this Bill, make the Welsh Assembly responsible for promoting national water policy for Wales. This is in the 1973 Act which, I know, is not particularly germane to this Amendment, but I hope that the
1420
noble Baroness will be good enough to answer the point. When the Act was written, national water policy meant water policy for the whole of the United Kingdom. Now that the Assembly has its hands on a section of this, I should like to know whether the national water policy referred to is Welsh national water policy or whether it is still United Kingdom water policy. If it is still United Kingdom water policy, I have a further question: there does not seem to be any means of communication in the Bill for the Welsh authority to determine what the national water policy of the United Kingdom is. With this list of questions, I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: The Government believe that water is so central to domestic matters of everyday concern to people in Wales that the Assembly should be given substantial powers. Also, it is an essential element in the devolution proposals to improve democratic control of nominated bodies operating in Wales. The Bill seeks to achieve both these aims. But the Government recognise that it is necessary also to take account of the fact that the Wales/England border does not follow the hydrological boundaries of the Welsh Water Authority and the Severn Trent Water Authority. Therefore the Bill provides that in general these two water authorities should be responsible to the Assembly for their activities in Wales and to the Government for their activities in England.
The Bill establishes the general principles for the split of responsibilities and covers important matters such as the arrangements for safeguarding the England and Wales national policy for water and the question of appointments to the water authorities, but we have not attempted to deal in the Bill with all the practical arrangements, for example in relation to the division of accounts and reports, which are also consequential on the split of responsibility. Instead, we have provided, by listing the water authorities in Schedule 7, for orders to be made under Clause 59 of the Bill to deal with these detailed matters after full consultation with the authorities. As a result of the acceptance by the Government of an Amendment in another place, the orders under Clause 59 are to be subject to approval in draft by each House of Parliament. Acceptance of this Amendment would prevent the necessary practical

1421
details being dealt with by order in relation to the Welsh Water Authority and would leave a state of confusion for that body.
The noble Lord suggested a change of name. He will probably be delighted to know that we are considering a change of name. We hope to put down an Amendment at Report stage to change the name to the Welsh National Water Development Authority, which I think may meet some of his points—
Baroness WHITE: The other way round!
Baroness STEDMAN; I beg your pardon; yes, the other way round. The noble Baroness is right. The Welsh Assembly have to act in harmony with England and Wales over water policy, and the Government will tell it what is the national policy and it will be expected to conform with it.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for that full answer. At the begining, it sounded like trotting out the same old gramophone record. But I assure the noble Baroness that certainly, to me, she has put her message firmly across. The last part of her answer needs a little clarification. She says that the Government will continue to set out their policy. Will this also continue to be interpreted and passed on through the chain of the water authorities by the National Water Council?
Baroness STEDMAN: Yes, that is the way I see it working.
Baroness VICKERS: May I ask about water abstraction and applications for a licence? Who is going to be responsible for informing the owners when a licence is taken out to abstract water? At the moment notice has to be published in the London Gazette and at least once in each of two successive weeks in one or more newspapers. It is extremely important to individuals to know when water is going to be abstracted from rivers. The noble Baroness may remember questions about aquifers. In many cases the owners of rivers are not notified, and two years ago, when we had the very bad drought, farmers did not know when water was going to be abstracted. Their beasts went without water or had great difficulty in
1422
climbing down banks to get to it. Also, fish died because of the shortage of water.
I should like to know which authority will give notice—or will one authority let another authority know that they are going to abstract water? Landowners and farmers do not know these things at the moment. I understand that it is said to be too difficult to notify them individually. A practical suggestion might be to place a notice on telegraph poles. Notices about refuse collection arrangements are dealt with in this way. Everybody in the villages looks on telegraph poles nowadays because they know that is where they will see postal and local authority notices. This is an important aspect. Technically, I understand that there is no requirement to notify any landowners or occupiers. Certain authorities must be notified, including the district internal drainage board. If the noble Baroness could give me some assurance on how this is going to work in the future, I should be grateful.
Baroness STEDMAN: We shall have a major debate on water when we get to Clause 63 and Schedule 8. We had the question of abstraction raised earlier, and we said that both the authorities would be consulting and the announcement would still he placed as it is now, in the London Gazette. I was asked whether there was going to be a Cardiff Gazette, but there is just the London Gazette. Both authorities will be consulted. Notices on telegraph poles is an ingenious suggestion. I do not know whether the noble Baroness meant it seriously—I think she did.
Baroness VICKERS: Yes, I did.
Baroness STEDMAN: We will look at that idea.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: It is a little difficult to reconcile that. The only thing I can say is that telegraph poles actually float, given half a chance. With that remark, I ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.7 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 97B:
Page 64, leave out lines 36 and 37.
The noble Lord said: In the absence of my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, and because I know that this is a matter which the Committee would wish to discuss at a later stage, I wonder whether it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I moved the Amendment formally in his name in order that the noble Baroness should have an opportunity to make clear the position of the Government. My noble friend will then be able to rely upon her reply to determine his position. I speak in some ignorance. If my noble friend has arrived at an agreement with the noble Baroness on this matter, I shall withdraw. If he has not, it will be of use to the Committee and my noble friends on the Front Bench to have some clarification of the implications as to what is becoming an increasingly important industry in this country. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me the opportunity of explaining how we see the position of the Inland Waterways Board and the British Waterways Board. This Amendment, as it is framed at the moment, would mean that the Welsh Assembly would be prevented from exercising any functions in respect of the British Waterways Board. The Government consider this is unreasonable. But, on the other hand, we do not propose that functions in respect of inland waterways should be automatically devolved from the outset—in the manner for instance of housing functions. What we propose is a middle course which we have arrived at after close consultation and the consideration of representatives by those concerned with inland waterways. We believe now that the proposals in the Bill are reasonable and practical ones.
During earlier debates on forestry, the House gave considerable weight to the linkages between forestry and other matters. It was argued by some that it had closer links with reserved than with devolved matters. I would suggest that with inland waterways there is no such room for argument. Whether one regards inland waterways as a form of transport or a form of amenity, all the analogous matters are to be transferred to the Assembly—for example, those functions in respect of general transport policy, roads, countryside and tourism are to be transferred.
1424
It might, however, be argued that inland waterways in Wales have close physical links with those in England. This is, of course, true. I think that there are two canals in Wales which cross the border and a third which has links with canals in the West Midlands, and perhaps the difficulties here are exaggerated. Canals, even more often, cross local authority boundaries—but I have never heard it argued that it was wrong to give local authorities inland waterways functions under Section 114 of the Transport Act 1968. Indeed, Section 114 even gives to a local authority powers in respect of a waterway entirely outside its area, if it can conveniently be used by persons residing in the area of the authority. We assume, of course, that local authorities possess common sense and will be ready to consult and cooperate as necessary. If we can assume that for local authorities, and it works, I trust that we may do so for the Assembly.
The Assembly will not have direct functions in respect of inland waterways. It will take over the existing Ministerial functions, most of which will be exercised through the British Waterways Board. The British Waterways Board will remain, as it is now, a single unified body responsible for waterways throughout Great Britain. There is no question, as has sometimes been suggested, that the Bill creates a separate Board for Wales. Let me explain the position. The British Waterways Board is listed in Schedule 7 and so may be the subject of an order under Clause 59—I say "may" and not "will" and I shall return to that shortly. The scope of what a Clause 59 order may do is considerable. The maximum it would do would be to transfer to the Assembly all existing ministerial functions in respect of the Board's activities in Wales, and provide for the Board to be separately financed by, and accountable to, the Assembly for those activities. The minimum it would do would perhaps be to give the Assembly a power to appoint one or two members of the Board.
The listing of the Board in Schedule 7 carries no presumption that either the maximum or the minimum are what will happen. No action at all will be taken unless the Assembly request it. It will then be for the Secretary of State to consult the British Waterways Board—

1425
this is a statutory requirement. In the light of the Assembly's request, after consultation wth the Board, the Secretary of State will then draw up an order containing what he considers to be the provisions appropriate to the circumstances. This order will only take effect if both Houses of Parliament so resolve.
The Bill is, therefore, not in itself devolving functions in respect of the British Waterways Board. It is providing for the possibility of devolution at a later stage, and I would suggest that this is a very modest aim. I should like to emphasise that this is a matter on which we have not only listened carefully to those concerned with inland waterways, but we have altered the Bill in the light of representations. The Minister of State in the Privy Council Office has held two meetings with the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Committee accompanied by MPs of both main Parties, and subsequently the Government agreed to accept Amendments in another place to move the Board and the Advisory Committee itself from Part I to Part II of Schedule 7. This has the important effect that there will be no devolution unless and until the Assembly specifically request it. In particular, this allows greater scope for a smooth transition, because concern has been expressed about the position of projects which were already in progress at the time the Assembly is set up.
I suggest that this Amendment is considerably less modest that what we propose in the Bill. The Amendment would entirely exclude the possibility of any transfer to the Assembly of functions in respect of the British Waterways Board, however limited this might be and however much it might have been agreed after consultation. This seems a very extreme remedy for a matter such as inland waterways, which is so closely linked with other functions to be devolved. We believe that the Bill should be allowed to stand as it is.
Baroness WHITE: May I express thanks to my noble friend and her colleagues for having taken a very great deal of trouble about what was a difficult and potentially explosive situation.
The MARQUESS of TWEEDDALE: I should also like to thank the noble Baroness for what she has told us. However, I should like to point out that this matter cropped up in a connection with the Scotland Bill and, as it stands at the moment, canals are now a reserved matter. Although I fully understand that the waterways in Wales are not going to be devolved as yet, I think I should like to keep this open and perhaps come back to it later on, if the noble Baroness agrees.
Baroness ELLES: Before we conclude our discussions on this Amendment, I should like to put two points to the noble Baroness. She gave the analogy of local authorities discussing with each other across the border—obviously water does not stay within the confines of one local authority, and she rightly pointed to the need for good co-operation between adjacent local authorities. I wonder whether she could tell us with whom the Welsh Assembly will negotiate—will it be with the United Kingdom Parliament? There is no regional area which covers England or the adjacent parts of Wales. Would the Welsh Assembly consult with the Herefordshire County Council, for instance, or with some other county councils? It seems to me that one would not get the same level of body through which to hold these negotiations. The analogy, therefore, if I may say so, seems to be a false one.
Could the noble Baroness also tell us whether the Resolution to be placed before both Houses of Parliament before any of these orders can take effect would be a Negative Resolution or an Affimative Resolution, which is subject to debate? I should be grateful for her comments on these points.
Baroness STEDMAN: It will be a matter for the Welsh Assembly to discuss with all the bodies around it, including the English counties, the British Waterways Board and everybody else who is concerned, before a recommendation is made and before any of the procedure is put into effect. My information is that it will be an Affirmative Resolution and therefore both Houses will be able to discuss it.
There is one other point, of course. The Select Committee on Nationalised Industries in another place have recently reported on the Board and have recom-

1427
mended that it should be excluded from devolution. The Government have not yet made up their minds about the recommendations of the Select Committee. They will be publishing their response, and I believe similar remarks were made in connection with the Scotland Bill. We expect to get that response shortly, and, if necessary, we will return to it at a later stage in the light of the decision on that report.
Lord ELTON: This has been unexpectedly useful and fruitful, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her response to my impromptu intervention. As I understand it, the position of the British Waterways Board has not changed since their response to the White Paper, and the relevant plea seems to be found in the following sentence:
"It would, however, be quite wrong for Parliament to prejudge the general future of the British Waterways Board by making ad hoc decisions on certain parts of their network. Nor, in their view, is the matter one of principle so far as Scotland and Wales are concerned".
That is the kind of starting point so far as they are concerned.
The noble Baroness has deployed a great deal of technical information, which no doubt my noble friends will wish to study. I have noted what my noble friend Lord Tweeddale has said, that the provision in the Bill as it now stands is different from that in the Scotland Bill as that now stands; and I think the noble Baroness was present when I received a most terrible wigging yesterday for suggesting that the Welsh should receive anything different from the Scots, as that was derogatory. I should have thought that this must do something to weaken any position she might take at Report stage in view of what my noble friends may say then. However, in thanking her for what she has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord WIGG Lord WIGG moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 65, leave out lines 10 and 11.
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is consequential, and I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: I must again add the same caveat that this is subject to any further consideration of the Bill after it has been to another place.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WIGG Lord WIGG moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 65, leave out lines 17 to 22.
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 60 [Power of Assembly to assume functions of certain bodies];
[Amendment No. 99A not moved].
5.20 p.m.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY moved Amendment No. 99B:
Page 25, line 1, leave out ("all") and insert ("the").
The noble Lord said I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee, if I speak to Amendments Nos. 99B and 99C together. The purpose of this Amendment is to probe and also to be helpful, because I do not think the Government mean what I think I thought they meant. Your Lordships can try translating that into Welsh, if you like. As I understand it, Clause 60(1) empowers the Welsh Assembly, with certain safeguards, to take over duties of all or any of the nominated bodies. These bodies comprise, according to a Written Answer to a Question in the Hansard of another place of 16th March 1978, the following: the Ancient Monuments Board for Wales, the Area Health Authorities, the Central Advisory Council for Education (Wales), the Development Board for Rural Wales, the Historic Buildings Council for Wales, the Land Authority for Wales, New Town Development Corporations, the Wales Tourist Board, the Welsh Development Agency and the Library Advisory Council (Wales). Can the Government assure me that this is the complete list of all the bodies? Are there any non-statutory bodies that would fall in line? I should also be grateful if the Government would confirm that the power of appointment by local authorities to the Area Health Authorities, to which I referred, is not disturbed in any way by the Wales Bill.
My second question is perhaps the same as my first. Am I correct in assuming that the Welsh Assembly can subsume the

1429
duties and powers of a nominated body only if it has sole responsibility for appointing all the members to that body? If I am correct, then I suggest that this Amendment is helpful in so far as it says just that, and the Government might like my English better than theirs and accept it. I beg to move.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: In supporting my noble friend, may I say that I regard this Part, even more than that dealing with water, as the most crucial Part of the Bill. I find it crucial, because it is something that is completely anathema to me in my ideas, as I have read the clause and as I understand it. It states:
"… the Assembly may by order … provide for the exercise by the Assembly of all or any of the functions of that body".
Is this a power that the Assembly is taking over from the Secretary of State? The clause also puts a kind of caveat or check on this, by stating:
"… the Assembly may by order made by statutory instrument".
Whose Statutory Instrument? Is it its own Statutory Instrument? I see that the noble Lord indicates that it is. So it has complete and utter power in this matter. I should have thought that this gave the Assembly the opportunity to take over virtually any body, and I did not think that this was what the Government had in mind. I should be grateful for clarification on this matter.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I do not think that it is as difficult as noble Lords have implied; at least, I hope we shall agree on that by the time I have finished. Clause 60 is concerned with public bodies for which all ministerial powers of appointment will be transferred to the Assembly. In other words, a body will be within the terms of the clause, irrespective of whether one or all the members are appointed by the Minister, provided that all such appointments are devolved by means of entries in Schedule 2. It sounds complicated, but it is quite simple. If one ministerial power of appointment is left with a Minister, then the body cannot be subject to a Clause 60 order. The effect of the Amendment before us is to restrict the terms of Clause 60 to bodies whose entire membership is appointed by Ministers. So if, for example, there is
1430
one local authority appointment to the body, that body cannot be subject to a Clause 60 order.
I have looked through the terms of appointment of the principal bodies who, under Clause 60 as it stands in the Bill, would be subject to the terms of that clause. I find that this Amendment would create some curious results. The main bodies which would no longer be caught by Clause 60, if the Amendment were carried, are the Ancient Monuments Board, the Area Health Authorities, the Community Health Councils and the National Parks Council. Bodies such as the Advisory Council for Education remain as potential candidates for a Clause 60 order. I therefore conclude that this Amendment not only derogates from the powers of the Assembly, but does so in a very arbitrary way. It seems to me that there is a misunderstanding in noble Lords' minds as to what Clause 60 does, and I hope that I have said enough to make it clear that this Amendment would confuse matters even more.
Lord ELTON: I just wonder whether there is a misunderstanding in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson. If there is not, then there is in mine, because the provisions, as I read this clause, do not coincide with what he said. The clause appears to say that where a Minister of the Crown has power to appoint members to a body—it does not say what proportion there should be; whether it is one in 100, 16 in 100, or all of them—then, if the whole of that power is exercisable by the Assembly, it may then make a Clause 60 order. That is what it appears to me to mean. But the noble Lord went on to say that if any local authority could appoint any member to such a body, then the opportunity to make a Clause 60 order would not exist.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: With respect, under the Amendment.
Lord ELTON: I apologise to the noble Lord. So that the confusion was in my mind. I think I agree with my noble friend that we have got it straight, and the Government have now said that they mean that as long as a Minister can

1431
appoint one member to a body, and if that power is in the hands of a committee, then it is translated into an ability to take over the body. Although it might have 60 members on its executive committee, if one of them is appointed by the Minister this is an entrée for this system. If that is so, will the noble Lord confirm that the rather short list which my noble friend read out of bodies which meet this specification is complete, because there may be many of which one had not thought—for instance, under the terms of a charity—where the Minister had power to make an appointment, which would fall, perhaps unwittingly, into this basket.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: The noble Lord's list was taken from the reply in another place of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales, in which he said:
"The following are the principal statutory bodies which would fall within the scope of Clause 62".
I do not think this means that there could never be another.
Lord ELTON: Indeed. The word "statutory" does not appear in the clause, so the Secretary of State has referred only to the statutory bodies which fall within this definition. There may be a great many others—for instance, trusts, beneficies, who knows what? I should have thought that the Government might at least tell us what this trawl will catch.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I am not clear in my own mind about charities of a general kind. I do not think that they come under this clause. I shall have to look at the point again. My impression is that that is not the case, but I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord ELTON: I sympathise with the noble Lord—obviously this is a difficult field—and no doubt he will sympathise with me. It may be that he will be able to deal with my difficulty when he has read that piece of paper. If the noble Lord's answer is that he is right, a letter will, of course, suffice. If the answer is that he is wrong, then a letter will not suffice.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: The point which the noble
1432
Lord makes would be sound if it applied, but it does not. The information which I have just had confirmed is that it must be a statutory body.
Baroness ELLES: I wonder whether I could intervene in the happy dialogue which is taking place and reinforce a question which my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley put to the Minister. My noble friend read out a list of the statutory bodies which would fall within the scope of Clause 60, and he asked what statutory bodies are considered to fall within the scope of Clause 60, apart from the ones which were given by the noble Lord's right honourable friend in his answer on 16th March 1978. I may be wrong about this, but when the noble Lord referred to some of these bodies I thought that he mentioned two which were not on that list—one in connection with National Parks and another relating to community something-or-other—which I should be grateful if the noble Lord would repeat. Certainly it was not on the list which was given by the Minister in another place. Possibly the noble Lord has a list which would satisfy, at least partly, the curiosity of my noble friend. When the noble Lord answers that question, I wonder whether he could confirm that if Part IX were to be removed from Schedule 2 to the Bill, the Land Authority for Wales, the Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales would therefore no longer fall within the provisions of Clause 60.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: The answer to the last question is certainly, Yes. The point which the noble Lord missed and that I did not emphasise when I spoke about a statutory body is to be found in line 2 of Clause 60(1):
"conferred by any enactment".
I think that those words make it quite clear. I cannot give a complete list to the noble Baroness. I do not think that there could be such a list. My noble friend Lady Stedman wrote a long letter to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, giving him certain information of this kind, which I have not got. I know that the letter was written, and I hope that it will have given some information of this kind to the noble Lord.
Baroness ELLES: I am sorry to insist on this point. In the case of bodies which are under the threat not only of control but also of extinction, does not the noble Lord consider that it would be a matter of interest both to the noble Lord and to the Committee as to which these bodies might be?
Lord SKELMERSDALE: To back that up even further, it would be a matter of great interest to the bodies themselves.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: We are getting away from the point. The number of statutory bodies is highly limited. We started to speak about charities, most of which are not statutory bodies. I shall try to give a list of some of the statutory bodies that might be affected, but I certainly cannot give it off-the-cuff.
Baroness ELLES: I am sorry to pursue this point. I have with me a document called Paid Appointments to Statutory Bodies. I understand that it lists at least 70 or 80 bodies throughout the United Kingdom which were set up by statute. There is nothing in the clause which states that the Minister who devolves his powers to the Welsh Assembly should be the Secretary of State for Wales. It could be the Department of the Environment. I am not saying that any Minister would ever devolve powers to the Welsh Assembly in order to deal with a national body. Nevertheless, as the clause is now worded, this is a possibility.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: I am still not entirely clear about this, nor am I sure that the Committee is, either. Can I put the position as I see it, now that the noble Lord has kindly explained it to me. If the Welsh Assembly has the power to appoint all of the members to that particular body, then it has the power to subsume that particular body. To give one example which slightly worries me, after our long discussion at some unearthly hour of the night I understand that one member of the water authority is still to be appointed by the Government. Therefore the Welsh Assembly cannot subsume the powers of the water authority. I am delighted to see that the noble Lord is nodding, which means that I am beginning to make a little more sense. Also, I understand—although I may be wrong—
1434
that, so far as Area Health Authorities are concerned, some of the members are to be nominated by local authorities. May I ask whether the Assembly can therefore subsume their powers, for the Area Health Authorities are on the list? I wonder whether I have explained myself. I have got my answer, because the noble Lord nodded, but when he gets up to reply perhaps he could put it on the record that I am right about that.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: Yes, I am very happy to do that. It is quite clear that the noble Lord is right on the first point.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: May I ask the noble Lord about the last point—the Area Health Authorities? Why can their powers be subsumed by the Welsh Assembly? I believe that some of their members are not to be appointed by the Welsh Assembly, although I may not be correct about that.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: In so far as they have members who are not so appointed, then clearly their powers cannot be subsumed by the Welsh Assembly.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: I am not absolutely certain about that. I think I have got the point, but I may have to come back to it. At one moment I thought we were speaking about Irish devolution, because we were speakingatcross purposes! However, I understand what the noble Lord says, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 99C, 99D and 100A not moved.]
5.39 p.m.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY moved Amendment No. 100B:
Page 25, line 9, leave out ("including") and insert ("excluding").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment needs hardly any explanation. It says that the Welsh Assembly should not change the law. Perhaps the Government might care to explain the thoughts which lie behind their wish to allow the Welsh Assembly to change any enactment. Could the Government give me a few

1435
examples of what type of enactment they might want to change? I beg to move.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: The power in Clause 60 to modify any enactment is there to allow for any technical tidying up necessary as a result of an order made under the terms of the clause. For example, if the Assembly were to assume some of the functions of the Area Health Authorities, Amendments might have to be made to the National Health Service Act 1977, for example, to take account of the changed circumstances. There is no question, as seems to be in the noble Lord's mind—I think, wrongly—that the power is intended to be used, or can be used, by the Assembly to extend the scope of devolved functions. The drafting of the provision precludes that.
On the whole I think that the Amendment would do more harm than good. I know that it is only a probing Amendment. I am not treating it otherwise. But, if it were agreed to, it would prevent the kind of mechanical consequential change being made to enactments which may be necessary as a result of the making of an order under subsecion (1) of the clause. Primary legislation would therefore be needed. I am sure your Lordships would agree that this is giving the matter an exaggerated and unnecessary importance which is totally out of proportion to the action required. I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied with that explanation.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: I am very grateful for that explanation. It was proposed only to clear my mind of the fear that the Assembly could suddenly change an Area Health Authority into a swimming pool, or something extraordinary. I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY moved Amendment No. 100C:
Page 25, line 16, at end insert—
("(5) No order shall be made under this section unless a draft thereof has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: As a result of our original discussions, your Lordships will see that Clause 60 is large and important.
1436
It contains far-reaching powers. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could tell me whether similar powers are given to any person or body in England, at the moment, without an order being laid before Parliament. I beg to move.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I think that we are becoming more and more familiar, as the noble Lord said, with the effect of Clause 60. I do not want to waste time by entering into another narrative as to the way the clause works. Clause 60(1) confers an order-making power on the Assembly in respect of a body falling within the ambit of that clause. But the order cannot be made until the body concerned has been consulted. That is a statutory duty on the Assembly and cannot be shirked.
Once consultations have taken place the order must be approved by the Secretary of State who must surely, in deciding whether or not to approve the order, take into account the views expressed to the Assembly by the body. In the Government's view, these arrangements will ensure that adequate attention is given to the views of the body in question and also that the Assembly's proposals are adequate and acceptable. These orders are essentially concerned with the consequences of devolution and the making of arrangements, so that the functions of the bodies concerned may be discharged in the most effective manner appropriate to the transfer of responsibilities to the Assembly. The orders are not concerned with a matter of principle, and are not, therefore, in my view, appropriate to the Parliamentary scrutiny envisaged in this Amendment.
Noble Lords may point to Clause 59 and the appropriate Resolution procedure in subsection (5) as proof to the contrary. Let me remind your Lordships that the bodies in Schedule 7 all operate on an England-and-Wales basis and will continue to do so after devolution. It is only right, therefore, that Parliament should have the means of ensuring that the English activities of the body will not be injured by anything the Assembly may wish to do in respect of the body's Welsh functions. This argument does not apply to the bodies which could be affected by a Clause 60 order. Hence the differing treatment of them. The noble Lord asked me whether anything of this kind could be

1437
done in England without a statutory order. The answer to that, I think, is in the negative.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: I am not entirely happy about the whole position of Clause 60—in fact, I am far from happy about it. I am certainly very much happier and understand the clause much better since the noble Lord has been so good as to explain it so fully. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment 100D not moved.]
5.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 60 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness ELLES: The initial fears expressed by my noble friends on this side of the House have not been allayed by the answers, although they were extremely courteous, from the noble Lord on the Government Front Bench. In fact, not only have they not been allayed but I think that they have been increased. For one thing, there seems to be no limit to the number of bodies which may be included and which may fall within the scope of Clause 60, apart from the facts that they must be bodies established by statute and that a Minister of the Crown—it need not necessarily be the Secretary of State for Wales— has the power to appoint Members to that particular body.
There are three points in relation to individual bodies that I should like to mention that were not discussed on earlier Amendments. The first is in relation to the Welsh Commission, which may be debated later under Clause 62. The Welsh Commission will be a body of immense importance, in accordance with the subsections of Clause 62. But, under subsection (13) we see:
"Section 60 above shall apply in relation to the Welsh Commission as it applies in relation to the bodies there referred to".
This is a real case of strangulation at birth, if not a case of abortion.
The second board included in the original list printed in the Answer to a Parliamentary Question on 16th March, is the Welsh Tourist Board. This gives rise to concern and causes us to ask why
1438
this particular board is included. There will already be possibilities under Clause 61 for the Assembly to make arrangements direct with the British Tourist Board to undertake activities in relation to the promotion, quite rightly and very properly, for the purpose of encouraging people to visit Wales. It seems to me that there will be a schizophrenic situation here, using one body for one purpose and another body for another, and in the meantime the British taxpayer will be paying out more for the people who have to administer these dichotomies.
A further point, which has not been commented on but which certainly gives me cause for concern, is the matter of some of the bodies which were in the original list, if I may refer to it as that. Among that original list was the Ancient Monuments Board for Wales. It has not been brought to the attention of noble Lords that it is not only a Minister of the Crown who has the right to appoint members to that body. There are many other bodies who have a right to appoint members to that body, such as, for example, the Trustees of the British Museum. Are the Trustees of the British Museum aware that this body may be dissolved under Clause 60? I am certain that they are not aware of that. If they are aware, they have not expressed the concern which they must undoubtedly feel. There are other bodies in a similar position, to which the Minister may be entitled to nominate or appoint persons—but they are bodies to which other important bodies also have a right of appointment. This matter has not been discussed sufficiently widely. Nor has the attention of these other nominated bodies been drawn to what may well happen to these statutory bodies falling within the scope of Clause 60.
The noble Lord made two points, on which I should like to touch, on the question of consultation. The noble Lord will know very well indeed that consultation is not the same as negotiation or being in a position of power. Many of us have consulted many people and gone away with a dusty answer, and it might be the same in this case. I do not think that the power of consultation with a body which you are about to dissolve will give that body particularly strong support or encouragement in its relationship to the Welsh Assembly.

1439
As the noble Lord himself rightly said, this power under Clause 60 can be exerted only with the approval of the Secretary of State. He pointed out also that naturally the Secretary of State has to take into account the views expressed by the Assembly, and that will be only right and proper. If the Welsh Assembly expresses the view that such-and-such a body should be dissolved, I think it would be difficult for the Secretary of State to go behind that democratic decision of a body elected by the people of Wales. I feel that this clause has immense implications. It has not been discussed in the Commons and I think another place should have an opportunity to discuss it. I hope that my noble friends will agree with me that we should go into the Lobbies and divide on this particular clause.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: I thought that in opening her remarks the noble Baroness was slightly confused about the rôle of the British Tourist Authority—and I would remind her that it is the British Tourist Authority and not the British Tourist Board—and the role of the Wales Tourist Board. We are to discuss this more fully under the next Amendment; to be moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, but the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, seem to me to be misconceived because what is being proposed under the next paragraph is in fact a topping up arrangement whereby the funds which go to the British Tourist Authority—which, after all, is promoting Britain as a whole overseas—can be topped up to some extent by the local Wales Assembly if they wish to have a special promotion in that respect.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I should like to say two things. First, we are discussing the Question, Whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill? and if the noble Baroness thinks of dividing the Committee it would be equivalent to a decision to leave out Clause 60. Just so long as we know what we are talking about. The point of this clause is fairly clearly stated in the Bill. It is to provide a machinery for the Welsh Assembly to take over certain things of which it already has the full functions. The idea of dissolving something against its will is quite wrong and
1440
nothing whatever to do with the functions which we are proposing here.
I am puzzled: I have the feeling that the noble Baroness feels that this will be a way of allowing worthy statutory bodies to be suppressed by an unworthy Assembly. I believe that is an absolutely false idea.
Baroness ELLES: Oh, no!
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: If that is not the idea held by the noble Baroness, then it is the greatest possible mistake to leave the clause out because the machinery will then not exist.
Baroness ELLES: I am sorry to disabuse the noble Lord's mind. I admit that I am very often confused, and I often fail to understand either what is being said by the noble Lord opposite or indeed what I read, but it seems to be perfectly clear in this particular clause, and in conjunction with what the noble Lord has just said, that the Assembly may exercise all or any of the functions of that body.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: If they are devolved, with respect.
Baroness ELLES: Precisely, but what we have not got out of the noble Lord is which bodies are fit to come within this scope, and he seems unable to tell us. He has also, quite rightly I believe, told us that he cannot tell us. I think this is a considerable worry, not only to your Lordships but also to any body which may fall within the scope of that clause. I cannot feel that we should leave this matter as it is. In my view, we should allow another place to discuss it.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: With respect, if I said "limited companies" the noble Baroness would not say that I must give a list of limited companies. It is a perfectly clear definition and we have an equally clear definition here. I really do not understand the desire to have a list.
Baroness ELLES: It so happens that bodies which might be affected by this clause are interested. If the noble Lord were to give a list of limited companies, those limited companies would be independent, corporate bodies with their

1441
own responsibilities and they are not controlled by an overriding governmental or other elected authority. Here we are talking about an Assembly and it is no disrespect to that Assembly; it is exactly the same as if any body was to come within the control of some other newly elected body, let us say in Ruritania. I think that those bodies who may come under the powers of such an Assembly and whose functions under Clause 60—as it states quite clearly, and as the noble Lord himself stated quite clearly—might be ingested into the Welsh Assembly, have a right to know and the other bodies who appoint persons to those bodies have a right to know. I do not think that the noble Lord has made a good case.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I think I must have one more "go". Of course, they have a right to know. Each body knows whether it comes under this definition. The ministerial powers of appointment must have been devolved in Schedule 2 before Clause 60 operates. That is the first
point. Secondly, if the power has not been devolved in respect of even one appointment, then Clause 60 cannot affect the body. Each body will know whether or not this is the case and will know whether or not it is affected. Also it is inconceivable that the Assembly should transfer the powers of a body to the Assembly without discussion with the body. Probably what would happen is that almost certainly the same people would continue to do the same work under a different name. By all means let us test the feeling of the Committee, but I think that the noble Baroness is barking up a gum tree.
Baroness ELLES: I should be happy if that were true, but I think we should test the feeling of the Committee on this and see whether they will come up the gum tree with me.
5.58 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 60 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 57; Not-Contents, 74.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Plant, L.

Ardwick, L.

Glenamara, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Banks, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Samuel, V.

Barrington, V.

Hale, L.

Seear, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Segal, L.

Bernstein, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Shinwell, L.

Birk, B.

Jacques, L.

Stamp, L.

Boothby, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stedman, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Listowel, E.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Brockway, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stone, L.

Castle, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Collison, L.

Longford, E.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Crook, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

David, B.

Meston, L.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]

Davies of Leek, L.

Morris of Borth-y-Gest, L.

Wigg, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Willis, L.

Denbigh, E.

Ogmore, L.

Winterbottom, L. [Teller.]

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Phillips, B.

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Colville of Culross, V.

Elton, L.

Amory, V.

Colwyn, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Ampthill, L.

Craigavon, V.

Faithfull, B.

Auckland, L.

Croft, L.

Falkland, V.

Balfour, E.

Cromartie, E.

Ferrers, E.

Belstead, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Fortescue, E.

Blakenham, V.

Daventry, V.

Gridley, L.

Bledisloe, V.

de Clifford, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

De Freyne, L.

Carrington, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Halsbury, E.

Cathcart, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Clitheroe, L.

Elles, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Cockfield, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Lauderdale, E.

Northchurch, B.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Long, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Luke, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Lyell, L.

Onslow, E.

Strathspey, L.

Mancroft, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Swansea, L.

Middleton, L.

Robbins, L.

Swinfen, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Rochdale, V.

Tenby, V.

Monson, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Trefgarne, L.

Mottistone, L.

Sandford, L.

Tweeddale, M.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Sandys, L.

Vickers, B.

Sempill, Ly.

Vivian, L.

Newall, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Norrie, L.

Spens, L.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the negative, and clause disagreed to accordingly.
6.6 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 61 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness VICKERS: I beg to move to leave out Clause 61. In the document Devolution to Scotland and Wales it states at page 50, paragraph 257:
"The Assembly will be responsible for tourism in Wales, including the Wales Tourist Board, but…"
—this is what I want to draw attention to—
"…overseas promotion will remain the responsibility of the British Tourist Authority, which will receive funds from the Government for promoting tourism in Wales as well as in England and Scotland. If the Assembly wants to give the Authority extra funds for specific promotion overseas, or give work to other agencies, it will be free to do so, but it will not receive extra United Kingdom funds for the purpose".
This Bill is an immensely complicated Bill anyhow, but the position of tourism after creation of the proposed Assembly is very hard to disentangle, and I hope the noble Lord will be able to help me. As I understand it, under Clause 61 the Assembly may make the arrangements I mentioned for the Authority to undertake work outside the United Kingdom for the purpose of encouraging people to visit Wales. Looking at Schedule 11, page 77, the Development of Tourism Act 1969, paragraph 32 reads:
"Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (3) of section 2 of the Development of Tourism Act 1969, the Wales Tourist Board shall have power, by virtue of subsection (2) of that section, to carry on activities outside the United Kingdom for the purpose of encouraging people to visit Wales".
Under Clause 60 of the Bill the Assembly may subsume and abolish the Wales Tourist Board, provided that the Assembly itself exercises all or any of the functions of that body. So it is left entirely to them to decide whether or not to carry it on. It is, therefore, most unclear, at any rate
1444
to me, as to where responsibility for promoting Wales abroad will lie. Will it lie with the Assembly, with the Wales Tourist Board or the British Tourist Authority, or sometimes a combination of all three? Will, for instance, any promotion of Wales abroad by the British Tourist Authority be chargeable to the Welsh Consolidated Fund? This is what I call modifying responsibility between all these different authorities.
I should like some clarification on this matter. Similarly, it would be helpful to know where financial responsibility will lie. Will, for instance, any promotion of Wales abroad by the British Tourist Authority be chargeable to the Welsh Consolidated Fund? I should particularly like an answer to that question. There are persistent rumours—I have heard this from more than one authority—about a British Tourist Authority display in Brussels where a map of Wales was displayed upside down in a window.
Tourism is a major growth industry in Wales. The Wales Tourist Board appears to have been more satisfactory in its performance in encouraging people to come to Wales than the other authorities. The amounts of money estimated to have been spent by British tourists—in other words, not tourists from overseas—are as follows. I shall give just two examples. In 1972 the British people spent £125 million and by 1976 £250 million in Wales alone. In addition, the contribution of overseas tourists is growing. In 1976 it was estimated that visitors from overseas spent about £50 million in Wales.
On 23rd August 1977, Mr. Harold Naylor, the Chief Executive of the Wales Tourist Board, claimed that the Welsh tourist industry could be earning £1,000 million a year in 10 years if special tourist development areas were set up. In my view that is what the Welsh people can do better than anybody else. That was in response to the proposal for tourist

1445
development areas put forward in a Conservative document called A Policy for Tourism. At present, the Special Tourism Projects Scheme resources and EEC fund aids for tourism are available only in industrial development areas. For example, parts of Denbigh, Conway and West Flint are excluded from development areas. There is a case for separating industrial development areas and tourism development areas so that all of Wales can potentially benefit from these sources.
Under the Special Tourism Projects Scheme established by the Development of Tourism Act 1969, £8 million was set aside until 1978 for grants to encourage tourism in Wales. Under this scheme it was estimated that by March 1976, 3,000 jobs had been created, either directly or indirectly, at a cost of about £1,590 per job. I suggest that that compares very favourably with job creation costs in other industries. In many ways tourism is of special importance to rural Wales. It helps to sustain the economy of the rural areas without causing dislocation or disruption which other industries are prone to do.
The suggestion that the board may be dissolved under the provisions of Clause 60 seems to run counter to the Government's own feelings about the Board. In a Written Answer on 6th January 1978, at column 3 of the Official Report. Mr. Barry Jones, the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, claimed:
"The Wales Tourist Board's responsibilities are different from those of the British Tourist Authority. We have certainly no intention of winding up the Board".
On 17th January 1978 the South Wales Argus reported that, Mr. Jones said—and I agreed with him—that
"it would be 'putting back the clock' to scrap the Board, and this would be unacceptable to the people of Wales … Mr. Jones replied that the Board had put Wales on the international map and had been 'a thundering success'.".
In the debates on the Scotland Bill there were references to tourism and I think that they have some bearing on the Welsh Tourist Board. I am pleased to see that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, is here because I gather that on the 14th March this year, at columns 1265 to 1268 of the Official Report, he discussed the question of the reorganisation of the British Tourist Authority as proposed
1446
in the Scotland Bill, and the under-representation that England would have on the newly reconstituted Board. In columns 1275 to 1277 the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, echoed the feelings of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, underlining the importance of an independent and impartial British Tourist Authority. I also understand that in columns 439 to 450 on 17th May this year, the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Amherst, to increase the number of independent members of the British Tourist Authority, was withdrawn following an assurance by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, that the Government were prepared to accept that there was a case for a larger board than five members, and were prepared to look again at the proposals in the Bill.
I should like to know today from the noble Lord who will be answering the debate whether he does not think that the Welsh Board is adequate to undertake tourism for itself. I know that the British Tourist Authority is rather annoyed with me because during the Second Reading debate I suggested that it would be better if it were done away with—perhaps I put it more elegantly than that, and said that it should cease to act—and that the various boards for England, Scotland and Wales should do their own work, because in my view they could do it equally well. Moreover, it would save money and they would not have to set up separate offices. They could use the British Airways office and they could immediately fix their clients up, put them on planes and send them to, for example, Wales.
I should like to know how many representatives the British Tourist Authority has working for Wales overseas. I consider that the Welsh people are by far the best people for putting over the conditions of their country. They know what is needed. They know all the beauty spots. Moreover, they have great charm and a particular way of speaking. Perhaps they could speak a little Welsh to show off their language and encourage others to learn it before they visit Wales. I know of an Indonesian diplomat who was going to Wales to give a lecture. He learnt Welsh and gave his lecture in Welsh and it proved very successful. Therefore the language cannot be all that difficult. I know that the Indonesians are very talented in languages but Welsh

1447
is a language which can be learnt. I suggest that the best promotion could be done by the Welsh people. I hope that my Amendment will be considered as a probing Amendment. If the answer is satisfactory I may be able to table a better Amendment in the future. I beg to move.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, referred to her remarks on Second Reading. Whether she put the matter inelegantly or not, she said:
"I should like to take the opportunity to close down the British Tourist Authority, keeping the English, Welsh and Scottish Authorities and letting them manage their own arrangements ".—[Official Report, 23/5/78; col. 907.]
The particular question which she has raised this afternoon is where does the authority for promoting Wales overseas lie. At present the position is that the promotion of Wales and of all different parts of the United Kingdom overseas is in the hands of the British Tourist Authority. From time to time there may be needs for special promotions for particular parts of the United Kingdom.
We know as regards the Scottish Tourist Board that it would like to have some presence overseas. But when it actually comes down to it in the discussions with the Scottish Tourist Board, in my view what is primarily needed is an additional entry in the telephone directories of Montreal, California, Chicago and so on which would have the same telephone number as the British Tourist Authority. In that way people would look under "Scotland" or "Wales" as the case may be, and they would be directed to the British Tourist Authority which would encompass the whole of the marketing for the British Isles overseas. One should say in this connection that the British Tourist Authority already has marketing arrangements overseas with the Isle of Man, Northern Ireland and the Channel Isles. Therefore, what particularly is envisaged here is that there would, of course, be the normal British Government grant to the British Tourist Authority for promoting the whole of the United Kingdom overseas and this particular clause would allow for additional and special promotions for Wales to take place overseas with the authority of the Assembly and with additional monies provided by the Assembly.
1448
The proposal moved by the noble Baroness this afternoon I know not only does not find favour with the British Tourist Authority but does not even find favour with the Wales Tourist Board itself. I have it on good authority that Mr. Ednyfed Hudson Davies has said that the Wales Tourist Board would be totally opposed to the suggestion which has been put down here. I think the very great danger in this situation is a duplication of effort. We need to have a co-operation not only involving the British Tourist Authority but also involving the ambassadorial posts overseas, British Airways and all the outposts overseas which promote different aspects of Britain. To try to fragment this would, on the one hand, be likely to be less effective and, on the other, be very much more expensive. Therefore I would urge the Committee not to go along with the proposal which has been made.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I take it that this is to leave out Clause 61, but I consider that such a thing would rupture the purpose of encouraging tourist trade in Wales. In Clause 61 the Assembly can make arrangements with the British Tourist Authority for that authority to undertake activities outside the United Kingdom, and the noble Lord who has just spoken illustrated that with knowledge and understanding. But let me tell noble Lords—it is an amazing figure according to the Council for the Preservation of Rural Wales—that between 11 million and 12 million people a year visit Wales. The entire population of Wales, whether they are English speaking Welsh or Welsh speaking Welsh, is less than 3 million, so four times the population of Wales visits it for its historical information, its industrial information and for the beauties of its hills; and, further, do not let us forget that it is a great ambassador for peace.
The international Eisteddfod at Llangollen brings people from all over the world, from Eastern Europe, from Latin America, to take part in the Eisteddfod, in singing, musical and cultural activities. The Welsh, to their sorrow, have been beaten by the Bulgarians. The Russian Red Army singing basso profundo can reach the centre of hell itself sometimes, and have amazed us. We have even had them come from Patagonia where Welsh and Spanish is the common dual language.

1449
In other words, the tourist industry in Wales is of fundamental importance.
Already, if it is not returned in the other place, Clause 60 is being taken out; but nothing can be taken out and nothing can be enacted without affirmative statutory instruments coming through the House. Finally, let me point out that there are increasing activities in the tourist industry. When mankind quarries into a beautiful mountainside it leaves a scar. In my boyhood I used to meander around those quarries looking for deep ponds in which to swim, and our mothers were always warning us about swimming in quarry ponds in the slate quarries, even in millstone grit areas, and as any geologist knows, once you reach the millstone grit there is no more coal after that. The fascinating thing about those quarries is that, seen 10 years later when the hand of man has improved the work of nature by planting flowers and trees, the quarry becomes a beautiful resort.
This Board that we set up must be given the local knowledge by means of which it can make arrangements with outside people. We sometimes want to talk with geologists who may be in English or foreign universities. We want to employ them and give them a fee to enhance the local beauty in a quarrying area. Many of your Lordships will remember Aberfan—the tragedy of a moving tip of slurry that wiped off the earth 150 schoolchildren before any could be saved. I am president of a new type of mining museum which we are establishing in Stoke-on-Trent where we have a tip and where we shall have museum objectives, and we expect to draw thousands of visitors a year. In South Wales and in parts where the quarrying of slate is concerned the tourist authority may want outside experts brought in and the power to spend money to increase the amenities and the beauty of areas where once there were tips.
There must therefore be the possibility for co-operation between the British Tourist industry and the Council for the preservation of Rural Wales. All these bodies vv ill have to grow together in consultation. Justifiably, of course, the Opposition must probe, but no Government, whatever their politics, should expect that they can sweep terrific Bills like ths
1450
through Parliament, as they did once with the Common Market Bill. That went through this House like lightning, without any Amendments, without altering a full stop, a comma or a semicolon. It went through your Lordships' House before you could say "Jack Robinson".
I do not object to a long time being spent on important Bills, but I believe we must use our judgment here. This case of the tourist industry and the tourist authority is of paramount importance to Wales. There can be no answers straight away, no Minister can be expected to give accurate answers. I have said about three times during the course of these debates that all this is a pragmatic thing. The Assembly is a novel idea. Men and women of common sense and of different political views will come together in that Assembly, and whatever their political views they will all try to do their best for the Welsh Assembly or the Scots Assembly, and, if the Anglo-Saxons get one outside this Parliament, for that one too. Consequently I hope that this Amendment is not accepted.
Lord ELTON: One of the very valuable functions provided by an Amendment such as the probing Amendment of my noble friend is to elicit a speech such as that we have just heard—full of praise for, as the noble Lord has rightly said, one of the principal and growing industries of Wales. From the figures he quoted one would have thought that the country was saturated. In fact, three weeks ago I had one of the most pleasant motor drives of my life from Cardiff to Carnaervon in that lovely weather, and you would not have known that it was a tourist paradise at all. That must be its principal charm. I passed the fatal tip at Aberfan and noticed how it had been beautified.
If your Lordships will allow me 30 seconds to reminisce, it happens that my great-great-grandfather managed a silver mine for the King of Denmark in Konigsberg, in Norway. I visited the place a year or two ago, and if the noble Lord says that he has a mining museum in mind he might care to visit one there. It goes three miles into the mountain by rail. He would see the old workings, and the machinery still at work exactly as it was in the early 19th century. But perhaps this is not the moment for dissertation like this.

1451
I am grateful to my noble friend for advancing this, and also for the opportunity of saying that of course we on this side recognise the enormous importance of the tourist industry to Wales and the great threat this poses to the Welsh. Maybe devolution comes at an important moment for them to resist this threat, which is the threat of becoming quaint. One has seen communities which are too much exposed to public view become, not human zoos, but human Whipsnades, where people go around in what the foreigners think of as peasant costume and they regard as fancy dress, where they eat food they do not like in order to please customers who pay them well. I am sure that the Welsh have the native strength and widsom to resist this. I should like to take this opportunity of declaring complete solidarity with them in this.
Lord GRIDLEY: May I intervene very briefly for one moment. This is the first time that I have taken part ina Committee stage of your Lordships' House and I am slightly confused. If we have decided that Clause 60 shall not stand part of the Bill, is it possible for Clause 61 to operate?— because under Clause 60 the Assembly must have powers to do what is being proposed, to make arrangements with the British Tourist Authority. In the circumstances, can Clause 61 of the Bill stand?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I think that it can. In the first place, I think enough remains of Clause 60 for it to be perfectly possible to pass Clause 61, even though it will not, of course, have as wide an effect as it would otherwise have. For example, the Assembly's relationship to the British Tourist Authority is not affected in any way by the removal of Clause 60.
The noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, made a most interesting speech; in fact, we have had a number of interesting speeches. I want to be a little narrower in what I shall say because this is a very modest clause. It does not ask the Assembly to do anything; it does not ask the British Tourist Authority to do anything; it merely states that:
"The Assembly may make arrangements with the British Tourist Authority … for the purpose of encouraging people [from abroad] to visit Wales".
1452
The clause is concerned with overseas promotion. As I say, its purpose is to confer powers on the Welsh Assembly, as distinct from the Wales Tourist Board, to use the British Tourist Authority for promotion overseas to encourage people to visit Wales, if it wants to and if it thinks fit. There is no compulsion of any kind, but the clause gives it the right to do that.
The overseas promotion powers of the Authority for Great Britain as a whole and its responsibility to the Government in the exercise of those powers are unchanged by the Bill. In other words, whether or not we have Clause 61, the British Tourist Authority has a duty in relation to the United Kingdom. In so far as somebody in the British Tourist Authority in a foreign country can persuade people to come to Wales, unless the Welsh Assembly asks them not to they will continue to do so. But, of course, that is quite different from the Welsh Assembly asking them to take specific steps. This clause gives them the right to do that if they want to, and says nothing about the method by which this would be done. Presumably there would be some payment, but that is not specified.
The Wales Tourist Board itself is under the Welsh Assembly and the Welsh Assembly will pay for the expenses of the Wales Tourist Board out of the block grant. That is in reply to one of the questions which the noble Baroness asked. In a Bill about Wales we really must not try to abolish a United Kingdom body like the British Tourist Authority. That is not within our power, and I do not think that the noble Baroness raised this as more than a probe.
Lord ELTON: What about the Arts Council?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: That is a question which seems to me to be wholly irrelevant to our discussion. Central Government funds for the overseas promotion of tourism throughout Great Britain will continue to be channelled to the British Tourist Authority. It has great skill in this in spite of the map which was upside-down; that was a horrid story to hear, and I am sure that it has not happened again. However, it is likely that the Assembly will think it sensible to continue to use the Authority's services, though obviously

1453
in discussion with the Wales Tourist Board, which can spend money doing this itself with the Assembly's permission.
I regard this as an entirely satisfactory situation. It is permissive; it is not compulsory or mandatory. I think that we should do much better to leave this clause in position and let the Welsh Assembly, in consultation with the Wales Tourist Board and the British Tourist Authority, make its own plans for dealing with this very important part of its economy about which we have been talking. I hope that this is no more than a probe, because it would be rather disastrous actually to omit this clause. I hope that I can persuade the noble Baroness—in fact, I do not think that she needs a great deal of persuasion—to be satisfied that we have had a good discussion on the matter.
Baroness VICKERS: I should like to thank the Minister very much for his reply. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, had hold of the wrong end of the stick. This was the only way in which we could discuss this matter. It is rather interesting that for once we, on this side of the Committee, are trying to promote the Welsh, saying how marvellous they are and how much better they could do it than the other Authority; whereas the other side of the Committee are now saying how much better the English Tourist Board could do it. I am very surprised at that reaction.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I must deny having said anything of the kind. What I said—and I think that my noble friend said this, too—was that there is a perfectly competent body, the British Tourist Authority, which is doing this. It would be absurd to prevent the Assembly from using the Authority if it want to, but meanwhile it has its own Wales Tourist Board; it has money to pay for it, and it has the power to do it itself.
Baroness VICKERS: But now we are to have another authority. We have the Assembly, the British Tourist Authority, the Wales Tourist Board, the English and the Scottish Tourist Boards. We are
1454
having one authority after the other. I am frightened that there will be considerable overlap and that one authority may be left out.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I am sorry to keep interrupting, but this will not be different from the situation that we have today. We have a Wales Tourist Board, we have a Scottish Tourist Board and we have an English Tourist Board. We also have the British Tourist Authority. We have added nothing except changed the authority.
Baroness VICKERS: But we are adding another authority, because Clause 61 says, "The Assembly"—and we did not have an Assembly before—" may make arrangements". There is a little bit of blackmail here, because they will not get any money for overseas promotion unless they do it through the British Tourist Authority. It says so.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I am sorry to enter into what seems like an argument with the noble Baroness, but the Assembly is in lieu of the Secretary of State. This is the fourth day that we have been discussing it, and the whole basis of the Welsh devolution is that the statutory powers of the Secretary of State, plus certain other powers discussed in Schedule 10, are transferred to the Welsh Assembly. There is no additional body at all.
Baroness VICKERS: I should like to suggest to the noble Lord that in the past the Minister has not done any promotion, although he has the powers. I do not think that he does any actual promotions; he has other things to do. But the Assembly will be a body that can get together and have a proper programme for promotion. That is why I want it to have a few more powers. I think we have discussed this long enough. I realised that this was the type of attitude I would get from the Government. However, I think that they must be a little sorry that they could not support me a little more in saying how efficient the Welsh are and how much better they probably would have done it had they been given the chance.
Clause 61 agreed to.
Clause 62 [Countryside Commission for Wales]:
6.40 p.m.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 26, line 25, leave out subsection (10).
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is again to ensure against the possible encouragement by the Welsh Assembly of taking and using agricultural land for purposes other than agriculture. The problem here is that subsection (10) of Clause 62 gives the Welsh Assembly powers to tell the Welsh Commission what to do. I should add for the convenience of the Committee that subsection (11) is consequential on subsection (10).
As the Committee no doubt understands, the Welsh Commission will be doing the same job as the Countryside Commission does in England. It is therefore important to note that in the Countryside Act 1968 the functions of the Commission are set out in Section 2. Throughout that section, and in each subsection, the Commission is told to do certain things, and then to make recommendations or take appropriate action. What the section does not do—and this is the point I wish to make, and indeed is the substance of my Amendment—is to authorise the Minister, or indeed anyone, to make recommendations to the Commission. Clause 62(10) of the Wales Bill, the one I am referring to in this Amendment, does just that.
Not only will the Welsh Commission have to abide by Section 2 of the Countryside Act 1968, but they will also have to listen to, as this subsection says,
"… such directions of a general character as appear to it expedient in relation to the exercise of the Commission's functions and the Commission shall comply with the directions".
This is coming from the Welsh Assembly. No similar power coming from anywhere else applies in England to the Countryside Commission; that is, from the Secretary of State.
I believe this to be wrong and to be dangerous. It is wrong because the Welsh Commission will have Big Brother of the Welsh Assembly looking over its shoulders, and dangerous because the Welsh Assembly could make recommendations to the Welsh Commission to take
1456
agricultural land. We already have enough agricultural land taken each year without further encouragement.
May I explain my fears. I can see that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, is looking perplexed, but I am fairly certain that I am on the right track here and I am not going to be put off by him looking perplexed. My fears are that it is likening the problem to the Welsh Assembly being put in the position of priming the pump of the Welsh Commission, and to pump good agricultural land properly used into some other use. I beg to move.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: I have some sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, in the general principles behind his submissions, although I do not agree with his specific references to land. What worries me about this clause is that the Assembly may give to the Welsh Commission
"… such directions of a general character".
What are these directions of a general character? I would not mind those words appearing by themselves in the subsection, but then it goes on to say, "the Commission shall comply with the directions".
I should have thought that there was plenty of opportunity for confusion here. The Assembly gives directions—no doubt as a result of a resolution of the Assembly —of a general character such as appear to be expedient in relation to the exercise of its functions. Then the Commission shall comply with such directions. There is too much scope for confusion here and the wording of the subsection would be worthy of reconsideration.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: I should like to support this Amendment. I feel that the reduction of agricultural land, whether it is in Wales, Scotland, or here should be opposed. In Scotland, and certainly in Wales, the Assemblies will be predominantly composed of urban people, because far more people live in towns than in the countryside. Inevitably, it will be found that the Assembly will not have the same appreciation of the countryside as the Welsh Commission has.
Obviously the Welsh Commission's strong views are that they should preserve for agriculture, and for beauty, and so on, as much as they possibly can of the Welsh countryside. I am afraid, because it happens continually, that the majority in

1457
the Assembly will be urban-based people. You cannot help it. More people live in towns than in the country. It happens everywhere. We country people are always having to fight to keep as much agricultural land as we can, whether for agriculture or forestry. The general aspect of the use of land we want to try and keep on the agricultural side.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, that it is a pity to give anybody authority over the Welsh Commission if, as I believe, they are doing a good job. It is a pity that we should encourage anyone to interfere with that very good job. Perhaps I may be unnecessarily anxious about this but it does happen. The amount of land that is taken away from agriculture for industrial or urban development of one kind or another all over the United Kingdom every year is far greater than it ought to be. Therefore, I should like to support this Amendment because it is important that the Welsh Commission should have scope and authority for its work, which it does very well, rather than be interfered with—perhaps that is rather a strong word—or not allowed to operate without reference to, or without being given instructions by, a body that in my opinion will be largely urban-based.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, in moving this Amendment to leave out subsection (10) may have a point. All of us are worried about the use of agricultural land all over Britain, and not merely by the Welsh Countryside Commission but for the huge motorways being built. What is lost in agricultural produce, which saves imports, has never been computed. I am sure the noble Lord will be aware that the type of people who would be elected to the Assembly would be of the kind that would want to preserve agricultural land. When I was a youngster we knew what it was like trying to farm land above the 600 foot contour on the side of a mountain, where you could not use a tractor and where a horse was more useful, and there was a shortage of true meadows. That type of agricultural land in itself is a caveat on the people of Wales letting valuable pieces of land go.
I think that the Assembly might be using these powers because it would think it
1458
necessary to stop the destruction of agricultural land by small villages of caravan sites in some areas which needed reorganisation and better planning than they have at the moment, so that farm land could be used in a better fashion. I hope that after we have had this probing, the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, who has been most assiduous in his work on this Bill, will not feel that he has to press this Amendment to a Division.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: When I prepared my notes to reply to the Amendment one point which never crossed my mind was that it would be concerned with agricultural land. I thought that we were to discuss the functions and the set up of the Welsh Countryside Committee, which is now called the Welsh Commission. I must make it perfectly clear that the powers listed in Clause 62 simply put the Welsh Commission into exactly the same position as the English and Wales Commission was in up until the devolution of the Welsh Committee under the Bill. Nothing is added. The authority which the Assembly has over it is only the same as the authority which the Secretary of State for the Environment has over the Countryside Commission. He does not exercise that authority, because he wants the Commission to go its own way; but he has that power.
Having said that, I do not know to what extent I should use the notes which I had prepared and which relate to the Welsh Commission itself, in view of the fact that the concern is about the wrongful purchase of agricultural land. This can take place only as a result of planning permission, which is nothing to do with the Assembly in this regard, and so I do not think that there is anything to be worried about at all. The clause sets up for Wales a separate Welsh Commission, with powers which are, as closely as possible, the same as those of the English Countryside Commission which included Wales—and no more. Having said that, I shall sit down. If noble Lords wish to ask questions on this matter, I shall try to answer them. However, it seems to me that the fears in the minds of the noble Lord and the noble Baroness are quite wrongly based. If they were rightly based, I should share them.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: Perhaps for once I can help the noble Lord. I disagree with him—and I should be more than happy to take this back—over subsection (10) which says:
"The Assembly may give to the Welsh Commission such directions of a general character as appear to it expedient in relation to the exercise of the Commission's functions and the Commission shall comply with the directions".
I am sure that I shall be told that I am wrong, but I do not think that in the Countryside Act 1968 there are any similar clauses which empower the Secretary of State in England to tell the Countryside Commission to get on with its job in certain ways. I may be incorrect, but that is the substance of my Amendment. I should like, briefly, to repeat the point involved here. Under the clause the Welsh Assembly could say that it wanted more recreation areas, country parks, or lakes. The Assembly could say to the Welsh Commission: "Get on with it —find some lakes, or country parks". That could involve the noble Lord's farm or my farm. The pump is being primed here. I accept that we may have to be made into a country park, with nice dresses as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said in relation to the last Amendment. But I do not want this priming. That is what is worrying me. I think that the pump is being primed in order to take over agricultural land. I hope that I have explained why my fear is slightly greater here than it would be in relation to England.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I should like to deal with the question of the powers. Clause 62(10) directly reflects the power of the Secretary of State under Section 3(1) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, to give general directions to the present Countryside Commission, while subsection (11) of the Bill reflects the same publicity requirement for such directions under Section 3(2) of the 1949 Act. I am sorry to be so technical, but this is a technical point. The powers do exist.
The noble Lord is saying—although he does not mean to say this—that one can afford to give these powers to an English Secretary of State, but one cannot afford to give them to the Welsh Assembly. I do not believe that that is what he means,
1460
but it is the effect his Amendment would have. I hope I have cleared his mind on the agricultural land aspect, at any rate.
Of course if the Secretary of State for the Environment was persuaded in Cabinet that more money should be spent on one matter connected with the countryside, rather than another, he could influence the Countryside Commission to behave in that way. I do not think that he ever has, and I do not think that he ever would —but he could. The position is exactly the same here. I agree that the Welsh Assembly would have the power to interfere in a way in which it should not interfere, but one should not assume that it will behave in a worse way than its English counterpart.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: I thank the noble Lord for that reply, but I am not entirely with him on this point. I appreciate that in Cabinet it could be decided to direct, but there is not a clause which encourages this—
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I have read out the actual reference, and I shall do so again. Section 3(1) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 gives the right to give general directions to the present Countryside Commission. I cannot be clearer than that.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: Very well—I shall have to give way on this. I was rather surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, did not think that I might speak about agriculture, as I normally speak about it. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, is entirely on my side over the question of the taking of land unnecessarily; indeed, I think that everyone is on my side on this. However, I suggest that, while we all say this, it is usually the case that the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak, and the taking of agricultural land continues. That is the point I am trying to make in the Amendment. I hope that the point will be well in front of the Welsh Assembly and the Welsh Commission not to take any more land if it can be avoided. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 102:
Page 26, line 29, leave out subsection (11).
The noble Lord said: In view of the explanation given by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, regarding Clause 60(1), I do not propose to move the Amendment.
Clause 62 agreed to.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
House resumed.

CONSUMER SAFETY BILL
6.58 p.m.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I hope that your Lordships will bear with me for some time, because the Bill is somewhat detailed (for very good reasons, which I hope to explain) and I do not think that I can skimp over it briefly. I shall do my best to ensure that we all have some supper —I am thinking here of those noble Lords who wish to stay to hear about the Bill.
The Bill was introduced in another place by a Private Member, my honourable friend Mr. Neville Trotter, who had studied the Green Paper on consumer safety published by the Government in February 1976. For the benefit of noble Lords who are interested, I should say that the Green Paper very much forms the basis of the Bill. The Bill will succeed the Consumer Protection Act 1961, which was also promoted as a Private Member's Bill, and was introduced into your Lordships' House by the noble Lord, Lord Crook, in order to implement one of the recommendations made by the Committee on Consumer Protection.
That Bill gave powers to make regulations in order to meet the recommendations of that Committee, and some sets of regulations made under the Act are currently in force, dealing with such products as oil heaters, electrical equipment, toys, nightdresses (as regards their flammability) and ceramic ware (toxicity),
1462
and more are in course of preparation. The output of regulations over the last 17 years, averaging little more than one per year, cannot be said to be unduly high, and reflects the policy of successive Governments to rely as far as possible on the good sense of manufacturers and traders in this country to ensure that the goods which they supply are adequately safe in normal use.
The great majority of traders have in fact shown a high standard of responsibility in this respect, as I am sure your Lordships would expect. Even so, unsafe goods can and do reach the market from time to time from various sources, both home and abroad, and it is therefore necessary that appropriate powers to take legislative action should be available. The existing regulation-making powers are pretty extensive, but, as the Government's Green Paper of February 1976 indicated, are inadequate in some respects and, more importantly perhaps, are not sufficiently flexible to meet the various situations which can arise. Moreover, some of these call for action other than by means of regulations, and the necessary powers are at present simply not available.
I now turn to the provisions of this Bill. Under Clause 1 there are precise guidelines to the Secretary of State in drawing up safety regulations by order, which will require wide consultation before being laid before Parliament for approval by affirmative procedure. Clause 2 deals with offences against the safety regulations. These regulations are of a general and continuing nature and do not deal with one of the main deficiencies of the existing legislation. This is the lack of any power to take rapid action to stop the supply of goods which have been found to be unsafe. The making of regulations is inevitably a fairly lengthy process, involving, as it does, consultations with a large number of bodies, and this is hardly the appropriate course to follow when urgent action is called for. Fortunately, dangerous goods are not marketed with any great frequency, but such products are nevertheless discovered from time to time. For instance, your Lordships may remember that not long ago decorative electric table lamps in the form of gondolas were found which presented an electrocution hazard.
When such products as these are discovered, the Department of Prices and

1463
Consumer Protection has to rely on the voluntary co-operation of the supplier concerned to secure their withdrawal from sale, and this is, of course, usually forthcoming. Even so, it would seem very necessary that there should be power to require such products to be withdrawn in the unlikely event that this is not done voluntarily, and the Bill accordingly provides such power in two different forms, in Clause 3 and in Schedule 1. Two different kinds of situation may arise. The first is where a dangerous product is being marketed through one known outlet, namely, a manufacturer or an importer, and the second where many distributors are involved. To meet the first of these sets of circumstances the Bill gives the Secretary of State power to serve on the trader concerned a prohibition notice prohibiting the continued supply of the goods in question by the person concerned. This is somewhat similar to the prohibition notice procedure under the Health and Safety at Work Act.
The other, more general, situation which I have described is dealt with by enabling the Secretary of State to make a prohibition order to stop the supply of goods which he considers to be unsafe. Such an order can be thought of as "instant" regulations having immediate and general application, but of only limited duration. There is a precedent for the making of orders of this kind in Section 62 of the Medicines Act, and they serve to deal with the hazard for the time being while regulations of a more usual kind are prepared, involving full consultations with interested bodies.
My Lords, I should mention at this point that, as will be seen from the definition of "goods" in Clause 9 on page 11 of the Bill, the goods referred to in this Bill do not include food, feeding stuff, fertilisers and medicine, all of which are covered by other legislation. This is just as well for me in relation to food, because it spares me from having to declare an interest. To continue, my Lords, the two powers in respect of prohibition notices and prohibition orders enable further distribution of identified dangerous products to be stopped. But how about those that have already been sold to the public, perhaps in substantial quantities? Manufacturers and importers themselves often publish warnings about such goods on their own initiative, and
1464
this is in fact what might reasonably be expected from any reputable trader. In other cases, it has been the practice of the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection to issue warnings, and there can be little doubt that, as a result of action taken, either by the supplier or the Department, accidents have been avoided. It would seem to be necessary, however, that there should be power to require the supplier of unsafe goods to publish a warning about the potential hazards which they present, and provision for this is accordingly included in the Bill.
Provision is also included for traders affected by prohibition orders, prohibition notices or notices to warn, to submit representations about the action proposed. I attach importance to that. It gives ample provision for persons at whom these various orders and notices are directed to make representations and no doubt express their own point of view about the importance or validity of such orders or notices. For example, in relation to a prohibition order the Secretary of State is put under a duty to publish his intention to make such an order at least 28 days beforehand except that in those cases where the risks are considered to be very grave the prior publication requirement will not apply. In relation to a prohibition notice, the Secretary of State is obliged to give the trader prior notification of his intention to serve the notice, but the obligation to give prior notification will not apply when the risks are considered to be particularly grave. The trader involved must also be given an opportunity to make representations about a notice to warn. Appeal procedures covering both prohibition notices to warn are set out in Schedule 1 to the Bill, and these should serve to ensure fair treatment for anyone on whom either kind of notice is served.
Another new power in the Bill enables the Secretary of State to obtain from any person any information he requires for the exercise of his functions in regard to safety regulations, prohibition orders, prohibition notices or notices to warn. This implements one of the proposals in the Green Paper of February 1976, and would seem to be one of the essential ingredients of the Bill. In practice, it is not a power which will need to be used with any great frequency, and, in any

1465
event, information of the kind required will no doubt usually be provided voluntarily.
The confidentiality of information provided in response to statutory requests must clearly be safeguarded. The Bill, accordingly, in Clause 4 and Schedule 2, makes disclosure of such information, except for certain specified purposes, an offence punishable by quite severe penalties. The penalties for unauthorised disclosure of information include a prison sentence, while those for other offences under the Bill do not. I should tell the House that it is proposed by Amendment in Committee to tighten up the rules for protecting confidentiality on the lines of an undertaking given by the Minister in another place.
I have already referred to the need for improved and wider regulation-making powers. The provision for these is an important aspect of the Bill which your Lordships have before you. One rather serious deficiency in the 1961 Act is that there is no power to include "deemed to satisfy" references to standards in regulations. A wide range of product safety standards have been published by the British Standards Institution following deliberations in technical committees in which representatives of many different bodies—manufacturers, other trade associations, Government Departments, professional bodies and consumer organisations—have made their contribution. There are also international standards for a number of products.
In this report to the National Economic Development Council on Standards and Specifications in the Engineering Industries, Sir Frederick Warner strongly recommended that greater use should be made of standards in legislation and, in particular, that safety standards should be given "deemed to satisfy" recognition. This will be made possible by Clause 2 which, among other things, will enable safety regulations to provide that compliance with a specified standard is deemed to satisfy a requirement to the regulations for the purpose of criminal proceedings. The approval or certification of goods will usually be of significance in a non-statutory way as indication of confirmation by an independent body that the goods comply with the recognised stan-
1466
dards. But there could be situations, possibly infrequent, in which approval or certification based on type-testing is considered necessary before the goods of a particular kind can be marketed. The Bill accordingly enables such a requirement to be imposed in Clause 2. It also enables regulations to be made imposing safety standards for safety equipment such as life-jackets, bouyancy aids or climbing gear where the problem is not that the product itself presents a hazard but that, in the absence of a statutory requirement, it may be ineffective when used as intended in hazardous circumstances.
I ought to explain that one needs to look at the definition of "safe" in Clause 9 (page 12) and its reference to circumstances in which the goods might be used. I might also mention at this point that I very nearly did not take the Bill, because as a young man I was always brought up by my father on the maxim "Safety-first is a vile motto". Noble Lords who know anything about my father will know that he lived his life on that principle. However, I took it on because, on the whole, it is not unreasonable about safety, but reasonable.
My Lords, I will mention only one of the other improvements in the regulation-making powers. This relates to the all-important aspect of the labelling or marking of goods. In Clause 1, the Bill will enable regulations to require warnings or instructions or other information to be marked on or to accompany goods. This power goes beyond that already provided by the Consumer Protection Act 1961 and will enable, for the first time, requirements to be imposed as to ingredient labelling (of importance in regard, for example, to allergic reactions), the use of warning symbols, first-aid instructions or the name and address or trade mark of the supplier.
Finally, in Clause 5, the Bill brings the powers of enforcement authorities into line with those in other consumer protection legislation such as the Fair Trading Act and the Trade Descriptions Act and makes it the duty of the local weights and measures authorities to enforce safety regulations, prohibition orders and prohibition notices. This changes the position which exists at present under the Consumer Protection Act which enables these authorities to enforce regulations but does

1467
not require them to do so. Even so, there is little doubt that weights and measures authorities have, in fact, conscientiously enforced existing product safety regulations and regard this as an important aspect of their consumer protection work.
My Lords, I must ask you to forgive me for having spent so long—two minutes more than I meant to—in explaining this small Bill which deals with a comparatively narrow subject, albeit of great social importance. Its complications seem to me to stem from the difficulty of providing adequate safeguards for an unsuspecting public while at the same time protecting honest traders from an unreasonable and unfair burden of yet more law.
As originally introduced in another place, the Bill appeared to give rather wide powers and these gave rise to some concern. Subsequent Amendments made before the Bill reached your Lordships' House have met these criticisms and the Bill now before your Lordships is, in my view, much improved in this and other respects. As I mentioned earlier in relation to the safeguarding of confidential information, I shall be proposing some further Amendments in Committee in relation to that subject and to others which are designed to improve the Bill still more before it leaves your Lordships' House. I trust that your Lordships will agree with me that this Bill is indeed a very useful measure which provides about the right mixture of powers needed to ensure the continuing safety of consumer goods marketed in this country.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Mottistone.)
7.18 p.m.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I believe that the House will be immensely grateful to my noble friend Lord Mottistone for introducing this short but, as he pointed out, immensely detailed and complicated measure. My noble friend is, indeed, an expert in this special facet of consumer affairs. I believe that he has made an excellent speech and has detailed the provisions of the Bill admirably; but I wonder whether there are not one or two small gaps in the drafting and meaning. However, I am sure that either my noble friend or the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, will be able to give me most if not all the answers to any questions that I
1468
might raise at this stage, at the later stages in the Bill, and, I am sure, elsewhere, and in informal circumstances.
For example, I would draw the attention of the House to Clause 1(1). I wonder whether there would not be a case for inserting some concept of reasonableness into this particular clause—as the House found last year in a similar Bill which I had the honour to take part in, the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. There, great play was made of the concept of reasonableness in such intricate and complicated consumer legislation.
My noble friend Lord Mottistone referred to Clause 9(4). This gives interpretations of various words and terms. Certainly, I would hope in this context that the word "safe" would be construed in a fairly open way. I note that the definition of "safe" includes the words:
"circumstances in which the goods might be used or kept".
I think it would be fair to traders and others affected by the Bill to have some element of reasonableness included here. Several examples of difficulties that might arise at this stage come to my mind. Doubtless noble Lords in the House will be able to think of cases in their own lives—both actual and theoretical. For example, what of the seller of high quality kitchenware who may happen to produce carving knives? I wonder whether each and every possibility of injury or even fatality should be included in the mind of the draftsman of the Bill. I would hardly believe that. But specific cases have been drawn to my attention, particularly things which are called cleaver type knives, which are made specially for cutting joints of frozen meat which one can buy at large freezer centres. I understand that some owners of this equipment have misused it entirely out of ignorance. They have used these cleaver knives in the form of a dagger. The cleaver has broken and there have been injuries. This is clearly ignorant and innocent misuse of equipment which has potentially risky consequences.
I wonder whether any supplier of such specialist equipment would be able to do more than ensure that this equipment does not arrive in the hands of anyone who has not had special training. It seems to me to be going rather far to suggest that the liability should be on the supplier of this special equipment. So

1469
far as the Bill is concerned in generality, I think that it is very pleasant to find the "reasonableness" paragraph in Clause 3 when dealing with prohibition orders and warning notices. Further on in Clause 7, we find that safety regulations are to be made following Affirmative Resolutions in each House of Parliament. This is excellent in that Statutory Instruments receive close scrutiny, certainly in your Lordships' House. In this case the procedures will enable the regulations to be updated on a special basis as and when they are required.
When we examine the Schedules, we find references to enforcement particularly in Schedule 2. In paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 we find several cases where an officer of an enforcement authority may inspect any goods, and indeed he may enter any buildings. Certainly he may also examine any procedure in manufacture In these provisions it may be implicit that the officer should have reasonable cause. I hope and believe so. If that is so, I wonder why we find reasonableness in each of the other sub-paragraphs of paragraph 3? I do not think that I am being overly detailed or, I hope, not overly harsh. I am curious and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, or my noble friend will be able to allay most of my fears in this respect.
In paragraph 5 of Schedule 2, dealing with the enforcement, we find that a justice of the peace may sign a search warrant to enter premises and seek evidence of breach of regulations. None of us defend major breaches of safety regulations of any kind. I wonder whether there might be evidence in this case of using a sledge hammer to crack what could be a fairly minor nut? It is just such a case that would bring the measures proposed in the Bill, which are admirable and well set out, into some disrepute.
Some of your Lordships will have heard the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, recently in connection with entry into premises. This was in connection with pornographic material. He drew attention to the entry powers of tax officers which had been brought in under the 1976 Finance Act. He pointed out that such entry powers as are obtained by tax officers in special and exceptional cases have to be authorised by
1470
a circuit judge. So far as this Bill is concerned, I do not think that we should need to bother circuit judges. Probably we should find that a justice of the peace need only sign a warrant to enable enforcement officers to enter, search and indeed to do their job. In a case where a justice of the peace may sign a warrant, he and the enforcement authority are handling—if I may say this in the context of this Bill—a dangerous and volatile concept.
Far from bringing these persons under the scope of the Bill, the relevant authorities will be able to use their powers, if I may so put it, peacefully and responsibly. Any traders or concerns which are affected or liable to be so will—and in fact do—have to take enormous trouble to comply with what is ever more complicated and detailed legislation such as we find in the Bill this evening. I believe that authority must act with the utmost care and discretion in what I term and call borderline cases. With this small caveat, I want to congratulate very warmly my noble friend Lord Mottistone on his mastery of this subject and his presentation of this Bill. I add my support to it.
7.25 p.m.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, both noble Lords who have spoken have referred to this Bill as a small one. For a Private Member's Bill I would not call it a small Bill. We are indeed fortunate to have had the lucid powers of expression possessed by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, to guide us through this not very small Private Member's Bill. It is with some reluctance that I come to support the Bill because I am an upholder of that ancient, well tried maxim "caveat emptor"—let the buyer beware. But I have to accept that in these sophisticated days one cannot call out "let the buyer beware" in quite the same unqualified way that one used to be able to do.
There are two reasons for this. The first is that in these days ordinary people go shopping for goods which are quite sohpisticated and technical. In this connection one thinks in particular of electrical goods. One cannot expect the householder to be able to judge the qualities and, in particular, the safety of an electrical appliance. The second reason is that today's shopper—I do not like the

1471
word "consumer"—has such a very much more limited range of choice in so many respects.
Take as one example the transport business. Before the motor car came along, I suppose that there was a coach builder—probably more than one—in every town. If one customer withheld an order from one coach builder because of something that he did not like, that was probably quite a blow to the coach builder. Let one customer today withhold his order from one of the few mass manufacturers of motor cars and it is going to make precious little difference to them. So I accept that the present-day shopper needs some more protection than his forebears did.
My Lords, I am pacing myself: I do not want to take very long and I intend to refer to only one point which is more than just a Committee point. Curiously enough, the noble Lord, Lord Lyell and I, have independently arrived at Schedule 2. the enforcement Schedule. The noble Lord has had something to say particularly about paragraphs Nos. 3 to 9 under the subheading:
"Powers to enter premises and to inspect and seize goods".
I had exactly the same paragraphs in mind about which to say something, after which to say something, after which I shall sit down.
As the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has pointed out, one finds in paragraph 3 that an enforcement officer can arrive at a factory and enter and inspect goods without any reasonable grounds for suspicion that anything is wrong. He can go in there on a "fishing expedition". Is this right and is it necessary?
I know where this comes from: at least I think I do. It comes from Section 162 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. But I really think we ought to pause over this, because if we allow this paragraph 3 to go through in this Bill we are adding to precedent. There is already the one precedent of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Are we going to add another? Because the next thing that will happen will be that in some future consumer protection legislation—and I am sure we have not reached the end of this topic—there will be two precedents and Governments will be able to argue that these powers of being able to enter
1472
premises without any suspicion are now time honoured because there are two precedents. Before we know where we are, enforcement officers will have powers to go on "fishing expeditions" for all sorts of reasons. I think the time has now conic when we should pause and consider whether it is wise to follow the Consumer Credit Act 1974 in this respect.
There is one curiosity. If the warehouse-owner has the wit to say to the enforcement officer: "No, you are not coming in: you have to go to a magistrate and get your search warrant if you want to come into my warehouse", then, as the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has pointed out, paragraph 5 comes into play. We find in paragraph 5:
"If a justice of the peace on sworn information in writing is satisfied that there is reasonable ground to believe …".
And then it goes on. So, my Lords, we have the situation that if the enforcement officer is turned away and has to resort to the magistrate, he has to provide "reasonable ground" for suspecting that something is wrong in those premises, or he is not going to get his warrant out of the magistrate.
I would ask: is it sensible? In the first place, if he attempts a "fishing expedition" he can go in unless entry is refused. If entry is refused he has to provide reasonable grounds for suspicion. I do not think, with all due respect to the Act of 1974, that in following it we are really on very wise grounds here. It may well be that we shall have to return to this matter in Committee. It may also be that we shall be told something this evening about how these enforcement provisions are expected to operate. With those few words, I give the Bill my support.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, having sat through this debate, which is an important one, may I say that I am grateful to the noble Lord opposite for introducing this Bill. As somebody who has suffered, I wish that there were some kind of obligation connected with the production of motor cars. A man can buy an expensive motor car and four days later he taken home in a most undignified way by the AA, who are carting back a brand-new car for which thousands of pounds have been paid. Surely it is

1473
time that some far greater obligation was imposed on the car manufacturers' association. For many people, expenditure on a car is something that will come only three or four times in a lifetime. It is not a pleasant experience when a petrol pump goes on a brand-new car and one is in a stream of moving traffic and the car is jerking along—and I am sure modern drivers are uncharitable: a little more courtesy on the roads could save thousands of lives. Most drivers today seem to be barbarians. Those of us who drive realise that safety in a modern car is essential, and, having suffered this week by seeing a modern car break down, I sincerly hope that sooner or later, when we deal with this Bill in its further stages, we shall be able to get some regulations that will be obligatory on the car industry.
7.35 p.m.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, first, I should like sincerely to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, on his lucid and able explanation of the Bill which, though modest in length, is less modest in its scope and complexity. I would ecrtainly agree with the remarks that have been made that this is indeed a very important measure.
I will express the deepest sympathy with my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek; my heart bleeds for him, understanding the circumstances. The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, made a considerable number of points, most of which, I have not the slightest doubt, will be dealt with in Committee. In fact it is no secret that there is a complete areas of co-operation on the Bill and that we are already considering possible ways of bringing in Amendments.
The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, made one remark which rather intrigued me, as a former Smithfield worker. He referred to a "cleaver knife". I have never heard of such a thing. A cleaver, in butcher's terms, is a type of axe which is wielded above the head and comes down with a crash on a leg of lamb. Therefore I think this is a misconception on his part, and perhaps on consideration he may feel that some other expression might be needed.
The Bill itself is concerned with the safety of a wide range of goods on general sale to the public. Therefore it concerns
1474
not only the consumers who buy the goods but also those who make, import and distribute them. The Government have been particularly concerned, in consequence, that the powers this Bill provides should strike a balance between the legitimate demands of consumers for greater protection, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the concern of trade and industry that safety requirements should not be so onerous as to add unnecessarily to production costs.
In this connection, it is relevant to consider the evolution of this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, mentioned that the Bill owes its origin to the Green Paper on consumer safety published in January 1976. That document reviewed the existing arrangements for consumer safety and identified a number of deficiencies in the present system. It then went on to suggest ways in which those deficiencies might be remedied and it invited comment on possible changes in the present law and practice.
The Green Paper attracted wide interest, and comments were received from more than 150 bodies and others representing the interests of trade, industry, the professions, the consumers and local authorities. While the comments differed in detail, the overall response was overwhelmingly in favour of updating the existing, law to provide a more comprehensive approach to consumer safety. These comments were taken fully into account in making proposals for new legislation which the Government intended to introduce as soon as Parliamentary time allowed and further consultations were undertaken with those bodies representing interests likely to be most affected by new consumer safety legislation. It was not possible to introduce a Government Bill in the present Session, but when Mr. Neville Trotter, M.P. expressed his intention to introduce new legislation in this field the Government gratefully lent their support to his proposals and, indeed, provided drafting assistance.
I mention these matters so that it may be appreciated that the Bill is in no sense a hasty or ill-considered measure. Moreover, the content of the Bill is such that it has not given rise to political differences. Indeed, it was conceived in a spirit of co-operation which persisted during its passage through another place, and I believe that it will

1475
receive the same support in your Lord-ships' House. In passing, I might make the comment that it is welcome to find a measure which has received general support in all quarters of another place and here. It is quite a refreshing experience to me, as it no doubt is to your Lordships.
Turning to the contents of the Bill, your Lordships will observe that it is essentially an enabling Bill. Clause 1 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations to secure that goods are safe. Clause 2 provides offences and defences in respect of a breach of those regulations. Clause 3 empowers the Secretary of State to require by order or notice that goods which are not safe are withdrawn from sale and that the public are warned about dangers discovered in goods which they may have bought. Clause 4 gives the Secretary of State power to obtain information. These provisions confer fairly wide discretionary powers, and it is perhaps salutary to consider the fetters and safe-guards to be placed on their use.
The power to make safety regulations in respect of goods is limited explicitly to those matters set out in subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 1. Therefore, in making safety regulations, the Secretary of State is obliged, in all cases, to consult representative bodies likely to be substantially affected by the proposed regulations, as appears in subsection (4). Safety regulations will be made by Statutory Instrument, which will be subject to Affirmative Resolution procedures; that is to say, they must be laid in draft and approved by a Resolution of either House of Parliament before being made. Breach of safety regulations is to be an offence, but, if it can be shown that the accused took all reasonable steps and exercised due diligence to avoid committing the offence, he will have to make a statutory defence under subsection (6) of Clause 2.
Prohibition orders to be made under Clause 3 will normally, by virtue of Part I of Schedule 1, be preceded by a notice of intention publicised at least 28 days before an order is made, inviting representations about the proposed order which the Secretary of State is bound to consider. An order must be made by Statutory Instrument and will be subject to annulment pursuant to a Resolution of either House of Parliament. Prohibition notices and notices to warn, to be made under
1476
Clause 3, are subject to an appeal procedure which is set out in Parts II and III of Schedule 1.
With regard to Clause 3 powers, while they are essential if the Government are effectively to discharge their responsibility for the safety of consumers, the use to which powers are likely to be put should not be over-rated. Manufacturers and importers are well aware of possible civil liability should injury result from defects in products, and the vast majority cooperate with the Government in remedying voluntarily—and I repeat voluntarily—any defect brought to their notice, whether by withdrawing the goods in question from sale or otherwise. The Minister of State for Prices and Consumer Protection has made it clear that a voluntary approach will continue to be the normal procedure for his Department. Experience has shown that the voluntary approach proves less than satisfactory in only three or four cases a year, and it is only in these few cases that the powers under Clause 3 would be required.
The power to obtain information contained in Clause 4 is accompanied by provisions intended to safeguard the confidentiality of information obtained in this way, and unauthorised disclosure of such information is to be an offence. It is my intention to introduce an Amendment at a later stage which will also safeguard information received by a person, appointed under Parts II and III of Schedule 1, to hear representations against service of a prohibition notice or notice to warn.
I think that I have indicated sufficiently the nature of the safeguards contained in the Bill, which are to some extent responsible for its length and complexity. In sum, I believe that they combine with the powers given under the Bill to strike a balance between trader and consumer, that is necessary in this kind of legislation. This is a useful and a timely measure. It has the full support of the Government and I commend it to your Lordships' House.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, before my noble friend Lord Mottistone replies, may I clarify one point? The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, with his specialised knowlegde, was indeed correct. I was referring to something called an ice knife, which is apparently a specially shaped freezer knife

1477
that is designed to cut up frozen food. Doubtless, that will be familiar to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, although I do not know whether he cuts up frozen food. But I understand that some housewives have been using these knives like a dagger and hacking at the food, as opposed to sawing it. It is apparently this misuse, by hacking instead of sawing, that has given rise to injury. I apologise to the noble Lord and to the House for wrongly framing my reference.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I appreciate the point.
7.45 p.m.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I should very much like to thank all those noble Lords who have spoken—as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, has said—from all parts of the House, although I notice that there were no Cross-Benchers. Your Lordships will not expect me to say very much in reply to the points made, but may I say something about what my noble friend Lord Lyell said? The great theme of his speech—and this also applies to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale —was that reasonableness is vital in relation to this whole Bill, and, as both noble Lords said, reasonableness peers through in places. We have to look more closely to make sure that it is in every place that it should be, and I hope that noble Lords who put those points to us will bring them to the fore by putting down Amendments to cover them.
However, having said that, I think your Lordships will appreciate that there are to be a fair number of Amendments as a result of undertakings made in another place, and of what one might call the usual tidying-up of a technical nature. Your Lordships will be aware that a Private Member's Bill does not get such good treatment in another place as it gets here. If we throw it back to our friends—some of them, at least, are our friends—down the Corridor, with a lot of Amendments, it may for some technical reason fail and, as all noble Lords who have spoken have given it support, it is therefore very important that the Amendments should be kept to an absolute minimum. So, having invited noble Lords to put down Amendments, I am really asking them to put down probing Amendments in relation
1478
to the points raised. We might even have one from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, though I do not think that this Bill is designed to cover his point. I thank your Lordships very much, and let us hope that the Bill gets on its way.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

HOME PURCHASE ASSISTANCE AND HOUSING CORPORATION GUARANTEE BILL
7.47 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(Baroness Birk.)
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8 p.m.
[Sitting suspended from 7.48 p.m. until 8 p.m.]

WALES BILL
House again in Committee.
Clause 63 [Water]:
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 102A:
Page 27, line 11, at beginning insert ("If it appears to him to be expedient for the purpose of securing a more efficient supply of water").
The noble Lord said: In the absence of my noble friends, I am a little lost. However, I shall try to move this Amendment. It relates to placing a limit on the power contained in Clause 63, and makes it quite clear, I hope, that it is only for

1479
the purpose of securing a more efficient supply of water. The reason why this Amendment has been put down is yet again to ensure that the Wrexham and East Denbighshire Water Company will enjoy more or less the same privileges under the Welsh Assembly as it does at the moment. The noble Baroness has answered this point. However, my reading of Hansard is possibly not so quick as her reading of her own answers, so I should be very grateful if on this occasion she would be good enough to repeat her answer.
Baroness STEDMAN: It will probably be helpful if I deal with Amendments Nos. 102A and 102B together, as they are connected. Earlier we had two debates about the position of the Welsh Water Authority after devolution. As the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, has said, these Amendments deal with the position after the devolution of the Wrexham and East Denbighshire Water Company. The issues are in many ways analogous.
Clause 63(2) concerns statutory water companies which supply water to an area, most of which is within Wales. At present, the only such water company is the Wrexham and East Denbighshire Water Company, whose area of supply includes part of England but lies primarily in Wales. Geographically, the water company is therefore in much the same position as is, on a larger scale, the Welsh Water Authority. Clause 63(2) accordingly enables the Secretary of State to make provision by order for the water company similar to that which the Bill itself makes for the Welsh Water Authority. Until such an order is made, the responsibility will remain with the Secretary of State.
I am aware that Clause 63(2) has led to some misunderstanding, and the Minister of State at the Privy Council Office has been in correspondence with the water company through Mr. Tom Ellis, MP. I should like to take this opportunity to put on the record the assurance given to him by the Minister of State; namely, that there is nothing in the Bill which will affect the independent existence of the water company. The order under Clause 63(2) will merely allocate existing functions between the Assembly and the Government in the same manner as the Bill itself achieves for the Welsh Water Authority. And as has been made clear in
1480
an earlier debate on Amendment No. 99D, the water authority may not be subsumed under the Bill as it stands. Equally, there is no question of the water company being subsumable. It will remain an independent water company, and only primary Westminster legislation can alter its status.
Amendments Nos. 102A and 102B seek to build safeguards for the company into the order-making procedure under Clause 63(2). May I suggest, however, that full safeguards already exist. The order is subject to Affirmative Resolution in both Houses of Parliament, and I might add that this was so even when orders under Clause 59 were subject only to Negative Resolution. An order under Clause 63(2) is also likely to be considered by the Hybrid Instruments Committee of your Lordships' House. If, as seems not unlikely, the order is considered to be hybrid, it would go before a Select Committee of the House under the procedures of Standing Order 216. Interested parties such as the water company itself would have the right to petition and to be heard before the committee. I suggest that it is better to rely on these very considerable safeguards rather than to try to build in special criteria for the making of orders. Clearly, an order subject to the procedure I have outlined would not be very lightly made.
Turning to the specific reference in Amendment No. 102B to the special Parliamentary procedure, I suspect that this might be a misunderstanding arising from correspondence on the subject. The procedure which I described under Standing Order 216 used to be known as special order procedure but is distinct from special Parliamentary procedure. I would suggest that Clause 63(2) orders are not appropriate for the application of special Parliamentary procedure, which is more often used for planning and land matters.
Lord ELTON: The noble Baroness is speaking a little fast. She made a distinction between two different processes. I am not quite sure what those processes are. Could she repeat it at a slightly reduced speed?
Lord SKELMERSDALE: It is the same point.
Baroness STEDMAN: Yes. The specific reference in Amendment No. 102—that

1481
is to say, the second Amendment—relates to the special Parliamentary procedure. We think that this has arisen because of a misunderstanding during correspondence on the subject. The procedure which I described under Standing Order 216 used to be known as the special order procedure but is distinct from special Parliamentary procedure. Therefore, the Clause 63(2) orders are not appropriate for the special Parliamentary procedure, which is more often used for planning and land matters. May I also suggest that it would be wrong to build in a statutory requirement for the Standing Order 216 procedure to apply to Clause 63(2), as that would be to prejudice our own Standing Orders. Even though the noble Lord thinks that I have spoken rather too fast, I hope that these comments have cleared up the point.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: I must apologise both to the Committee and to my noble friends. Before we went to supper I was under the misguided apprehension that we had reached these Amendments. I fully understand that, having dealt with—as I said before supper—the problem of the water authority in Clause 60(1), the same point applies here. I am perfectly happy to leave it at that, but may I thank the noble Baroness for her very full explanation which will be of great satisfaction to that particular body. I apologise to my noble friends for being late.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: It is a question of horses for courses. I rather wish that on this occasion the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, was in the Chamber. This Amendment elicited such a full reply that I can only repeat my noble friend's thanks for such a very full answer, which covered not only the water authority but also Parliamentary procedures and quite a lot else besides. The water company concerned will certainly be very grateful for these assurances. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 102B not moved.]
8.8 p.m.
Lord MIDDLETON Lord MIDDLETON moved Amendment No. 102Q:
Page 27, line 19, leave out from ("any") to ("shall") in line 20 and insert ("enactment conferring powers upon a water authority").
The noble Lord said: Before we deal specifically with Amendment No. 102Q, may I say that we now come to two Amendments to Clause 63, whose general purpose is, in the first case, to provide that the powers of intervention in the interests of the national policy for water for England and Wales should not be limited to the class of enactments set out in Parts III and IV of Schedule 8 but should apply wherever the Secretary of State considers the national policy to be at issue in decisions taken by the Assembly; and, in the second case, to set up a form of machinery whereby a water authority can publicly ask the Secretary of State to intervene and to postpone the effect of any decision taken by the Assembly until a decision on such a request has been made.
I referred either yesterday or early this morning to the immense trouble which has been taken by the Government in writing into the Bill the provisions under which it is proposed that the national policy for water in England and Wales is to be protected against decisions of the Assembly. These provisions are contained in Clause 63, Schedule 8 and Schedule 11, which amends the Water Act 1973. There is also a general power of intervention in Clause 34.
The drafting of these provisions, together with Part XI of Schedule 2, must have been a considerable task, and one can only read these parts of the Bill with awe and admiration. However, it is felt that the arrangements contained in the Bill to protect the national policy may prove inadequate. The Amendments, which I shall now have to explain in detail, seek to use the provisions already in the Bill and to strengthen and extend them. If we may now come to Amendment No. 102Q, this is a paving Amendment to make way for the Amendments to—schedule 8, Nos. 102J and 102K on the Marshalled List. I should like to speak to those two Schedule 8 Amendments at the same time as this one.
The Amendments proposed to Schedule 8 are to extend the specific power of intervention to any action of the Assembly in relation to water matters rather than only to those specific enactments at present listed in Parts III and IV of the Schedule. It is therefore necessary in this Amendment to delete the reference

1483
to the provisions specified in Parts III and IV and to include a reference to the exercise of the powers of the Assembly in relation to enactments conferring powers on a water authority, as the powers of intervention under the Schedule 8 Amendments will apply to all such enactments.
I now turn to Amendments Nos. 102J and 102K, which seek to amend the specific intervention powers in the Bill, which are as follows. In relation to water matters, the general powers of intervention are replaced by specific intervention powers, which are dealt with by Clause 63 and Parts II, III and IV of Schedule 8. The scheme is that where a function is listed in either Part III or Part IV of Schedule 8, and these functions are necessarily devolved functions which are also listed in Schedule II, the Secretary of State may intervene if the appropriate conditions which specify it, respectively, in paragraph 2 or paragraph 3 of Part II of the Schedule, are complied with.
Part III and Part IV of the Schedule contain a list of enactments, some of which are the same and some of which are different. In relation, therefore, to enactments in Part III, the Secretary of State may intervene if he is satisfied that such intervention is necessary in the interests of the national policy for water in England and Wales. Where an enactment is listed in Part IV he may intervene in the interests of the persons listed in paragraph 3, Part II of the Schedule, these interests being basically those of riparian or fishery owners.
Amendments Nos. 102J and 102K are Amendments which are designed to avoid the restriction at present inherent in Part III of Schedule 8. As I have explained, the specific power of intervention into water matters is limited to intervention where action is taken or proposed under the range of enactments listed in that part of the Schedule. These Amendments, and the paving Amendments in Clause 63, are designed to remove this limitation by providing that the Secretary of State may intervene whenever action is taken or proposed by the Assembly under enactments conferring power on the water authorities, where such intervention is required in the interests of the national policy for water in England and Wales.
I should say that the Amendment in paragraph (b) of Amendment No. 102K is a drafting Amendment and takes in the extension to Part IV intervention proposed by a later Amendment, No. 102N on the Marshalled List. I beg to move.
8.15 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: It might be convenient to the Committee if, in reply to Amendments moved by the noble Lord, I go rather wide and cover the whole field of the paving Amendments to Schedule 8, which we shall be discussing later, as it may save time in the long run and save much repitition. I shall not rehearse again what we have said time and time again; that is that the Government feel that water is central to the domestic matters of everyday concern to the people of Wales, and also that we take account of the fact that the Wales-England Border does not necessarily follow the hydrological boundaries. That still applies in a preface for all these Amendments.
We have to take into account the fact that Wales is an important source of water for England, and that decisions on developments in Wales can have important implications for England and Wales water policies and for English holders of statutory rights of water. The Government have recognised this by reserving responsibility for the overall England and Wales policy for water; by providing, in paragraph 43 of Schedule 11 to the Bill, that the Welsh policy for water must be in harmony with the overall policy; and by providing (under Schedule 8 to the Bill) for a special intervention procedure to protect the interests of the England and Wales policy and the statutory interests in England.
The Amendments that come under this general heading would limit the Assembly's powers or would enable, or even require at the behest of the Water Authorities, such major intervention by the Secretary of State in relation to the Assembly's functions as to destroy the balance between the devolved and reserved interests described earlier. They would do so in two ways. First, by extending the list of functions in Part I of Schedule 8 to be exercisable by the Secretary of State for the whole of the Severn-Trent area, the amendments would deny the Assembly

1485
any role in relation to important policy matters within the Welsh part of the Severn-Trent area and would confuse the whole relationship between the Severn-Trent Authority and the Assembly.
The purpose of Part I of Schedule 8 is to provide for either the Assembly or the Government to exercise functions which can only sensibly be applied to the whole area of a Water Authority. But the functions which the amendments would add to Part I of the Schedule are readily divisible between the Assembly and the Government depending upon whether they relate to England or Wales. The effect of adding provisions to Part I, is that while it would reduce the consequences of devolution for the Welsh part of the Severn-Trent Authority, it would extend them for the English parts of the Welsh Authority. It may be that the sponsors did not intend this. It is, however, no solution for the Assembly to be given the same functions for the whole of the Welsh Authority area since this would create an equally unsatisfactory situation for the Government in relation to the English parts of that area.
Secondly, they would so widen the range of matters covered by Parts II, III and IV of Schedule 8 that the Secertary of State could intervene in almost any action the Assembly might take. But, worse, the Secretary of State would be compelled to intervene if a water authority applied to him to do so. It is a constitutional absurdity for a nominated body, deliberately made accountable for its Welsh activities to the Assembly, to be able to by-pass the Assembly or to be able to require a Government Minister to intervene against the Assembly on the body's behalf. This we see as a real recipe for conflict.
We think that the scheme for water presented in the Bill is fairly balanced. It gives the Assembly a significant role in Welsh decisions and at the same time it maintains the essential policy framework on an England and Wales basis. Moreover, the Government believe that they have already listed in Parts III and IV of Schedule 8 the powers which are of significance for the protection of the England-Wales water policy and of statutory interests in water in England. The Government completely reject
1486
Amendments which, even if it is not their purpose, would frustrate the scheme for devolution of water functions to the Assembly and would also have inappropriate consequences for people living in the English parts of the Welsh Water Authority's area. If the Assembly were to promote in any way a water policy which was in conflict with the national policy of England and Wales, it would be in breach of its statutory duty under the Water Act 1973. Therefore, we think that enough safeguards have been built into the Bill.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: Would the noble Baroness regard it as a retrograde suggestion that the Welsh Water Authority should be responsible to the Assembly for the whole of its area and that the Severn-Trent Water Authority should be responsible to the Secretary of State for the whole of its area?
Baroness STEDMAN: Here we have the difficulty that part of the area is in Wales and part is in England and we think we have solved those problems in the way in which we have arranged the Bill at the moment.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: Would it be so disastrous to make the Welsh Assembly responsible for a part of England as regards water and water pollution and for the same reasons to have part of Wales under London?
Baroness STEDMAN: I would not necessarily say that it would be disastrous but I think it might not be quite tidy administratively. I should certainly be happy to look at that point although I cannot offer any satisfaction to the noble Lord at this time.
Lord MIDDLETON: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her usual detailed reply. She has replied to Amendments Nos. 102D to 102H and I shall certainly bear those replies in mind when I come to those Amendments. In effect, I have been saying that the arrangements in the Bill providing the Goverment with sufficient powers to protect the national water policy are inadequate and, in effect, the noble Baroness is saying that they are sufficient. I am advised that the range of circumstances where the interests of the national water policy for England and

1487
Wales may be affected by actions taken or proposed by the Assembly is greater than the list of enactments set out in Part III of Schedule 8. I am further advised that it is not possible to conceive in advance a complete list of all the enactments where the Secretary of State may find it desirable to intervene in the interests of the national policy. But it is certain that the present list is too limited.
To give an example, water is supplied for non-domestic purposes by way of agreements under Section 27 of the Water Act 1945, but the water authority concerned has a general obligation to provide such supplies on reasonable terms as determined by the Secretary of State. That power is devolved to the Assembly, which may secure that water is supplied by, say, the Severn-Trent Authority to consumers in Wales on different and possibly preferential terms to those on which it is supplied in England. I thought that particular case would be caught by Part I of Schedule 8 but I am advised that this is not necessarily so and that the Secretary of State might not be able to intervene in such a situation.
I do not think that these proposals would frustrate the Assembly. After all, they are an extension of the existing intervention powers which the Government realised were necessary in order to regulate matters if the national policy is in any way in danger. These are complicated matters and I think my noble friend and I would be well advised to study the reply given by the noble Baroness before possibly taking more vigorous action to improve the water provisions in the Bill. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.24 p.m.
Lord MIDDLETON Lord MIDDLETON moved Amendment No. 102R:
Page 27, line 21, leave out ("Part II") and insert ("Parts II and III").
The noble Lord said: This is a further paving Amendment to make way for the new Part III of Schedule 8 proposed by Amendment No. 102P, so perhaps it will be convenient if I speak to Amendment No. 102P at the same time. The new Part III of Schedule 8 is designed to serve a completely different purpose from
1488
the existing Part III, so that, whereas at the moment the powers of the Assembly are only subject to the conditions of intervention specified in Part II of the Schedule, under these proposals they will also be subject to the conditions in Part III.
If I may refer now to Amendment No. 102P, despite the extension of the powers of intervention—if they are extended—whether the powers are exercised will still be a political decision. The Amendment is designed to ameliorate the position by providing for automatic intervention on an application by the water authority. The Amendment is wide in scope but merely transfers the power back to the Secretary of State who may, of course, exercise it in the same way as would be proposed by the Assembly. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: I am afraid I am not being very helpful to the noble Lord tonight. As I mentioned in my general remarks covering the whole range of these Amendments, this really is quite the most incredible Amendment of all those which have been tabled on the water provisions. It enables a nominated water authority, which the Bill deliberately makes fully accountable to the elected Assembly, to go over the head of that Assembly to compel the Secretary of State to intervene in any matter arising between the authority and the Assembly. This would create tremendous constitutional problems. It would make nonsense of the Assembly's status and responsibility and would cause tremendous friction between the Assembly and the water authorities as well as between the Assembly and the Government. I hope the noble Lord will think again about it.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: I wonder whether I may go back to the suggestion put forward by my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, which I thought was sympathetically received by the noble Baroness, regarding the two water authorities having their own areas. I think the noble Baroness said that she would look into it and I wonder whether it would be possible for her to say what are the snags of such a possible scheme?
Baroness STEDMAN: There are all the problems about the different areas for the different water authorities, about

1489
financial provisions for them, about trying to keep standards the same over the whole of the United Kingdom, and there would be tremendous administrative problems if we tried to move part of a water authority's area into another part to be administered. But, as I have said, I shall look at it again and I will write to the noble Lords.
Lord MIDDLETON: This is another Amendment designed to protect the national water policy in England and Wales and it is one that arises from the fear that the duty to promote a harmonious national policy laid on the Welsh Assembly by the Amendment in Schedule 11 to the Water Act 1973, to which the noble Baroness has referred, is vague and unenforceable. I suppose in practice the national policy for water in England and Wales does not really exist, except in the broadest outlines or concepts. The policy is determined from case to case as matters come up for consideration by the Minister.
The Amendment is designed to provide the Secretary of State with notice of actions taken or proposed by the Assembly so that he may consider whether if he had to make the decision in the light of his views of the interests of national policy, he would make the same decisions. I think the noble Baroness said that the application could be made on any matter whereas the Amendment says that it must be a matter where the interests of the national policy are in question; not any matter—that would be far too wide. I think the Amendment is a reasonable one but here again I believe we should study with great care the reply given on behalf of the Government and I therefore beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.29 p.m.
Lord RAGLAN Lord RAGLAN moved Amendment No. 102C:
Page 27, line 23, at end insert—
("(4) Without prejudice to subsection (3) above, with a view to the promotion of common policies and practices within any water authority area which lies within both England and Wales in respect of matters mentioned in section 1(2) and (3) of the Water Act 1973, the Assembly and any Minister of the Crown concerned with the exercise of powers (other than powers specified in subsection (1) above) relating to such matter, which, in the opinion of the
1490
Assembly or the Minister or the Authority, would affect those policies and practices, shall consult together before exercising such powers and, without prejudice to the foregoing generality, in any case where in exercise of any such powers either the Assembly or any such Minister determines to cause a local inquiry or hearing to be held the inquiry or hearing shall be held by the Assembly and the Minister jointly.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment in the name of myself and my noble friend Lady White, who unfortunately cannot be here. This is an Amendment which I think it is fair to say is designed to facilitate the harmonisation of policies and procedures as between the Welsh Water Authority and other authorities. As my noble friend Lady Stedman has just said, and as has been said earlier in the Committee proceedings, the Welsh Border does not follow the boundary of the Welsh Water Authority, which is a hydrological one. The Welsh Border was invented in the 16th century as a device to help cope with problems arising out of the feudal ownership of land, and in the 20th century it performs, as I believe, no useful purpose. That is my opinion. There it is, unfortunately. It follows the course of rivers like the Dee, Lugg Monnow, Wye, going overland in between, whereas the Welsh Water Authority's area of administration is bounded, understandably and purposefully, by the watersheds of these rivers located on the English sides.
My noble friend Lady Stedman said, at about 2.19 this morning, that the Bill proposes that in general the two water authorities operating in Wales should be responsible to the Assembly for their activities in Wales and to the Government for their activities in England. But I think we deduced from some remarks she made a few moments ago that the matter is very much more difficult and complicated than that. Where an area of the Severn-Trent Water Authority lies within the geographical area of Wales there is a fairly intricate tie-up between the two authorities. The way it works, as I understand it, is that the Welsh Water Authority acts as a kind of landlord to the Severn-Trent Authority, which otherwise has charge of all the normal functions which river authorities perform. In administering their area, the Welsh Water Authority have consultations to perform, which are complicated by the fact that the area at present under the

1491
Welsh Office stops short of the area under the water authority. Before confirming by-laws, for instance, they have to consult the relevant Ministry in England and at the same time keep the Secretary of State for Wales informed. They also keep a close liaison with two of their neighbouring English counties, Cheshire and Hereford and Worcester; though why only those two when there are two others, Shropshire and Gloucester, along the border, I have not yet learned.
To help them with the discharge of their duties the authority at present has 35 members, 20 of whom are from the eight Welsh counties and two of the English counties and nominated by elected authorities; 10 members and the chairman are nominated by the Secretary of State, and four members are nominated jointly by the Secretary of State and the Minister of Agriculture. Somewhere in the Bill—where is is I do not know because the cross referencing, I have found, is so complex—it is laid down that the Assembly will have power to control all those appointments at present made by the Secretary of State and those which are nominated by the Welsh local authorities. The Assembly would be required to retain on the authority the four nominees appointed from the counties of Hereford and Cheshire and one member jointly nominated by the Secretary of State for Wales and the Minister. However, as the Bill stands, there will be no duty laid upon the water authority or the Assembly to keep the Secretary of State for Wales informed on all matters about which it is in consultation with the Severn-Trent Authority, and there will be no requirement for it to consult neighbouring authorities on matters of water and other policy. Nor is there provision that inquiries and hearings shall be held jointly by the Assembly and the Minister, something which surely is essential.
The Welsh Water Authority is a statutory agency which wants only to perform its functions to the best of its ability. One of its functions, in its view, and indeed one of the principal reasons for its being given responsibility within its present hydrological boundaries, is to avoid inconsistent policies and practices as between one side of a river and another. In the authority's view, the Bill provides no real safeguards against this happening.
1492
As I understand it, the Government argue that, because the authorities will initiate the action to which the divided powers apply, consistency on the separate exercise of these powers by the Secretary of State for the Environment or the Minister of Agriculture and the Assembly will be assured. However, there is no reason, in my view, to suppose that this will follow, bearing in mind the emphasis which is being placed on the constitutional independence of the Assembly and the English Ministers.
The Government appear to argue that if on rare occasions the possibility of different practices in England and Wales arose because of differences of view between the Assembly and English Ministers, these would surely he discussed between the two administrations to overcome the difficulties. But there is no provision in the Bill for such consultations, and indeed I understand that this absence has arisen from a conscious view that the Assembly should not be obliged by the Act to have consultations but only to have them if it so chooses. Since there is no recognition in the Bill of even the possibility of difficulties arising from the application of different policies in the Welsh and English parts of the Welsh Water Authority area, the authority believes that it is unrealistic to suppose that the newly-separated administrations will not be very jealous of their independence and correspondingly reluctant voluntarily to adopt consultative procedures that must constrain their independence.
The Welsh Water Authority feels that an effective safeguard would be provided by the inclusion in the Bill of a requirement that the exercise of any powers, by either the Assembly or the English Ministers, in relation to any functions of the Welsh Water Authority or the Severn-Trent Authority in regard to which a common policy or practice throughout the authority's area was necessary, should be subject to prior consultation between the Assembly and the relevant English Ministers, and in cases where a public inquiry was to he held, by the setting up of a joint inquiry by the Assembly and the relevant Minister. An explicit definition in detail of all the circumstances calling for a common policy or practice would hardly be practicable. The Amendment, I think, would cover all that is necessary.
I could go into further details but I will not detain the Committee much longer. I share the Authority's concern that the effective provision of water services could be impeded by having two different sets of land drainage or fishery by-laws operating on the two sides of the mid-line of a single river, or by having one fishing licence to fish from one bank of a river and another licence to fish from the other bank. We hope it would not happen, but it might. I therefore beg to move.
Lord MIDDLETON: I so much agree with nearly everything which the noble Lord has said about these problems, indeed they are the very problems which are prompting me to produce very complicated Amendments from this side of the House. As he so rightly said, the Bill provides no real safeguards against inconsistencies between those areas under the responsibility of the Assembly and those under the responsibility of the Secretary of State. I am a little doubtful about how effective a safeguard this prior consultation will be, followed by possibly the joint inquiry. That is my doubt, although I so much agree with everything else which the noble Lord has said about the problems involved.
Baroness STEDMAN: As my noble friend has said, the purpose of his Amendment is to try to ensure the continuation of common policies and practices throughout the area of the water authority after devolution, allowing for the fact that both the Severn-Trent and Welsh Water Authorities operate in England as well as Wales and therefore will be responsible to the Assembly in Wales and to the Government in England. There is nothing wrong with that and we think that the Bill has dealt with it.
The Bill is not cluttered with provisions about consultation between Government and Assembly, but it clearly implies that there will have to be close consultation on a very wide range of subjects, not just on water policy. The Assembly will have a role in helping to shape the water policy, but the protection of the national policy cannot be achieved through general powers of direction. Protection is achieved through the duty of the Assembly to promote a water policy which is in harmony with that for England and Wales as a whole and
1494
the ability of the Government to intervene if it is necessary when particular water schemes are put forward.
We have given a great deal of thought to these proposals for water. We have set out detailed proposals to ensure the continuation of a national water policy in England and Wales and we have required the Welsh policy for water to be in harmony with it. We have also tried to identify those situations in which it is essential that we have identical policies and practices within a single water authority area so that they can be listed in Part I of Schedule 8. Perhaps inevitably, the Government do not necessarily see eye to eye with the water authorities about this or with my noble friend and noble Lords on the other side who have no doubt been lobbied as we have by the water authorities.
But the authorities, not surprisingly, are concerned about the administrative inconceniences of being accountable to two administrations and of perhaps having two sets of by-laws. The Government are concerned to provide a meaningful degree of devolution for the Assembly and that must allow for the possibility of differences between England and Wales, but it does not necessarily mean that the byelaws in Wales will contain substantially different provisions from those in England or that different banks of the same river will be subject to divergent requirements.
There is a natural fear that a new administration will want to change things significantly and upset perhaps the accustomed way of life. I suspect that there is a similar fear that it will be unversed in the problems it faces and to preserve its independence will be reluctant to look for advice. We do not share those fears or that apparent mistrust of the Assembly. The Wales Bill, like the Scotland Bill, is not cluttered with statutory requirements for consultation between the Assembly and the Government but it is nevertheless inevitable that there will have to be close consultation on a wide range of subjects, including water. In the Government's view, it is unrealistic to assume an unwillingness on the part of the Government and the Assembly to consult and co-operate on common problems. If the Amendment were to be pressed and adopted it would do nothing to ensure that meaningful

1495
consultations would take place; indeed it might be more likely to create that atmosphere of mistrust which it presumably wants to avoid. And it might carry the unfortunate implication that subjects other than water also do not require consultation with the Government. Further, there will be nothing to prevent the Government and the Assembly jointly setting up inquiries where both consider that it would be advantageous. So, we think that the Amendment is both unnecessary and undesirable. and we hope that it will not be pressed.
My noble friend referred to the question of appointments, who made them and how they were made. Perhaps it might be for the convenience of the House if we leave that point until we get to Amendments Nos. 109F to J to Schedule 11, because they deal with the breakdown of appointments and that might be a better stage at which deal to with this matter in more detail.
Lord ELTON: Before my noble friend returns to this matter if he intends to do so or, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Raglan returns to it, I should like to say at this convenient juncture that we are aware on this side of the Committee that water is an essential and emotive matter which must be looked at with the greatest care and that there are few areas of this or indeed any other Bill that I have come across, which are constructed with such complexity. I do not speak in criticism of the draftsmanship although I wish that it had been possible to express the Government's intention in a form if not in language, more easily assimilated by the layman that most of us are. However, I think that this is sufficient reason for saying that we should like to take counsel on these matters when they have been elicited.
Of course, there is a very wide area covered by this succession of Amendments and I expect that the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman will also want to form a view when she has heard what is said as regards the other Amendments. However, I am grateful to her for her extensive reply and I hope that the eagerness which we all have to retire early today will not in any way inhibit her from replying equally extensively at each stage because that will make it easier for us to come to the right conclusion before the next stage of the Bill.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, has given us a very long and interesting reply. However, along with the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, I do not sec how—unless there is something which safeguards the complicated business of rivers with one bank in one section and another in another section, and unless there is some power with a body other than the Assembly—we can be sure that the matter will not become greatly tangled.
In Scotland we have this very problem with the River Tweed. That is a very important river with one bank in Scotland and another in England—the estuary is in England and the river rises in Scotland. I am full of anxiety about this matter, because I think that, unless there is some proposal put into the Bill for both Wales and Scotland, we are really storing up a lot of problems. I should have thought that it was much better to try to do it now during the Committee stage when we can discuss the matter and then study it again on Report. Although I realise that the Government think that everything in the garden will be lovely, I am very anxious as regards this particular subject which is highly controversial locally and about which it is difficult to get people to agree, unless there are some kind of guidelines laid down. The Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, although long and complicated, does at least give some guidance. Although the Minister will not accept it now, I hope that the Government will think again and give us another opportunity to discuss what I believe to be a vital matter which cannot just be left to chance.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: I should like to support the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, for one reason only, namely, that I gather that the water authorities themselves are concerned. I should have thought that that gave cause for us to support it. Indeed, I am sure that the noble Baroness who always takes so much trouble when replying to these matters might make a few inquiries of the water authorities to see how they feel about it, because, after all, they will be the people who have to do the job in the end.
Lord RAGLAN: I am bound to say that I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood. I have sat here for a

1497
good many hours and often when I have looked around the Chamber—as I look around it now—I have discovered that I am the only member of the chosen race actually present. In other words, I have sometimes been the only one out of over 40 noble Lords who actually lives in Wales and to whom the provisions of the Bill would apply. I would be an elector to the Assembly; I think I am even eligible to be a Member of it. As a Welshman, up till now my head has been ringing with the praise which the Government have been heaping on me: how brilliant, how capable, how judicious and, above all, how reasonable. Yet the very first time that I move an Amendment I am turned down fiat by my noble friend. I must say I am extremely disappointed.
I think my noble friend is being very much more sanguine about this matter than many people are and they are not just from outside Wales, they are from within Wales. My noble friend talked about administrative convenience, and the slight differences that there might be between the Welsh Water Authority area and other areas, and so on. Parliament, when passing the 1973 Water Act, actually took the trouble to write into the Act a consultative procedure or requirement, of a kind. It is contained in paragraph 42 of Schedule 3 to the Act. Time and again when listening to debates on this Bill I have felt that a reasonable test of what ought or ought not to go into this Bill might be whether, if Parliament were setting up an English Regional Assembly, they would take certain precautions. Because it is a Welsh Assembly they feel that they ought not to take precautions. They took precautions over the Water Act; why should they not take precautions under this particular Bill? At any rate, I have aired my views on the matter. I shall read with interest what my noble friend has said, and, with the permission of the Committee, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 63 agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Water]:
8.54 p.m.
Lord MIDDLETON Lord MIDDLETON moved Amendment No. 102D:
Page 65, line 40, at end insert—
("The Public Health (Drainage of Trade Premises) Act 1937 (c. 40) sections 3 and 4.
The Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1961 (c. 50) sections 5 and 6.
The Public Health Act 1961 (c. 64) sections 60 and 62.
The Water Act 1945 (c. 42) sections 12 and 13(4) and (5).
The Water Resources Act 1963 (c. 38) sections 107 and 108(4).").
The noble Lord said: The Amendments to Part 1 of Schedule 8, Amendments Nos. 102D, 102E, 102F, 102G and 102H, have a common purpose which is, as the noble Baroness said, when she replied a little earlier, to extend the range of functions exercisable by the Secretary of State and by the Assembly, regardless of national boundaries. It may be convenient if I speak to all five of them now. Part I of Schedule 8 and Clause 63(1) provide the enactment one might call the deemed national provision. In effect, Clause 63(1) provides that for the exercise of the enactment listed in Part I of Schedule 8 the national boundary shall follow the boundary between the Welsh and Severn-Trent Water Authorities. This will mean that the powers in the enactment will be exercisable by the Secretary of State in relation to the Severn-Trent and by the Assembly in relation to the Welsh Water Authority, regardless of the national boundary.
These Amendments seek to build upon this provision by extending the range of functions specified in Part 1 of Schedule 8. The provisions now specified in the Bill are limited to matters concerning the constitution of the water authorities and certain powers as to charges. These Amendments seek to include powers in connection with appeals of one sort or another, the exercise of which directly affects the execution of the national policy for water for England and Wales.
I am bound to say that while these Amendments ameliorate the position so far as the Severn-Trent is concerned by reserving these powers to the Secretary of State alone, they may be taken to worsen the position for the English part, the Welsh Water Authority area. This is a lower image of the Severn-Trent portion. Extending the range of enactments listed in Part I of Schedule 8 will mean that the Assembly will exercise those powers in relation to the English part of the Welsh

1499
Water Authority's area. If required I could deal with each one of the specific powers sought to be included in Part I of Schedule 8 section by section, enactment by enactment, and give detailed reasons why it is thought desirable that they should be so treated. If I were to do so we should certainly not get through the Committee stage this week, and probably not next week either.
When the noble Baroness spoke about these Amendments in reply to Clause 63 she did rather brush them aside as being wrong and unnecessary, so perhaps the Committee will allow me to deal with one or two of the points by way of illustration. Under Amendment No. 102D it is proposed to insert the Water Act 1945, Sections 12 and 13(4) and (5). Section 12 deals with bulk supplies and subsection (5) provides:
"where it appears to the Secretary of State that it is expedient that one water authority should give to another a supply of water in hulk and he is satisfied that the giving and taking of such a supply cannot be secured by agreement he may by order require the respective authorities to give and take such supplies at such periods and on such terms and conditions as may be provided in the order".
This section could be used by the Assembly, if the powers were devolved, to require Severn-Trent to take a supply of water from the Elan Valley reservoir on terms dictated by the Assembly, including a provision for a profit on water export. Section 13(4) and (5) provide for the Secretary of State to transfer the functions of a water authority to himself if he finds it in default of its duties to supply water. It is considered that these wide-ranging powers should not be passed to the Assembly in relation to Severn-Trent.
In regard to Amendment No. 102F may I make a general comment on the reasons for including these sections of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975. In relation to fisheries it is important to bear in mind that the River Severn contains important commercial salmon fisheries. The spawning areas are in the upper and Welsh part of the river, while the netting area where the profit accrues is in the English area. It is therefore of little benefit to the Welsh interests in conserving salmon fisheries to the possible prejudice of trout and coarse fishing. It is therefore important that the fishery should be managed as a whole so
1500
that the various competing interests can be reconciled.
Amendments Nos. 102G and 102H relate to land drainage. Certain sections already appear in this part of the Schedule. The first group relate to the constitution of the regional land drainage committee in the Severn-Trent and the Welsh Water Authority. The other sections relate to certain powers of the Lord Chancellor in matters concerning charges. Inclusion of the new sections proposed would cover such matters as the designation of a particular section of the water course as main rivers. The amount of main river determines the level of the water authorities' expenditure on the land drainage function. It is important that main river policy is consistent throughout a river basin. The proposed Amendment also seeks to include matters relating to by-laws, because it is important that standards should be consistent, as the noble Lord, Lord Raglan has just said, throughout a river basin.
Section 84 of the Land Drainage Act 1976 contains a provision for appeals against a precept to the Minister. It is considered that this power should not he devolved lest the Welsh be put into the path of temptation to load costs onto English consumers by reducing the precept to internal drainage boards in the Welsh part of the Severn-Trent Authority area. I think that that is sufficient to indicate the reasoning behind the Amendments in Schedule 8, up to and including No. 102H. I beg to move.
9.1 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: I am grateful to the noble Lord, as I am sure the Committee is, for taking a whole lot of Amendments in one go. Amendment No. 102D would add to the list in Part I of Schedule 8 certain provisions which deal with the control of water pollution, agreements for the bulk supply of water and default powers over water authorities. We do not believe that a general political division of ministerial responsibilities on the basis of water authority boundaries instead of the England-Wales boundary would be acceptable to the English parts of the Welsh Water Authority, to the Welsh parts of Severn-Trent or to England and Wales as a whole.
But the co-ordinated management of river basins is retained by the water

1501
authorities themselves, who carry out most day-to-day functions. It is these authorities who will initiate action and provide much of the information and advice on which the Assembly will judge how to exercise its functions. The Assembly will be composed of people—like my noble friend Lord Raglan—with a great deal of knowledge and practical experience of the whole range of interests, and I am sure that they will not be rushed into uninformed decisions which create incompatible situations between the English and the Welsh parts of a water authority area. Further, the Assembly will be working within the national policy for water in England and Wales and there will be a great deal of discussion with the Government on policies and objectives. I cannot see, in these circumstances, why it should be suggested that the Assembly is likely, for example, to tolerate higher pollution of rivers and streams than might be tolerated in England, with detriment to English interests lower down those streams.
Of course, it is true that such a possibility might occur and perhaps the Bill should cater for it. But it does cater for it, and in a way which I suggest is more appropriate than the proposed Amendment. Many of the provisions dealt with in the Amendment are concerned with discharges into rivers. These are in large part prospectively repealed and will be replaced by the equivalent provisions of the Control of Pollution Act 1974. These provisions of the 1974 Act are already listed in Part 1V of Schedule 8, so the Secretary of State will be able to intervene if the Assembly allows unacceptable discharges into rivers flowing into England
Equally, the Government would accept that some other provisions dealt with by the Amendment might have implications for national England and Wales water policy. Examples are Sections 12 and 13 of the Water Act 1945 and Section 108 of the Water Resources Act 1963. But the Bill already lists these provisions in Part III of Schedule 8, so the Secretary of State will be able to intervene if these powers are exercised by the Assembly in a manner which is prejudicial to national water policy.
I pass on to the next Amendment, No. 102E. Again, the same general arguments apply as were used on the
1502
earlier Amendment. The only provision of this Act which we believe needs to be listed in Part I of Schedule 8 is Section 52, which enables the Secretary of State to order that water authorities may make charges in relation to consents for discharges of trade or sewage effluent. Clearly, the same scheme of charges needs to apply throughout the water authority area. The Bill already provides for this, and the Government believe that all other functions can and should be split on the normal England-Wales basis. Where it is necessary to safeguard English interests downstream, the Bill already does so, because it lists the appropriate provisions of the Control of Pollution Act in Part IV of Schedule 8—thus enabling intervention by the Secretary of State.
Amendment No. 102F is concerned with the Salmon and Fresh Water Fisheries Act and the fish in the rivers and similar matters. The Government consider that these are matters which can be dealt with by them or by the Assembly in respect of England and Wales, but other powers under the 1975 Act require special intervention procedures and these are provided for in Part IV of Schedule 8. Sections 26 and 28 are examples of this.
I turn to the two final Amendments on the powers of the Land Drainage Act. These are already listed in Part I of Schedule 8. They relate to the constitution of Regional Land Drainage Committees and Local Land Drainage Committees, to general drainage charges and to charges option orders which are made on the application of a water authority. These arrangements have to apply uniformly throughout an authority area.
In general, the Government consider that the additional provisions listed in this group of Amendments can and should, for the same general reasons I have given before, be split on a simple England-Wales basis. However, I may bring some joy to the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, when I say that in so far as his last two Amendments are concerned, we have been reviewing more generally the effect of the Bill on the arrangements of internal drainage boards which may straddle the England-Wales Border. We are still considering the issues and although the Government's approach will, of course, be on the same principle that I have already described, we shall be bring-

1503
ing forward any necessary Amendments at the Report stage in relation to the land drainage provisions. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will read carefully what I have said and perhaps not press any of his Amendments.
Lord MIDDLETON: I am sure that we must be grateful for the final words of the noble Baroness and, of course, we shall read with very great care her very carefully reasoned reply, for which I am extremely grateful. The noble Baroness is more optimistic about the smooth running of the water arrangements than are my noble friends and I. I think that the inconsistencies to which so many noble Lords have referred tonight are bound to occur. I do not see the water arrangements running smoothly under the Bill as it is at present, as the noble Baroness says. However, we shall look very carefully at what she has said and perhaps return to this at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 102E, 102F, 102G, 102H, 102J and 102K not moved].
9.7 p.m.
Lord MIDDLETON Lord MIDDLETON moved Amendment No. 102L:
Page 66, line 31, after ("water") insert ("or tidal waters").
The noble Lord said: I hope that perhaps the noble Baroness will be able to meet us on this Amendment, which can be taken on its own. In the tidal part of the River Severn there is an anomalous situation where, by virtue of ancient grants, certain persons claim rights to private fishing. The Amendment is designed to extend the protection to persons owning such rights. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: I am sorry that I cannot oblige the noble Lord this time. We think that this is another Amendment that would increase the scope for intervention by the Secretary of State, and really we do not think we could accept it at this point.
Lord MIDDLETON: I am disappointed about this because provision is made for owners in all other kinds of water. There are apparently people who claim rights to just the very end of the Severn where the
1504
tide comes in, and I should have thought that if you could give the rights throughout the whole of the river, then for the bit at the end where the fish are coming in with the tide the provisions in the Bill could have been extended towards them. I believe it is considered in some quarters that the claims to these rights are dubious, but this does not affect the validity of the Amendment, because if the claims are established protection is needed, and if the claims are not established protection does not apply as it only goes to persons owning such rights and not to persons claiming such rights. I hope that the noble Baroness will look at this. It is very nearly a drafting Amendment.
Baroness STEDMAN: The noble Lord has been very gracious and generous. Yes, all right; I shall take it back and have a look at it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.9 p.m.
Lord MIDDLETON Lord MIDDLETON moved Amendment No. 102M:
Page 66, line 34, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment paving the putting in of a new sub-paragraph by virtue of Amendment No. 102N, so it will no doubt be convenient if I speak to both of them together. The Amendment to Part II of Schedule 8 which is listed as No. 102N is designed to strengthen the power of intervention. This is another possible way of doing it. We feel that these intervention powers are not strong enough under the Bill.
Despite Amendmnt No. 102K, about which we spoke earlier, there may be cases where the interests of a group of consumers may be affected by where intervention is not justified in the interests of national policy because it may be a very localised effect. This Amendment is designed to rectify that situation. As an example, a group of consumers of water supplied by, for instance, the Severn-Trent Authority, may find that the water quality changes by virtue of actions committed by the Assembly in Wales, and this may increase their costs where they have plant designed to accept water of a particular quality. That is an example of the kind of case that is not covered and we think should be. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: This Amendment is a purely drafting Amendment, as the noble Lord said, and the second Amendment, No. 102N, adds any person for whom a water authority provides services (that is the general public) in the interests on behalf of whom the Secretary of State may intervene. We are not happy at this extension of powers of intervention for the Secretary of State. We think they are extensive enough, taken together, to make a nonsense of devolution. The Assembly will be constantly looking over its shoulder while, on the other hand, the existence of wider powers may result in the Secretary of State constantly being bothered to intervene on a host of what might be trivial local matters. In view of the way that the noble Lord has dealt with these Amendments we will take them back and look at them.
Lord MIDDLETON: I am most grateful. I think that this is one that could be looked at, and I am grateful for what the noble Baroness has said. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 102N and 102P not moved.]
On Question, Whether Schedule 8 shall be a Schedule to the Bill?
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: From time to time I have endeavoured to intervene, but things have been moving so fast that I have not been able to get in, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, is indicating by nodding his head. I do not propose to delay the Committee. I have been following the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, because he has been reading almost word for word in certain passages from documents which have also been supplied to me by the South Severn and Trent Authority. I had hoped to ask the noble Lord why the Severn and Trent Authority were so worried about the lack of safeguards in the Bill for the matters to which he referred. My view is that the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, has replied fairly fully with regard to the difficulties which the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, has raised. I do not propose to delay the Committee at this stage with all the papers I have. I shall read very carefully what the noble Baroness
1506
has said, and consider that matter at a later stage.
Lord ELTON: It may be worth saying at this stage that I do not think there is any criticism imputed to my noble friend by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. It is not only an accepted, but also an extremely valuable practice for noble Lords who are Members of your Lordships' House, and who are extremely busy outside it, to supplement their own knowledge by detailed briefs from interested parties who have retained counsel to give advice. Therefore, the question here seems perfectly fair. It is worth remembering that this is a recognised way in which we operate. Indeed, I have received contradictory briefs from different sources. One then has to sit in judgment upon them because one cannot propose both.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: I have no idea why the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is so helpful to me at this stage of the evening. It was my intention to be helpful in the debate by indicating to the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, that I have the same papers as he has, and so I did not want to repeat what he was saying. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, says, on the one hand, that I am fair, but then appears to indicate that there may be something wrong in the attitude I have adopted. If that is not so, I cannot understand his intervention.
Lord ELTON: We do not want to waste time on this point. I was not criticising the noble Lord. I was merely wishing to say that the debate has been followed outside the Chamber very critically by people who are anxious to learn how what is being proposed works. The noble Lord's remarks, taken in isolation and in print, when the inflection in his voice would not be there to explain what they meant, could be taken as a criticism of what is a very profitable and practical process.
Baroness STEDMAN: I am quite sure that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, did not intend any criticism in regard to the way the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, has handled the Amendments. Like other Members of the Committee, we on the Government Front Bench have also been bombarded by the Severn and

1507
Trent Water Authority. We have tried in the course of the debate to put our arguments against the fears and doubts of the Severn and Trent Water Authority. I hope that I have succeeded, and I hope that when the Severn and Trent Water Authority reads the report of the debate, it will perhaps understand some of the thoughts behind the Bill, as well as in the way in which we are hoping it will operate.
Schedule 8 agreed to.
Clause 64 [Planning]:
On Question, Whether Clause 64 shall stand part of the Bill?
9.16 p.m.
Baroness ELLES: I do not think that I need reassure the noble Baroness that the proposal to leave out Clause 64, as well as the proposal to leave out Schedule 9, is intended only for probing purposes, and I do not intend to press them this evening; nor indeed would I do so in this form in the future. They give me an opportunity to raise an important point which was also discussed during consideration of the Scotland Bill. In particular, it was raised by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross on the fifth day of the Report staged of the Scotland Bill.
I am sure that the noble Baroness will know the point that I am about to raise. In Schedule 9 of the Bill certain powers are given to the Secretary of State to intervene in planning matters. Part I of the Schedule lists the sections of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 in relation to which the Secretary of State may intervene. The list covers planning permission and various other matters, but it leaves out listed buildings, which I believe come under Sections 54 and 55 of the Act. I wish to draw to the attention of the noble Baroness the missing element which is in Part I of the Schedule, and the desire on this side of the Committee to have those two sections included.
The point of this matter was very ably outlined by my noble friend previously, so I do not propose to spend much time explaining to your Lordships all the reasons behind it. The main point concerns what might happen if listed buildings are not included in Part I. For instance, as the Bill now stands, in a case of a valuable property which is of national
1508
interest and part of our heritage, the Secretary of State would not have the power to hold a planning inquiry because this is part of the devolved functions. Certain powers under Sections 4 to 6 of the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act will be given to the Welsh Assembly, although only Section 7 powers (which concern access to the National Land Fund) remain available to the Secretary of State.
Let us suppose that there is in Wales a valuable property which everyone agrees should be protected, and possibly have money spent on it to restore it. The Welsh Assembly would not have access to the National Land Fund. On the other hand, the Secretary of State would not be able to hold a public inquiry where national bodies—United Kingdom national bodies, not Welsh national bodies—could give evidence and put their views as to the value of such a property, and advise the Secretary of State that funds from the National Land Fund should be used for that property. For instance, I am given to understand that, if we had not had these powers, Erddig would not have been saved from being pulled down.
I would be grateful if the noble Baroness could look at the point I am making. As I say, there is no question of pressing either of these Amendments. My noble friends carried a similar Amendment into the Scotland Bill. I shall not start the argument whether one thing is good for Scotland and another thing is bad for Wales, because I think we are getting on quite nicely and I am not going to hold up the proceedings of the evening. Nevertheless, I think it is a point that needs looking into, and I should be very grateful for a reply from the noble Baroness on this point.
9.21 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: In an earlier debate which we had on Schedule 2 to the Bill I outlined the broad range of powers under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 which were to be transferred to the Assembly. These include, for instance, the powers to confirm development plans and to determine planning applications on appeal or call-in. These powers are transferred outright to the Assembly because land use planning can be sensibly considered only as a whole

1509
—and that has been recognised throughout all our post-war planning legislation. So regard must in all cases be paid to all competing land uses and to all development and amenity needs.
I think it fair to say that the majority of land use considerations arising in planning cases will relate to matters in respect of which the Assembly will exercise functions in other contexts; for example, housing and roads. But the Government recognise that there are other important considerations which relate to reserved subjects—for instance, energy or defence—and the Assembly will of course be required to weigh all such considerations in reaching their planning decisions, just as local authorities must weigh considerations for which they might not have responsibilities in other contexts. If all considerations are not properly taken into account, then planning decisions can of course, and may, be challenged in the courts. But there will be occasions where the Government will nevertheless wish to intervene—for instance, in cases where the Assembly does not have the knowledge that would be available to the Government. For example, if a development was proposed near a defence base, the Assembly might not itself be aware that a security risk was involved. Where such important United Kingdom considerations are raised, then the responsibility must in the last resort rest with the Government.
Therefore, we must consider what is the most appropriate means of Government intervention. I would suggest that for a range of planning matters of a more general nature, the general override procedure of Clauses 34 and 35, which we debated in the earlier hours of today, provide all that is required. For example, during an earlier debate the noble Baroness herself, and her noble friend the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, raised the question of Section 7 of the Town and Country Planning Act, which places a duty on local authorities to have regard to economic policies when they are preparing their structure plans. It was rightly pointed out that the Assembly will, after devolution, have the functions under Section 9 of approving structure plans, and therefore will among other matters need to consider whether the local authority has reflected the Government's economic policies.
1510
I am sure the Assembly will give proper weight to this, which is, of course, only one of a whole range of considerations they will have to take into account; but should the need arise, the Government would be able to use their general powers of intervention under Clause 34. Equally, if the Assembly made a general development order under Section 24 which was prejudicial to a reserved interest, then the intervention of powers of Clause 35 would arise. The Government, however, consider that there are a range of important development control decisions in individual cases for which these general intervention powers are suitable. These are listed in Part I of Schedule 9, and Clause 64 provides that in these cases the intervention procedures of Part II of Schedule 9 should apply instead of those of Clause 34.
I shall explain our reasoning. The powers listed in Part I of Schedule 9 are all ones under which the Assembly must decide for or against a particular development proposal, and which are presently subject to quasi-judicial procedures. The most important example—in terms of the number of cases presently arising—is the determination of planning appeals under Section 36 of the 1971 Act. The general intervention procedure of Clause 34 is not apt in these cases for two reasons. First, it imposes a Parliamentary procedure on the decision of the Secretary of State, which inevitably must prejudice his quasi-judicial role. And, secondly, it does nothing to safeguard the rights of parties to a case to be heard—which are central to our established planning procedures.
The procedures in Part II of Schedule 9 avoid both these difficulties. They make no provision for Parliamentary procedure, and the Secretary of State simply takes the case over from the Assembly—in shorthand he "calls it in". Secondly, the procedures are in such terms that the Secretary of State may take over where the Assembly left off. If, for instance, a local inquiry is in mid-progress, that inquiry may continue but with the inspector's report going to the Secretary of State rather than the Assembly. Parties to the inquiry will retain their existing rights to be heard, but the Assembly will additionally be given such a right by virtue of paragraph 6(1) of the Schedule. I hope that this explanation shows the reasoning behind Clause 64 and Schedule 9. We think that these pro-

1511
visions are important in terms of the retention of our planning procedures, and their deletion might risk bringing planning decisions subject to intervention into the political arena in an undesirable way.
Perhaps I could also take this opportunity to return to a point made in an earler debate by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, about office development permits. As I said at the time these have never been in practice applied to Wales. But we take the point that they are not an apt matter for the Assembly as they primarily concern employment and regional policy. Accordingly we shall propose amendments on Report to reserve ministerial functions in respect of office development permits.
As the noble Baroness reminded us, during proceedings on the Scotland Bill, the noble Viscount, Lord Conville, raised a number of points on the equivalent Schedule to that Bill. I believe that we were able to satisfy him on most points, but he, as was the noble Baroness, was particularly concerned that listed building control should come within the scope of the planning intervention procedures. The difficulty here is that intervention—as with the general override procedures—is only allowed where a reserved matter for which the Government is responsible throughout the United Kingdom is affected. If the Welsh Assembly is responsible for a matter in Wales then that matter cannot provide grounds for intervention. With listed building control I am advised that it is very difficult—or indeed impossible—to envisage what reserved matter of United Kingdom importance might be affected. The noble Viscount tried to overcome this difficulty by broadening the grounds of planning intervention so that the Secretary of State could intervene simply because the Government were responsible for the equivalent matter in England. The Government cannot accept this because it would mean that planning intervention procedures were more widely available than the general intervention procedures. This is not only inconsistent. It would, in the planning context, make very little sense in practice. The Government would therefore have to oppose any Amendments put forward to the Wales Bill which are equivalent to those carried on the Scotland Bill.
Baroness ELLES: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for taking so much
1512
trouble in once again answering questions which I have not put but which, nevertheless, elucidated for me and for my noble friends many points in connection with the effect of Clause 64 and its working in conjunction with Schedule 9. We are grateful. I am also grateful for her response to my comments on Section 74(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act in relation to office development permits. This is a positive contribution for which I am grateful.
I find it difficult to accept her reasoning with regard to the listed buildings powers which the Government do not seem to be able to accept as a reserve matter in Part 1 of Schedule 9. I think that one of the obvious difficulties that will occur is that the Welsh Assembly will not be able to have access to the National Land Fund. This is probably one of the major stumbling blocks. I see that there may be legal reasons why this is difficult to work out at the moment, but I feel sure that it would not be impossible to find a way of getting round this difficulty. It must be in the interest of Wales, and of the nation as a whole, that some great building or historical monument or monument of Welsh culture—which is the same as British culture —should be preserved for the nation, and that access should be available to the National Land Fund.
I should like to look at this again and perhaps submit something else on Report. If the noble Baroness feels that there could be some slight movement in any way from her side on this matter, I should be grateful if she would communicate with me.
Clause 64 agreed to.
Schedule 9 agreed to.
Clause 65 [Status and remuneration of certain officers and servants];
[Amendment No. 102S not moved.]
9.31 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE moved Amendment No. 102SA:
Page 27, line 31, leave out ("the home civil service of the state") and insert ("Her Majesty's Home Civil Service").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is solely concerned with nomenclature. Clause 65 at present provides that service

1513
as an officer or servant of the Welsh Assembly shall be service in the "home Civil Service of the State." There was comparable provision in Clause 65 of the Scotland Bill. The phrase is precedented in that the Civil Service Order 1968 refers to the "Civil Service of the State" to cover all branches of the Civil Service.
However, during debate on the Scotland Bill, the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, opposed the use of the word "State" which he said was ugly and had overtones of separatism. He proposed instead the phrase "Her Majesty's Home Civil Service." This form of words is equally accurate and is precedented in the Civil Service Order in Council of 1969. The Government therefore accepted Lord Selkirk's Amendments on this point to the Scotland Bill and now propose a similar Amendment to the Wales Bill, which I hope noble Lords from every part of the Committee will welcome.
Lord ELTON: I cannot resist the opportunity of saying something agreeable so I will say "Thank you" to the noble Lord.
[Amendment No. 102SB not moved.]
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE moved Amendments Nos. 102SC and 102SD:
Page 27, line 37, after ("in") insert ("respect of").
Page 28, line 1, after ("service") insert (",their ceasing to serve or their suffering diminution of emoluments").
The noble Lord said: These minor technical Amendments to Clause 65(2) correct the provisions relating to the remuneration of officers and servants of the Assembly. Similar Amendments have already been agreed to the corresponding clause of the Scotland Bill. It would be impossible for the complicated calculations concerning payment of contributions to the Principal Civil Service Superannuation Scheme to be completed within the financial year to which they relate. The payments must therefore be related to the financial year in respect of which they are made, rather than, as the Bill now provides, requiring them to be made within that year. The addition of the words "respect of" in the first Amendment achieves this result.
As it stands, subsection (2) allows the Minister for the Civil Service to calculate the amount due from the Welsh Consolidated Fund in respect of pensions, allowances and gratuities allowable to officers serving the Assembly during the financial year. The second Amendment will enable these calculations to be based not only, as is now provided for, on service during the year; but also, as appropriate, on the ending of service (whether on premature retirement or on loss of office for other reasons) and downgrading. I think these are innocent drafting Amendments and I hope that your Lordships will approve them.
Clause 65, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 66 [Transfer of property]:
The Marquess of TWEEDDALE The Marquess of TWEEDDALE moved Amendment No. 102T:
Page 28, line 23, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Marquess said: This Amendment standing in the names of my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale and myself is a consequential one concerning forestry. I beg to move.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: With the usual reservations, may I say that we accept this Amendment.
Clause 66, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 67 agreed to.
Clause 68 [Complaints of maladministration]:
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 29, line 2, leave out ("additions").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment arises from a commitment given to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, during the Committee stage of the Scotland Bill. It is another instance of the infinite flexibility of the Government's approach to these Bills.
Clause 68 empowers the making of an Order in Council to provide for the investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration of allegations of maladministration by or on

1515
behalf of the Assembly. Subsection (2) provides that the Order in Council may apply, with such additions, exceptions and modifications as necessary or expedient, any of the provisions of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967. The Scotland Bill contained a similar provision, although there the Order in Council was only to make interim provision pending the Scottish Assembly making its own arrangements.
The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, queried whether it would be necessary to make additions to the 1967 Act, as well as modifications and exceptions. The Government have considered this point in relation to both Bills and, on reflection, it seemed unlikely that in applying the 1967 Act to the Welsh Assembly it would be necessary to have a power to make additions to that Act. This Amendment makes that a fact. I beg to move.
Clause 68, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 69 agreed to.
Clause 70 [Determination of issues as to Assembly's powers]:
9.39 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 29, line 13, leave out from ("institute") to end of line 16 and insert ("against the Assembly proceedings of the kind specified in subsection (2) below notwithstanding that each of them acts on behalf of the Crown.
(2) The proceedings referred to in subsection (1) above are proceedings for a declaration as to—

(a) whether a power conferred or duty imposed by or under any enactment is exercisable or falls to be discharged by the Assembly;

(b) whether anything done or proposed to be done by the Assembly is within its powers; or

(c) whether the Assembly has failed to discharge a duty imposed on it.").

The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with page 29, line 13, of Clause 70 and I shall quote it.
"The proceedings referred to in subsection 9(1) above are proceedings for a declaration as to—

(a) whether a power conferred or duty imposed by or under any enactment is exercisable or falls to be discharged by the Assembly;

1516

(b) whether anything done or proposed to be done by the Assembly is within its powers; and

(c) whether the Assembly has failed to discharge a duty imposed on it".

The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, has tabled an Amendment to Clause 70, page 29, line 16, which perhaps we might consider at the same time: that is, Amendment No. 104A. The noble Baroness has not yet moved that Amendment but I should like to speak to it and so perhaps we can speak to the two together. The noble Baroness's Amendment reads:
"and without prejudice to the foregoing, the Attorney General and any other person may institute and the Assembly may defend proceedings seeking a determination of any question whether the Assembly is in default in the fulfilment of any duty placed on it or transferred to it by this Act and seeking an order requiring the fulfilment of such duty, provided that no such proceedings shall be instituted by any person other than the Attorney General unless the person is or would be aggrieved by such default or has an interest in the fulfilment of such duty."
It is rather unusual for me to quote an Amendment before it has been moved, but it seems to me the most practical way of proceeding.
The Amendment of the noble Baroness is identical to the Commons Committee Amendment No. 342, tabled by the Opposition Front Bench. Its purpose is threefold: to provide a means for bringing before the courts questions as to whether the Assembly has failed to carry out a duty; to give an aggrieved citizen the right to bring such proceedings, and to give the courts power to enforce their orders. For the reasons which I shall give, it is likely that, generally speaking, the third is the most important of these points.
The Government Amendment implements the undertaking given in another place, following discussion of an Amendment which was identical to that to be proposed by the noble Baroness, and I imagine that the reason for setting it down again is that in another place my right honourable and learned friend's undertaking, although generally welcome, did not wholly satisfy those on the Benches opposite him. I think, therefore, that we are not really all that far apart and that there is only one issue of substance between us. I will return to that issue in a moment, but, first, I think I ought to explain what

1517
Clause 70, as we propose it should be amended, seeks to do. This is an important and difficult point, and I shall answer it at length.
The first point to consider is why we need anything like Clause 70 at all. The answer is, as my right honourable and learned friend put it in another place,
"in the ordinary way, when one is dealing with Ministerial powers, one does not have the situation that the Attorney-General has the right to go to the Court in order to question whether the use by Ministers of their powers is a proper use or not".
We are not talking about the established case law, where a citizen has a grievance against a particular act of a Minister. Within a single unitary Government, there is no need to bring such matters before the courts. Ministers are collectively responsible for the discharge of their duties. The Cabinet can seek legal advice as to the nature and extent of these duties from the Attorney-General, who is the legal adviser to the Crown—he is Her Majesty's Attorney-General. Her Majesty appoints someone to give her legal advice in the conduct of her Government; and it would he highly anomalous if that adviser took action against his client. It is, to say the least, doubtful whether the courts would entertain such an action. The creation of a separate Executive in the Welsh Assembly affects this aspect of our Constitution. There will be two arms of the Crown, which may receive conflicting advice as to their duties or the extent of their powers. Moreover, by contrast with Scotland, the Executive in Wales lacks power to introduce legislation amending those powers and duties.
Clause 70 is designed to do the very minimum to take account of this new situation. It is not a clause about the rights and duties of the Assembly in relation to the individual citizen. It is designed to do no more than remove a constitutional difficulty in bringing before the courts issues as to the powers and obligations of the Assembly. The last words of what would become subsection (1) make this point clear:
"notwithstanding that each of them"—
that is, the Attorney-General and the Assembly—
"acts on behalf of the Crown".
In another place it was suggested that the original clause did not cover acts of omission—that is, failure to carry out a duty. This point is brought out again in Amendment No. 104A. The new paragraph (c) in subsection (2) ensures that the clause covers this aspect. In consequence of the express reference to duties, paragraphs (a) and (b) separate out and distinguish between two matters which were previously rolled up together. Paragraph (a) deals with the question as to where a particular power or duty lies. Is it a ministerial power or an Assembly power? In practice, these questions should arise very rarely because the fact that the Assembly is to have only executive competence has enabled the Bill to achieve a precision in this respect which is not possible in the case of the Scottish Executive. Paragraph (b) deals with vires issues: does the Assembly have power to do something which it has done or proposes to do? This issue is one which is already very familiar in our law. When a Minister acts as agent of the Crown, he must abide strictly by the terms of his authority. The Assembly will be in the same position. Subsection (2) will therefore now cover clearly every aspect of the questions which can arise as to the exercise of powers and performance of duties by the Assembly. In this respect, I think that the noble Baroness will agree that we have entirely met the point posed by her Amendment.
The second point raised by Amendment No. 104A is the right of the citizen to bring proceedings. As I have said, the whole object of this clause is to remove a constitutional difficulty. It is in no way relevant to the right of an aggrieved citizen to bring proceedings. As my right honourable and learned friend said in another place, the Government propose to use the powers conferred by Clause 78(2) to make the necessary amendments to the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 to ensure that the present law on Crown proceedings applies to the Assembly. My right honourable and learned friend was asked to produce a draft of the proposed Amendments. I regret that we are not in a position to do that; it is a major undertaking which will take time. However, I can assure your Lordships that the Amendments will not and could not change the essential nature of the citizen's rights against the Crown. They will merely

1519
adapt the 1947 Act in the wake of the Bill. I think that I have thus dealt with the second point in Amendment No. 104A.
The third point in Amendment No. 104A is enforcement. The Amendment would give the court a right to order the fulfilment of a duty. The Government Amendment contains no comparable provision. I freely admit that and I would defend most strongly the fact that it does not. This point may be the one point in issue between the noble Baroness and myself and I propose to direct the remainder of my remarks—unfortunately, quite long —to it. It is very important.
It is contrary to the whole basis of our Constitution for the court, which is one arm of the Crown, to order another arm of the Crown to perform a duty at the instance of a third. That is a fundamental principle of administrative law, and even if it were right to change it, which I should very much doubt, it would be wrong to do so in this Bill. Consider just the question of sanctions. What sanction could the court employ? I have heard no answer to this. As long as the law has been clarified, by way of a declaration, then the Crown knows what the relevant law says. That is as far as a court could or should go.
There is another aspect to this. What Government do, by and large, is to make provision, by directions and regulations, within the framework of primary legislation to govern the actions of others. This is the essence of the functions which are being transferred to the Assembly. If the Assembly were to act in breach of the law, as clarified by the courts, how could it expect others to comply with its orders? There are various legal maxims applicable to this situation, but I offer this political maxim instead: the Assembly cannot have its cake and eat it. The Assembly cannot invoke the authority of that law which it disregards.
The Government believe that the Assembly will be composed of reasonable people. We have covered that point several times in our debates. We reject the fears which have sometimes been expressed in our debates that the Assembly will be composed of wild men from the hills. But even if the Government are wrong in their belief, my argument would stand. An Assembly, an arm of the
1520
Crown, which sought to deny the rule of law would be denying itself. The consequences would be grave. But if we believe that we can provide a legislative solution, we are proceeding on a mistaken view of constitutional law.
All this is high constitutional theory—although no less valid for that. The noble Baroness may say that it is all very find in theory but that it ignores practical realities. I do not agree, and I could support my views by examples from throughout the common law system. Instead I will refer to the law of the European Communities, since that legal order was created with the benefit of the accumulated legal wisdom of most of Europe. Your Lordships carried into the Scotland Bill a provision designed to channel references to the European Court of Justice. In dealing with Governments, that court has no power to enforce its decisions. But I know of no case where the Government of a Member State has failed to implement a decision of the European Court.
What the Government's clause does is to enable the courts to give en authoritative ruling as to where a power or duty lies and as to its extent. Before the court rules, there may be room for argument. It is open to the Assembly to say: "Yes, we are happy to comply with the law, but we do not think the law obliges us to to this or that". But once the court has ruled, that argument is no longer available. The Assembly will not be able to deny that they are under a duty to do a particular act or not to do another act. For the reasons I have stated, I see no justification for trying to make a fundamental inroad into constitutional principle by providing for any failure to comply with the law as the court has declared it. The beginning and end of the matter is that the Assembly will be exercising functions on behalf of the Crown, and that every constitutional and legal principle requires us to accept that the Crown will act in accordance with the law once that is made clear. I therefore urge the Committee to accept this Amendment and I hope that the noble Baroness will join us and, if she does, that she will not move her subsequent Amendment. I am sorry to have spoken at such length, but this is a very difficult, very important point of law, which must be carefully dealt with. It is a good thing that, in spite of the length of my speech and the lateness of

1521
the hour, the record should contain exactly what is the Government's view. I beg to move.
Baroness ELLES: On behalf of my noble friends I should like to express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, for a very full and clear statement, not only supporting his Amendment—he has done something which I think is not exactly unconstitutional, but is certainly helpful, in that he almost moved my Amendment for me. I am sorry that he did not end with quite the same words of approval for my Amendment as he did for his own. Nevertheless, he indicated that there were certain areas—at any rate, one area—where we are not in disagreement at all; and from this side of the Committee I express our gratitude to the noble Lord and to the Government that one point at any rate has been met. That is the point contained in subsection (2)(c) concerning the failure by the Assembly to discharge its duty. That is now covered in this Amendment.
There are of course certain other matters which are not quite so clear or so satisfactory from our point of view, or indeed from the citizen's point of view. The points I should like to mention are, first, those which deal with who has the right to bring proceedings. Under this Amendment it still lies within the discretion and the power of the Attorney-General alone. I repeat, this is a purely and absolutely discretionary power to bring proceedings against any body or individual. This means that the Attorney-General has to decide whether it is in the public interest and to take into account other matters before he will act on behalf of either an individual or a body against the Crown.
The noble Lord rightly pointed out the situation that the Attorney-General, who is a member of Her Majesty's Government, will be bringing an action against a body which, as he has said—I am not quite sure of his actual words, but they were to the effect that it was acting in a similar way to a Minister of the Crown. Obviously, a Minister of the Crown is a member of the Cabinet and he shares responsibility with the Government of the day, whereas the Welsh Assembly may even be a completely different political Party from that of the Government,
1522
and undoubtedly that is where there will be some difficulty. There might well be an Attorney-General who would be willing to bring an action against the Welsh Assembly if it were of one political complexion different from that of the Attorney-General whereas he might be less willing to bring an action against the Welsh Assembly if it was of the same political complexion —and of course I am not saying which Parties migh be involved. Obviously such a serious consideration might arise, and if the Bill is left as it is, or if some other measure is not taken to amend some other Act—for instance the Crown Proceedings Act—this would be of grave harm to an individual citizen if there was only to be a political decision as to the protection of his rights from actions of the Welsh Assembly.
I was amused to hear once again the noble Lord putting into our mouths things that I would never have thought of saying, but I am delighted to think that he may think that we think that there may be the wild men from the hills of Wales who will be filling the Welsh Assembly. I would remind him, however, that even Ministers of the Crown have acted outside their powers. Within the last four years there have been at least three cases of that sort, and unless he is saying that his colleagues are also wild men of the hills I fail to see the need to make that kind of reference to the elected body of the Welsh Assembly.
Obviously, this is a matter which is not to do with the quality or the type of person in the Assembly, or, for that matter, an individual who is acting as a Minister of the Crown. There are many reasons why these things happen, but nevertheless they can and do happen. Such a thing may well happen with the Welsh Assembly, just as it has happened with a Minister of the Crown, and undoubtedly may well happen again for some reason or another. For this reason alone, I think that this Amendment is not satisfactory unless some other measure is taken. This was discussed in another place and the noble Lord referred to the fact that there will be an Amendment to the Crown Proceedings Act; but we on this side of the Committee have not really been assured as to the exact form that such an Amendment will take.
I should like to know whether, under such an Amendment, any person aggrieved

1523
will have an automatic right to bring an action against the Welsh Assembly for failure to fulfill a duty or where the Welsh Assembly has acted outside its powers, or where an individual has suffered some wrong by virtue of an act or a failure to act of the Welsh Assembly. This is a matter of vital concern and I think this concern is shared by all Members of your Lordships' House. Wherever there is any form of bureaucracy—I am not relating it only to the Welsh Assembly, but to any form of bureaucracy—the first thing you have to do is to see that, equivalent to the setting up of that bureaucratic machine, there is an equal right of redress by the individual against any act of that bureaucratic machine. In this Bill this is an element which is lacking at the moment. We would like a rather more concrete assurance from the Government setting out the exact terms in which these rights will be protected by an Amendment to the Crown Proceedings Act, as the noble Lord suggested. I understand that is the only way it can be done, and not in this Bill. It is certainly something to which I attach the greatest importance.
The noble Lord mentioned another point where we are not ad idem; that is, the remedies that an individual or a body can obtain under this Amendment. As he rightly says, if the Attorney-General brings proceedings he will only be able to bring proceedings for a declaration of the rights; he cannot demand the enforcement of the remedy. Under the Crown Proceedings Act, of course, the Crown can be sued, both in tort and in contract, and it would, therefore, be much more satisfactory, if such an Amendment is being made to enable a person to bring proceedings against the Crown, if the Government could state what remedies will be available to that individual, whether they can sue for damages or for specific performance, or whether they can claim an injunction.
These are the kind of things we should be told. It is quite useless to the individual citizen to be told (a) that the Attorney-General may bring a case or may not, and (b) even if he does, the citizens' wrongs may not be redressed—he may not get a remedy —because it will lie entirely in the hands of the Welsh Assembly in this case to redress those wrongs. Of course, it is not an analogy to point out that when the European Court makes a declaration, for
1524
instance on an interpretation of Article 177, Governments do implement what the court has stated. There is no parallel between the relationship of the European Court of Justice to a national government and the relationship of the courts of England and Wales to the Welsh Assembly; the relationship is not at all the same. First, a national government is, after all, a Member of the European Community. The Welsh Assembly is not a member of the Government, or of any judicial set-up in this country. Obviously the relationships are totally different. So I do not think the situation is analogous.
Obviously I have not gone into all the points the noble Lord raised. He gave a very long statement on these matters. I have not had time to study them. I should like to have a chance of looking at them more closely. I have tried to raise the points which I thought were essential in differentiating the position between us. Subject to any comment the noble Lord may like to make in reply to what I have said, at any rate I shall not move my Amendment.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I should like to reply in exactly the same vein. This is a very difficult matter and I do not think that one wants to deal with it in argument across the Committee. We shall each study what the other has said and communicate either by letter or possibly at the next stage.
[Amendment No. 104A not moved.]
Clause 70, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 71 [Confirmation by House of Commons of resolutions passed by it but not by House of Lords]:
On Question, Whether Clause 71 shall stand part of the Bill?
10.6.p.m.
Lord ELTON: This clause is headed:
"Confirmation by House of Commons of resolutions passed by it but not by the House of Lords".
This battle was fought in this place at another time. I think that reason carried the day and I trust that the Government

1525
will now, in consistency, accept that this clause should be removed from the Bill at this stage.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: Without confirming the fact that reason carried the day, I shall confirm the rest of what the noble Lord has said.
Lord ELTON: I am much obliged.
Clause 71 disagreed to.
Clause 72 [Reckoning of time for certain purposes]:
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 29, line 33, leave out ("35 or 71") and insert ("or 35").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 105. This Amendment is consequential upon the last.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: With the usual provisos, we accept it.
Clause 72, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 73 to 76 agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Powers of Assembly to make or confirm orders subject to special parliamentary procedure]:
[Amendment No. 105A not moved.]
Baroness ELLES Baroness ELLES moved Amendment No. 105B:
Page 71, leave out lines 35 to 44.
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 105B. This Amendment is consequential.
Baroness STEDMAN: This is accepted by the Government with the usual provisos.
Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 77 [Modification of enactments requiring the laying of reports before Parliament]:
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE moved Amendment No. 106: 1526
Page 31, line 5, leave out ("be laid instead before") and insert ("instead be sent to and published by").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 106. This is another of the drafting Amendments improving the English of the Bill which I proposed earlier. We discussed the matter in detail. In this case, the revised wording is applied in the clause which provides for the general conversion of references in existing legislation to the laying of reports before Parliament. I beg to move.
On Question, Whether Clause 77, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord SKELMERSDALE: If the last Amendment has been agreed to, which it has, is it still necessary to retain subsection (2) in the clause? Does it not in fact duplicate it?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: The noble Lord has asked me a question which I do not think I can answer because I cannot find my copy of the Bill. Would he be kind enough to repeat it?
Lord SKELMERSDALE: The last Amendment said,
"instead be sent to and published by".
As I read the clause, subsection (2) deals with publishing. Is this not already covered by this Amendment?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I think the answer is, No. The subject in subsection (2) is about a different case.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: I apologise to the noble Lord.
Clause 77, as amended, agreed to.
Lord STRABOLGI: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
House resumed.

  FALKLAND ISLANDS THE SHACKLETON RECOMMENDATIONS
  FALKLAND ISLANDS THE SHACKLETON RECOMMENDATIONS
  SPINAL INJURIES: SOUTH EAST THAMES RHA AREA
  SPINAL INJURIES: SOUTH EAST THAMES RHA AREA