Sitting of 22 January 1981

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

  LONDON TRANSPORT (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
  Order for Third reading read.
  To be read the Third time upon Tuesday 27 January.

  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered upon Thursday 29 January.

Oral Answers to Questions
  Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

    Marginal Land
    Mr. Hicksasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in his Department's survey of marginal land in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jerry Wiggin): As announced in the House on 4 December, a full survey on marginal land is to be carried out for the whole of the United Kingdom. It will be confined to the original hill counties and will take in land contiguous to the existing less favoured areas together with nearby island sites of substantial area.
    The survey is now under way and a case for less favoured areas extension in the whole of the United Kingdom could be ready for submission to the European Commission before the end of this year. I must stress, however, that the Government cannot give any undertaking at this stage, either that the less favoured areas will be extended, or if they are, that extra public funds will be made available.
    Mr. Hicks: I am grateful to the Minister for that information. Will he appreciate, however, that there is a real urgency for the survey to be undertaken as quickly as possible and for the scheme to be introduced at the earliest possible opportunity, because this section of the farming community is probably at a major disadvantage, compared with other sectors? It needs the help of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
    Mr. Wiggin: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. It is because of that urgency that the Government have proceeded. The previous Government were prepared to say that they would, but they devoted neither funds nor resources to that purpose, as we did.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: As it is the timing of the survey in England and Wales that is holding up consideration of marginal land in Northern Ireland, where the facts are already established, will the Government do their best to accelerate the completion of the United Kingdom operation?
    Mr. Wiggin: I am conscious of that problem, but it was felt that it would not be tactically wise to put the case for Northern Ireland on its own, particularly as negotiations are in progress for an agricultural development programme there. I understand the right hon. Gentleman's concern, which is similar to that of my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Peter Mills: Will the Minister bear it in mind that it is important to give further encouragement in this area, from the point of view of producers and consumers, and, above all, from a national point of view? I say that because we are losing 45,000 acres of land a year. We need to bring that marginal land into full production, and that means encouragement and aid.
    Mr. Wiggin: That is one of the factors which we took into consideration when setting out along this course. The initial problem is to establish the line and then negotiate the details with Brussels, because without that we would not qualify for the contribution from the Commission.
    Dr. John Cunningham: Is the Minister aware that many hill farmers in Cumbria, while welcoming this survey, will see little point in extending the less favoured area land acreage unless additional resources are made available? If additional resources are not made available, the result will be to spread resources more thinly, and in some cases less effectively.
    Mr. Wiggin: I do not wish to commit the Government, who will want to consider the matter when the survey is completed. It seems unlikely that the dilution about which the hon. Gentleman is concerned would be acceptable. Rather, the Government should be ready, within the availability of funds, to find the area and agree the matter with Brussels.
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Will the Minister note the problems of marginal land farmers in the North-West, who mainly farm beef and lamb? They lack the advantage of fell land or hill gracing and are currently excluded from much assistance. The problem of small dairy farmers is equally important. Because they have a small dairy herd which fulfils the local need, they are also excluded from the assistance of the EEC directives.
    Mr. Wiggin: The first categories that my hon. Friend mentions will obviously come into the survey, but the problem of the small dairy farmer on what is really marginal land, as both she and I know, is one of the definitions of the directive. That is one of the things on which we hope to convince Brussels that we have a good case, because those farmers need assistance, as do the beef and sheep farmers.

    Co-responsibility Levy
    Mr. Temple-Morrisasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when next he intends to meet the president of the National Farmers Union to discuss the co-responsibility levy.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Walker): I meet the president of the National Farmers Union frequently and the co-responsibility levy is amongst the topics discussed.
    Mr. Temple-Morris: Will my right hon. Friend further discuss with the president his efforts to secure fair treatment as between EEC partners? How can we get such treatment with a flat-rate contribution system which encourages the increased Continental output which remains at the root of this problem? How will my right hon. Friend negotiate on this?
    Mr. Walker: As in the past, we have rejected forms of co-responsibility levy which operate unfairly against British producers. Another important factor to be taken into consideration in this year's price review is the impact on milk production of a number of countries introducing substantial national aids. Those aids increase the production and the Community shares the cost of disposing of the surpluses.
    Mr. Allen McKay: When next the Minister meets the president of the NFU, will he discuss the legislation which refers to tenant farmers? I have in mind the farmer about whom I have written to the Minister—James Clegg, who, after 40 years of working on that land, has now been thrown off the farm by the land owner. Will the Minister discuss with the union any alterations in the legislation?
    Mr. Walker: Certainly land tenure is something discussed between myself and the leaders of the NFU. The hon. Gentleman knows, I think, that among the members of the union are a substantial number of the tenants involved. Talks are going on at present. The objective is a sensible system of landlord and tenure and one which may give young people opportunities to obtain tenancies of farms.
    Mr. Moate: Will my right hon, Friend confirm that he wants to see an increase in United Kingdom dairy production? If so, why have we been encouraging dairy farmers, even efficient ones, to leave the industry? How can we justify any co-responsibility levy in those circumstances?
    Mr. Walker: The incentive for dairy farmers is a Community incentive. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that, partly as a result of this Government's initiative, that incentive is being eradicated. For many months of last year, dairy production was up. The main way of improving dairy production in this country, in terms of what can be used, is an improvement in our manufactured products, both cheese and butter and others. There are encouraging signs that that is happening.
    Mr. Geraint Howells: Does not the Minister agree that the co-responsibility system should be abolished in countries such as Britain which produce less than their own milk requirements?
    Mr. Walker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the levy was originally a means of financing the promotion of increasing consumption throughout the Community, which was of benefit to us as well. However, if the levy is to be used as a system of buoying up the income of the CAP irrespective of the impact of the levy itself, or if it is going to be used in a discriminatory way against Britain, I will obviously oppose it.

    Fish Conservation
    Mr. Peter Millsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the position regarding conservation of fish stocks in international waters.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): International waters, comprising those outside the fishery limits of coastal States, account for only a small proportion of catches of most species of fish.
    We are responsible for enforcing conservation measures within our own fishery limits, and we welcome the Commission proposal to set up an independent inspectorate to ensure that all member States enforce these measures in their waters.
    Mr. Mills: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he not agree that we can never relax in this area? Will he also look again at what is happening in the South-West, particularly with mackerel stocks, where there is evidence of much smaller fish and smaller catches? Will he please see what he can do to curb still further the fishing in that area, since otherwise stocks will be gone? Finally, will he also reconsider the problem of the fishing of bass around Eddystone rock, where it is being raped still?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We can never relax our efforts for proper fish conservation. The decimation of particular stocks, most of all of the herring, is an object lesson to us all. As for mackerel, we have had licensing now for about four years. Those restrictions are based on scientific evidence and we also specified for a considerable period of last year a large area in the South-West where no fishing for mackerel would take place at all. I assure him that I will watch this matter closely. As for bass, my hon. Friend will be glad to know that we are proposing an increase in the size of bass that can be caught from 26 cm to 38 cm. Those proposals will be discussed with the industry in a week or two.
    Mr. Donald Stewart: How can the Minister be so complacent when he recalls the illegal French fishing which was allowed to carry on with impunity, when he recalls that he gave mackerel fishing the go-ahead in the North-West of Scotland, which will mean that that stock will go the way of the herring, and when he is making an agreement with our alleged partners, who had so little regard for conservation that they cleaned up all their own stocks?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I was not complacent. I said that we can never relax in this matter of conservation. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at the facts. He says that other countries are not enforcing the regulations. I therefore hope that I have his support in the negotiations in Europe, where there are proposals that other countries will be supervised by the Commission, for the first time in the history of the waters of Northern Europe, thus achieving proper objective supervision of conservation measures. I look forward, as those negotiations progress, to having the right hon. Gentleman's support in all those matters.
    Mr. Onslow: Will my hon. Friend undertake that the Government will use all their good offices to try to break the deadlock between the Canadian Government and the American Government, which is making it impossible to

    409
    secure agreement on an international convention for salmon—an agreement which is essential for the conservation of salmon stocks in the North Atlantic?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Yes, I give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance on that. The proposed convention is very important, if not even vital, for the preservation and conservation of salmon stocks. We shall do everything we can in relation to that convention.
    Mr. James Johnson: Since the Minister accepts that there are too many vessels catching too few fish and since he is in favour of a licensing system, what chance does he think he has of persuading our sister States in the EEC to adopt a licensing system—particularly France and Denmark?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Licensing is simply one tool for fishery conservation. The important thing is first of all to agree total allowable catches and then to agree the proper division between the different countries concerned. We have obtained agreement in Europe on the total allowable catch. Now, we must achieve the proper division of that, as well as the important measure that I mentioned for proper objective policing.

    Poultry Industry
    Mr. Nicholas Wintertonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has had from the poultry industry about unfair competition from producers in other European Economic Community States.
    Mr. Peter Walker: Representations have been received from a number of organisations and firms in the industry.
    Mr. Winterton: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that brief reply. What action has the EEC Commission taken over the Danish Government's intention to pay the charges relating to the EEC regulation on poultrymeat hygiene? I know the importance that my right hon. Friends place on the poultrymeat industry. Do the British Government intend to give the British industry the same sort of assistance?
    Mr. Walker: As my hon. Friend knows, the last time that he asked a similar question, we had demanded an inquiry by the Commission, which had taken place. It said that, as a result, there was unfair competition and a dissimilarity of practice throughout the Community and that it would be tabling measures—I trusted that they would appear at the January Council meeting—to meet that point. Obviously, I do not know at present, because of the sad death, which both sides of the House will regret, of Mr. Gundelach, whether there will be any delay in bringing forward those proposals, but this is a matter of urgency for our poultry industry, which is operating under a disadvantage. I hope that action will be taken during this month.
    Miss Maynard: Does the Minister accept that part of the unfair competition in our poultry industry is subsidisation of feeding stuffs in other countries? Does he appreciate that the importing of poultry meat is destroying jobs in rural areas of this country where there are already too few jobs, and that, although dairy farmers are compensated when they go out of business, dairy workers and poultry workers are not compensated?
    Mr. Walker: As the hon. Lady will know, our poultry industry has enjoyed a very good record of exports, and is probably one of the best and most efficient in the world. When there was unfair competition from the United States due to its not complying with our health regulations, we stopped those imports. We have now ascertained that there is similar competition in Europe. The Commission has promised to act speedily. If it acts speedily, in January, I believe that our poultry industry will, perfectly fairly and reasonably, compete and succeed.
    Mrs. Fenner: Will my right hon. Friend confirm or deny newspaper reports which allege that eggs are exported from this country to Europe and then reimported? If that were so, would not he consider it a patent absurdity from which the British housewife had a right to be protected?
    Mr. Walker: Yes, but it is difficult to trace the identity, original location and final destination of an egg. I can only say that I have substantially increased the amount of inspection at the ports. If anyone can provide any evidence of such practices, we shall take immediate action.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is it not the case that, before we went into the Common Market, we could, and did, do anything that we wanted to do to deal with matters such as this, but that now we cannot do as we want to do because we have to ask someone in Brussels? Did not the Euro-fanatics on both sides of the House promise that we would lose no sovereignty at all? Can we not now be honest and admit that we sold the people down the river and that the sooner we get out, the better?
    Mr. Walker: While respecting the hon. Gentleman's knowledge of the river, I personally believe that one thing that we should lose on a substantial scale if we pursued the policies he has suggested would be a great number of jobs, which would increase unemployment substantially.

    Fish Marketing
    Sir Walter Cleggasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he proposes to take to help improve the marketing of fish.
    Mr. Peter Walker: The Fisheries Bill at present before Parliament provides for a new statutory authority for the sea fish industry whose powers will include that of promoting the marketing and consumption of fish in the United Kingdom. In addition, I announced on 12 January that I have asked two of the five marketing advisers whom I appointed some 12 months ago to make an examination of this sector to try to give advice as to how to increase and improve the marketing of fish in this country.
    Sir Walter Clegg: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, but does he realise that one of the marketing factors that has been most deleterious to the industry in the past 12 months has been the low price of fish on the quayside? While I welcome his efforts to increase the minimum price through Europe, will he continue to press those measures upon our colleagues in Europe?
    Mr. Walker: I certainly will. I agree with my hon. Friend that the price as compared with the costs during the past year has put considerable pressure on our fishermen. I think that my hon. Friend knows that that is the reason why the Government decided to provide substantial aid to

    411
    the fishing industry during the course of last year. But certainly, we want to see an improvement of the marketing and to collaborate in Europe to get the price at a sensible level.
    Mr. Strang: I welcome any improvement in the marketing of fish, but does the Minister accept that the state of the industry is now so desperate that if action is not taken to provide further temporary financial aid or to control cheap imports, there will be scarcely any catching industry left to provide any fish to market? Will he give an assurance that, if there is no agreement in the negotiations next week for a common fisheries policy, the Government will bring forward further measures to help the industry?
    Mr. Walker: Having seen that, in the course of last year, the Government provided more aid and assistance to the industry than for several years past, including the latter years of the previous Government, I think that the industry knows that the present Government are determined to sustain a viable and sensible fishing industry in this country.
    Mr. Shersby: Will my right hon. Friend say what discussions he has had with the frozen food industry about its need to import substantial quantities of manufacturing cod, which simply cannot be caught in British territorial waters? Will he consider the possibility of reducing reference levels to below the world price so that this fish can be bought in without threatening our own fishermen and can satisfy the enormous consumer demand for fish fingers?
    Mr. Walker: What is important here is that our own fishing industry and our processors work in collaboration. There is no reason why they should not do that. Certainly, we have endeavoured to obtain a better understanding between the two sides of the industry so that we can pursue policies that are beneficial to both. Obviously, it is important for our fishermen that we sustain an important and viable processing industry in this country.
    Mr. Myles: Would the Minister care to tell the House when the two marketeers are likely to report to him? Given the urgency of this matter, I hope that it will be soon.
    Mr. Walker: Clearly, they will have to decide the timetable in the sense that they will have to decide whom they will consult. They will, of course, be consulting retailers, wholesalers and the fishing industry itself. However, one advantage of our system is that the marketing advisers do not wait to make their final report. Any ideas or suggestions that they think are sensible they make known to us immediately and we act upon them immediately.

    Tenanted Agricultural Holdings
    Mr. Iain Millsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the criteria used in the arbitration of rentals for tenanted agricultural holdings.
    Mr. Wiggin: The scarcity of farms to let as a result of legislation is undoubtedly making the task of arbitrators difficult, but I am satisfied that arbitrators are managing to cope with the problem.
    I understand that this subject is being discussed by the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association during the current round of talks.
    Mr. Mills: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, and my right hon. Friend for his comments on this matter earlier. Does my hon. Friend agree that although talks are going on between those organisations concerning long-term improvements in the situation, the agricultural valuers profession and representatives of the tenant farmers have shown that there is real urgency and need for a solution to the problem? Does he not agree that a more appropriate criterion for these matters could result, and will he press for that?
    Mr. Wiggin: I fully acknowledge that there are a number of matters wrong in the operation of the landlord and tenant legislation. This happens to be one, and it is becoming more severe. But throughout the passage of the 1976 Act, we warned that this would be an effect of legislation which takes off the market farms to let. Without that market in farms to let, the arbitrators cannot fix proper rents.
    Mr. John Home Robertson: Is the Minister aware that the main criterion for fixing farm rents, namely, the capital value of land, is causing great concern nowadays because it is making life very difficult for new entrants to the industry? Is he further aware that in parts of England there is collusion among land agents to force up the level of farm rents, and what does he intend to do about it?
    Mr. Wiggin: In all my time in farming, the price of land has always been too great to justify borrowing all the money to farm. That is why the tenanted sector represents such a very important part of the agriculture industry. That is why we so much regret the decline in farms to let. On the question of collusion, I do not have any evidence on that. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to let me know about it, perhaps he will. But the fact is that all valuers, of course, get together to discuss these things. Indeed, the very process requires information to be passed between professional people of that kind.
    Mr. Heddle: Does my hon. Friend agree with the editorial in this week's Farmers Weekly that rents should be geared to farms' profitability rather than to land values. Does he further agree that one way round the landlord and tenant impasse might be to develop the system that obtains in France, perhaps with the introduction of an agricultural shorthold in which fixed term tenancies, willingly entered into between landlord and tenant, might provide a satisfactory solution?
    Mr. Wiggin: I have no doubt that the various points put by my hon. Friend will be among the subjects considered by the NFU and the CLA. Historically, the rent was fixed by the demand for the farm. The legislation that we have been operating for the last 30 years took some recognition of that fact. There are now no farms to let and therefore no market. This is the problem that produced the original question.

    Fishing Industry
    Mr. Spenceasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the future of the United Kingdom fishing industry.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: We are determined to secure a settlement of a common fisheries policy which meets the essential needs of the fishing industry in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Spence: Whatever may be agreed between the various parties concerning the future of the British fishing industry, can the Minister assure the House that he will use his best endeavours to ensure that our fisheries patrol capability is adequate and effective?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Yes. I assure my hon. Friend on that point. Reverting to the earlier question on conservation, we have to make sure that the protection effort is available to carry out the work effectively. I remind my hon. Friend and the House that it is the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government to carry out the policing of our fisheries limits up to 200 miles or the median line.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the odds are that there will be no agreement in the fishing talks in Brussels next week? With the hon. Gentleman having given up five-sevenths of the annual catch of £520 million in British waters, the French might as well try for the jackpot. With no agreement, Grimsby vessels that would ordinarily be fishing in Norwegian waters at this time of the year cannot go there. Will the hon. Gentleman next week either take steps to dissociate the internal and external agreements so that Grimsby vessels and vessels from other ports can resume fishing in Norwegian waters or, if that is not possible, make a direct approach to Norway to discuss a roll-over for British vessels given that the Norwegian reciprocal catch is in our waters?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman, as usual, displays his desire to have no settlement. What he says underlines the need for a settlement and also underlines the point that only a settlement that is agreed internationally can be properly effective and conserve fish stocks. The Norwegian Government have not been prepared to come to an agreement with other countries because of the absence of a properly negotiated international agreement. Like the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart), I look forward to the support of the hon. Gentleman instead of the sniping.
    Mr. McQuarrie: Apart from the pessimism of the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), I am sure that both sides of the House will give full support to my hon. Friend and to his right hon. Friend in their efforts to complete a common fisheries policy next week. We hope that they will come to the House with that policy successfully concluded. Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that British Ministers, before going to Brussels next week, will have the usual talks with the fishing industry to discuss strategy.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I look forward to the day when I enjoy the full support of the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) in relation to fishing matters. We shall be having consultations with the fishing industry before the next meeting of the Council. Representatives of the fishing industry, will as usual be attending meetings of the Council
    Mr. Mason: Is not the Minister aware that proposals that have come so far from the Commission on a common fisheries policy have not been accepted by the industry or by this House? As we are near the crunch of either success or a sell-out, will the hon. Gentleman explain to the House before next Tuesday's meeting, and preferably now, what are the minimum demands that he will make on behalf of
    414
    United Kingdom fishermen at next week's Fisheries Council? Is it not time that we had laid down the minimum demands of the Government?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am sorry to have to remind the right hon. Gentleman again that the kind of proposals and the kind of deal available at the last Fisheries Council in December, as my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for Scotland announced to the House, had the broad support of the representatives of the fishing industry of the United Kingdom. I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman cannot go on cavilling in the way he is simply because he appears not to want a settlement at all.
    Mr. Mason: Is not the Minister aware that in "Fishing News", representing the whole of the fishing industry, this month, there are complaints about the Government's posturing in the House of Commons. It states:
    "We fail to see how the Government can expect the industry to give continued support to the deal outlined in Brussels. There is a chill wind of feat blowing through the ports."
    Ministers themselves and the Government are still not aware of the fears and anxieties of the ports and the fishermen.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman may prefer to rest for his advice on a journal which, I may say, is published weekly and not monthly. I prefer to rely on the advice of the industry and those who are actively practising fishing. Those are the people on whose advice I will rest.

    Cereals (Intervention System)
    Mr. Bowen Wellsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the workings of the intervention system for cereals in the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Intervention has played an important part in supporting returns to United Kingdom producers since the record harvest last year. We shall take full account of recent experience in this country and the rest of the Community when arrangements for 1981–82 come under discussion in the forthcoming common agricultural policy price review.
    Mr. Wells: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, will he say more about the disposal of surplus cereal and whether consideration has been given to disposing of surplus cereal in a manner that would benefit starving Third world countries, or, indeed, our own old-age pensioners and some of our unemployed?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The United Kingdom and the Community as a whole contribute to the food aid programme. Part of the surplus of cereals is used for that purpose. Our main surpluses in the United Kingdom are coarse grain and feed grain that are not necessarily appropriate for that purpose. I assure my hon. Friend that, through the food aid programme, we make sure that surpluses are used in a sensible and proper manner.
    Mr. Jay: Is it true that over 600,000 tonnes of grain are now held in stock by the United Kingdom intervention board?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: At the current moment, about 617,000 tonnes, to be precise, are held. I would say to the right hon. Gentleman, who always loves to exaggerate these matters, that the figure represents 3½ per cent. of the

    415
    total United Kingdom harvest. In simple terms of prudence in storing against a rainy day, I believe that it is a wholly sensible precaution.
    Mr. Geraint Howells: If the common agricultural policy is to be reformed within the next two or three years, should not the top priority be to get rid of the intervention system now operating in Europe?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: No. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. If we are to operate a sensible system which can ensure security of supplies to the consumer not only in the United Kingdom but throughout the rest of Europe for certain commodities, particularly those which can be stored, such as cereals, it may be appropriate to have an intervention system such as this, where a commodity can be stored from a period of plenty over to a period of scarcity. That makes sense. We should not be dogmatic in saying that one system of support or another is necessarily the best. We need to look at the system of support in relation to how appropriate it is to the commodity.

    Lime
    Mr. Mylesasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the present pH levels in soils in the United Kingdom especially in the hill and upland areas.
    Mr. Wiggin: No, Sir. There is a long-term decline in the use of lime, particularly in hill and upland areas.
    Mr. Myles: Does not my hon. Friend agree that, in view of the fall in incomes, especially in grass land farming shown in the annual review White Paper yesterday, it would be in the long-term interests of the country for the Government to encourage the reintroduction of a lime subsidy or some encouragement for the increased use of lime?
    Mr. Wiggin: My hon. Friend is right. It is a valuable prelude to proper fertiliser application, but we have to decide how to ration our scarce resources. It is not felt appropriate at the moment to reintroduce a lime subsidy as such, although some grant is available for the application of lime other than for normal husbandry operations.
    Mr. John Home Robertson: Is the Minister aware that the collapse in the usage of lime in many parts of the United Kingdom and in particular in upland areas could cause long-term harm to the soil? Will he take urgent action to reintroduce a lime subsidy to make it possible for the hard-up farmers in those areas to start applying lime at proper levels again?
    Mr. Wiggin: I do not wish to ascribe this to any national characteristic, but experience in Scotland suggests that the use of lime there may have declined to a greater extent than elsewhere. As I have just said, it is a matter that the Government keep under review.
    Mr. Peter Fraser: Before my hon. Friend finally sets his face against the re-introduction of a lime subsidy, will he read a well-written pamphlet put together three years ago by my hon. Friends the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) and the Minister of State, in which they persuasively and cogently argued for the reintroduction of a lime subsidy?
    Mr. Wiggin: My hon. Friend is misreading what I have said if he believes that I have set my face against the reintroduction of a subsidy. It is simply a question of resources. It is one of a number of matters that the Government would like to deal with in the way that he suggests.

    Apple and Pear Development Council
    Mr. Bob Dunnasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, if he is satisfied with the working of the Apple and Pear Development Council.
    Mr. Peter Walker: Yes, Sir. Since we reorganised the Apple and Pear Development Council last year under a new chairman, it has made a splendid start in improving the marketing of home-grown fruit and in helping to restore the confidence of our top fruit industry.
    Mr. Dunn: Will my right hon. Friend undertake to liaise with and act as a catalyst to the Apple and Pear Development Council to secure more aggressive marketing of the English Cox and Bramley apples.
    Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. As my hon. Friend knows, with his interest in the subject, this past year the council launched the Kingdom pack for Cox apples and next year will go ahead with the Brantley apple. I am glad to say that, for example, during the peak of the season imports from a major exporter such as France were down about 40 per cent. on last year.
    Mr. Freud: Will the Minister investigate the hardship occasioned to individual apple growers while there is a subsidy for co-operatives? Does he recognise that there is a great incentive due to his policies to grow inferior apples and pears at this moment? Would he like to tell the House how much Government money is spent on food produced for dumping?
    Mr. Walker: We have given positive encouragement to building better co-operatives. An important factor about the Kingdom brand is that quality control will be carefully monitored. The customer will be guaranteed a very good quality apple when he purchases that brand in the pack. We are moving towards better packaging and better quality control. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that that is much overdue.
    Mr. Crouch: Does the Secretary of State believe that the Apple and Pear Development Council is properly titled, when twice this afternoon it has been referred to as a marketing organisation, and my right hon. Friend even used the phrase himself? Would it not be better titled either as a marketing council or a promotion council?
    Mr. Walker: I am not over-keen on the title. I am, however, keen on the results, and the results this year have been very good.
    Mr. Newens: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that our apple and pear growers are being subjected to unfair competition within the Community even at this time, and, as a result, many good qualities of apples and pears could be driven out of existence by inferior brands from Europe?
    Mr. Walker: That is why I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will applaud the fact that we provided the launching aid to the British apple industry this year of improving its marketing, packaging and delivery, which

    417
    has achieved a good result in a short period. Having learnt from its mistakes and experience in the past year, next year it will make an even bigger impact.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: While I recognise the major contribution made by my right hon. Friend to marketing, not least through such organisations as the Apple and Pear Development Council, is he aware that the income of horticultural producers and farmers in this country has dropped by some 33⅓per cent. in the past 10 years? What steps is he taking to ensure that those industries earn a proper income on their investment?
    Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. I regret that due to the substantial increase in input costs in real terms there was a further substantial drop in farm incomes last year. That is why I find it surprising that the Labour Party is constantly advocating that that income should fall still further.

    Gaffkaemia
    Mr. John Townendasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food further to his answer of 13 November 1980, Official Report, c. 407, to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), if any further action is proposed in regard to gaffkaemia.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The need for further action is being considered as part of a review of fish disease policies.
    Mr. Townend: My hon. Friend is aware of the anxiety that the disease is causing to the fishermen of Bridlington, but is he aware that the Ministry has informed the fish producers organisation there that it does not have the power to ban the importation of live lobsters on health grounds? Will he therefore take the opportunity presented by the Fisheries Bill to introduce an amendment to take powers to ban the importation of live fish where it cannot be proved that it is not diseased?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My hon. Friend is correct that we do not have those powers. We are reviewing the matter. However, we have certain other powers, and I should be delighted to explain them to him. If necessary, we are ready to use them.

    Prime Minister (Engagements)
    Mr. Meacherasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 22 January.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.
    Mr. Meacher: Is the Prime Minister satisfied when in their first six months her Government gave away according to the Treasury £650 million to the richest 1 per cent. of the population and then in the past 13 months, according to the latest unemployment indicators, have forced more than 1 million of the poorer members of society on to the dole? Is it not a symbol of Tory rule that this Government have engineered the biggest increase in means-tested poverty in 12 months in this country since 1932?
    The Prime Minister: I fully endorse the policies of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the
    418
    Exchequer in reducing rates of income tax right up the income scale. He did that in 1979. It was necessary to get more incentives into the economy. It was apparent that people were fed up with being taxed more and more on the earnings in their pocket. With regard to the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, it sits strangely alongside the figures that for the vast majority of people in this country—namely, the 90 per cent. who are working—the increase in their income last year in real terms was 4 per cent.
    Sir Paul Bryan: Will the Prime Minister find time during this Question Time to ask the Leader of the Opposition why it is that as Saturday approaches his statements regarding his attitude towards nuclear disarmament get more and more confused and confusing?
    The Prime Minister: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but the task of the Leader of the Opposition is not to answer questions, and I hope that it never will be.
    Mr. Foot: Perhaps we could get the right hon. Lady to answer this one. On Tuesday she said that a question about the possible sale of Times Newspapers Limited—The Times and The Sunday Times—to Mr. Rupert Murdoch was premature. I understand that there is to be a statement this afternoon on the matter. Has she now had time to reconsider? Will she immediately and properly refer the matter to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?
    The Prime Minister: I shall give the right hon. Gentleman a direct answer, as I did on Tuesday. No application for transfer has yet been received, and I will not be driven into a premature reply.
    Mr. Foot: If the right hon. Lady is so diffident about making a reply, will she give an undertaking that before a final decision is made the House will have a chance to give its view?
    The Prime Minister: The only undertaking that I can give to the right hon. Gentleman is that, if and when an application is received, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will consider it in accordance with the law, which is the 1973 Act.
    Sir William Clark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the nationalised industries over the past 12 months had kept prices down, as the private sector has, we should probably now be enjoying inflation rates in single figures? Does not that give strength to the argument that this country does not need more nationalisation, but less?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is absolutely vital that the nationalised industries become as expert at cutting costs and increasing efficiency as the private sector is and has to be.
    Mr. Beithasked the Prime Minister whether she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave a few moments ago.
    Mr. Beith: Does the Prime Minister realise that this afternoon the leaders of Northumberland county council are meeting to consider specific proposals to close the centre for training the mentally handicapped in Berwick, to close centres for physically handicapped, to scrap meals on wheels and to end school meals in primary schools? Are those the sort of things that she wants local authorities to do in order to achieve the cuts which she is asking for?
    The Prime Minister: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman looks not merely at what they are cutting but at what they are preferring to keep in existence. He should look carefully at the things which they are preferring to do and compare them with the things that they are preferring to close.
    Mr. Hordern: Has my right hon. Friend noticed the number of pay settlements in the private sector which have been reported to the CBI which are now in single figures? In view of that will she now announce a review of the method of determining pay in the public sector, bearing in mind the substantial advantages of security of employment, pensions and not least Professor Clegg?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is quite correct. Many pay settlements in the private sector are not only in single figures but well down into single figures, which augurs well for realism in the future. As to the determination of pay in the public sector, it is of course, subject to cash limits. Those cash limits are being fixed in accordance with what the Government feel the taxpayer and ratepayer can afford. I think that is the right way to do it.
    Mr. Skinner: How does the Prime Minister regard the recent bailing out of Massey Ferguson and others by the Bank of England and the other clearing banks over the past few weeks? Is she aware that it has taken the Government two years less than the previous Tory Government headed by the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) to set a lifeboat into operation? How does she explain to the thousands of ever smaller firms, which are being kicked to death by the Tory Government, that they must stand the test of market forces while these multinationals and others are rescued by her policy and the Bank of England?
    The Prime Minister: I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have been critical had the private enterprise banks
    Mr. Christopher Price: And the Bank of England.
    The Prime Minister: —the clearing banks and many other banks not got together to do what they could for companies which find themselves in difficulty.
    Mr. Rathbone: Will the Prime Minister remind the House that whatever the Leader of the Opposition does in harping about the future for The Times, it is Conservative Members who are most concerned about the freedom of the press, and that Conservative concern should be compared with the Labour Party policy for the press in "The People and The Media' which is part of the Opposition's specific adopted policy?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The policy in the Labour Party document "The People and The Media" would have been a policy for censorship of the press.
    Mr. Newensasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave some time ago.
    Mr. Newens: Before the Prime Minister visits Harlow tomorrow, will she study the disastrous results of her policies on the town? Is she aware of the damage that has been done to efficient industry not to mention the creation of unemployment, by the delay of her Ministers with
    420
    regard to the settlement of a £10 million section 10 claim for housing maintenance costs, the loss of £2 million in housing subsidy, the addition of £1¼ million to the town's costs as a result of the rate support grant settlement and attempts to sell small business properties over the heads of the small businessmen? Is she aware that half the Conservative group have left the Conservative party?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There are enough questions there to get on with.
    Mr. Newens rose—
    Hon. Members: Order.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has asked three questions already.
    The Prime Minister: If my correspondence is anything to go by, the main complaint of small businessmen is the intolerable burden that has been put upon them by increased nationalised industry prices and the increased rates that are being charged. I am going to Harlow. I hope to visit a successful company. I am also going to a place in which under a Tory Government the people have the right to purchase their council or new town houses, which they never had under a Labour Government.
    Mr. Temple-Morris: Will my right hon. Friend take a further opportunity today to remind the British press that rather than concentrating on the not inconsiderable constitutional problems of the Labour Party, it would be much better employed in underlining the Socialist statements which emanate from the Opposition Front Bench, not least the recent pronouncement by the Shadow Leader of the House calling for the use of pension and insurance funds, oil revenues and increased taxation in an orgy of State interference and nationalisation which this country can well do without?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. Socialism is synonymous with total control by the Government and lack of liberty by the subject.
    Mr. Norman Atkinson: A few answers ago, the Prime Minister said that wage settlements which have been notified to the CBI have been in single figures. She went on to say that as a result of the settlements to which she referred, workers have accepted a 10 per cent. drop in their living standards. She added that this augured well for the future. What on earth did she mean?
    The Prime Minister: I can tell the hon. Gentleman precisely what I meant. Until we get to a position where wages bear some relation to output, we shall not get competitive industry, secure job prospects or prosperity. I am only disappointed that I must explain that to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Hal Millerasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave some time ago.
    Mr. Miller: In the context of the previous question, will my right hon. Friend take time during her busy day to confirm that it is only by competitive and productive industry that employment and wages can be increased? In that context, will she point to the success of the BL Metro project, which has resulted in 1,000 additional workers being taken on since Christmas and bonus earnings at the rate of more than £12 a week?
    The Prime Minister: I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. One must be competitive in order to improve one's standard of living in this world. It is astonishing just how much difficulty one has in getting that message across to certain quarters of this House. That is the only recipe for the future. I am delighted to hear what my hon. Friend has said about the Metro. We wish it every success. Perhaps I can take the opportunity to say that I believe that there will be a statement about British Leyland early next week.
    Mr. Foot: Can the right hon. Lady help us on a matter for which she is directly responsible, namely, the announcement that is to be made next Tuesday on the fresh unemployment figures, which the Secretary of State for Employment has already said are likely to be appalling? That means that on Tuesday we shall be faced with appalling and unprecedented unemployment figures. We have seen recent announcements in Liverpool and elsewhere of fresh additions to that terrible total. Will the right hon. Lady give us the assurance for which we have asked on many occasions, namely, that the statement on this all-important matter will be made in the House on Tuesday, and that the Government will provide an immediate opportunity to debate the issue, for which they are primarily responsible?
    The Prime Minister: The answer is "No". The statement about unemployment figures will be made in the way that it has been made year in and year out. As the right hon. Gentleman will have already observed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is top for questions that day.
    Mr. Foot: Does not the right hon. Lady yet understand that we are faced month by month with the worst unemployment figures that we have had since the end of the war? If Conservative Members do not understand that, it shows how little they understand what is happening in the country. When will the right hon. Lady take responsibility for the affliction that she has brought upon Britain?
    The Prime Minister: While the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State for Unemployment—Employment—[Interruption.]—while he was Secretary of State for Employment, unemployment rose by more than 100 per cent. At no time did he take the course that he is now advocating.
    Mr. Foot: Before the right hon. Lady has the presumption to come to the House again and merely recite the Conservative central office handbook, will she look up the figures? Will she understand that when we were in office we fought against those figures, turned them, and were bringing them down? If she could say that she had brought down the unemployment figures by the same
    422
    amount that we brought them down during our last 18 months in office, she would claim that it was the biggest miracle since the loaves and the fishes. Does she not understand that she is responsible for what is happening, and that it is high time that she came to the House and faced it?
    The Prime Minister: I shall certainly accept the right hon. Gentleman's invitation to look at the figures. I took the precaution of bringing them with me. When he took over as Secretary of State for Employment the figures for unemployment—[HON. MEMBERS: "Now."] But the right hon. Gentleman invited me to look at the figures—[Interruption.] He invited me to look at the figures and I took the precaution of having them with me. When he took over as Secretary of State for Employment, the unemployment figure was 618,413. By July 1976, it was 1½ million. By August 1977, it was 1,635,000. The following August they were the same. The following August they had fallen to 1½ million—[HON. MEMBERS: "Now."] They have indeed risen, but during the right hon. Gentleman's time unemployment rose by more than 100 per cent. That was distressing. I share the right hon. Gentleman's distress, but I do not understand his synthetic anger about procedural matters.
    Mr. Foot: We in the country are wondering when the right hon. Lady will show any signs of distress for what she has achieved. Will she now tell us, as she has all the figures with her, the figures for the increase in unemployment since she took office?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is aware that we took over with—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Leader of the Opposition was allowed to ask his question, and the Prime Minister must be allowed to answer.
    The Prime Minister: Of course I shall reply. I happen to have the figures with me. When we took over, the unemployment position was at a base figure of 1,340,595—almost twice as much as the base figure when the right hon. Gentleman took office. We began with 1·4 million. The December figure was 2,133,000. While the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State for Employment he witnessed an increase in unemployment of more than 100 per cent. We shared his distress at that. I hope that he will share ours. He is asking a procedural point. The unemployment figures will be announced in the way that they have been announced for a very long time. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is answering questions that afternoon for something like three-quarters of an hour, which seems to be ample time to answer questions put to him by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Business of the House
Mr. Michael Foot: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Paymaster General and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Francis Pym): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 26 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Forestry Bill.
Motions relating to the Increase of Rent Restriction (Scotland) Orders.
TUESDAY 27 JANUARY—Second Reading of the British Nationality Bill.
Motion on the Imprisonment (Temporary Provisions) Act 1980 (Continuance) Order.
WEDNESDAY 28 JANUARY—Supply [6th Allotted Day]:
Debate on Opposition motion on increasing povery resulting from Government policies.
Motions on the Judgments Enforcement (Northern Ireland) Orders.
THURSDAY 29 JANUARY—Supply [7th Allotted Day]:
Motion to take note of 8th and 9th reports and 11th to 35th reports from the Committee of Public Accounts in Session 1979–80, and related Treasury Minute.
FRIDAY 30 JANUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 2 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Education Bill and of the Insurance Companies Bill
Mr. Foot: May I put four questions to the right hon. Gentleman, two arising from exchanges a few minutes ago, and two others? First, I shall refer to the two other questions. May I urge upon the right hon. Gentleman afresh that the British Nationality Bill should be taken on the Floor of the House? Is he aware that we cannot accept the doctrine that a Bill that can affect the nationality of people who may have a claim to British citizenship should not be regarded as a constitutional Bill? The Government will get into even greater difficulties if they try to deal with it elsewhere. We prefer—and it is by far the best way—that it should be dealt with on the Floor of the House. An alternative is that it could go to some other investigatory process, but the Floor of the House is the proper place. May I urge the right hon. Gentleman once again to take that into account?
I turn to the question of the seamen's strike. Will the Government make arrangements for a statement on that matter? Do they intend simply to allow it to drift on without any attempt to deal with it, especially as the National Union of Seamen is prepared to go to arbitration? I hope that the Government will begin to accept some responsibility and that whatever else the right hon. Gentleman says he will make an announcement about an early statement.
I turn to two matters that arose earlier in Prime Minister's Question Time. First, I wish to raise the question of the possible sale of The Times and The Sunday Times. That matter should be debated in the House. In the light of a possible announcement at 5 o'clock today, it has become a matter of extreme urgency. Because of the way in which the management has dealt with the matter, those important newspapers—important to the freedom of the press in Britain—could be closed in March. I should be surprised if any hon. Member in any quarter of the House did not regard it as a matter of some significance. Will the
424
right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that he will rearrange the business so that we can debate the matter on Monday?
I turn now to the question of the unemployment figures. There is a great difference between 1·3 million unemployed and 2·3 million unemployed. That is a difference of 1 million, and it is the direct responsibility of the Government during the time that they have been in office. We renew our demand that the Government should recognise that the unemployment position throughout the country is unprecedented. Therefore, the Minister should be prepared to make a special statement.
We have no complaints about the way in which the right hon. Gentleman answers his questions. He does it with extreme courtesy. However, a matter of such great importance—we think that the country will take this view—warrants a full statement to the House and a full debate next week, in Government time. That is what we have demanded. We renew that demand to the Secretary of State and the right hon. Gentleman. I hope that the Leader of the House will be prepared to rearrange the business in the light of what I have said and will make a fresh business statement tomorrow.
Mr. Pym: I took very seriously the representations of the right hon. Gentleman and the Opposition on the handling of the British Nationality Bill. It is an important matter for the House. You yourself, Mr. Speaker, in a statement last week, said that there was no definition of such a Bill. The issue has been decided on grounds of custom and practice. The exceptions to our normal Standing Committee procedures are urgent Bills, simple Bills, or Bills of first-class constitutional importance. The Government's view is that the Bill does not fall into any of those categories, especially the last one.
Mr. Foot: The right hon. Gentleman must be joking.
Mr. Pym: I ask the right hon. Gentleman to listen for a little longer. I have taken into account the representations and the relevant precedents, including the two most obvious ones that might argue in the right hon. Gentleman's favour. The British Nationality Act 1948 was described by the then Government as a natural sequel to the Statute of Westminster. They also described it as a measure of the utmost constitutional importance. The British Nationality Bill is much more limited in scope. Secondly, there is the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962. That was the first occasion upon which we legislated to introduce immigration controls. That measure was taken on the Floor of the House. However, all subsequent Immigration Acts, of which the Bill is certainly of the same type, have been taken in Standing Committee, including the 1971 Act, which created the status of "partial" and "non-patrial".
Having gone into the issue extremely carefully, I think it reasonable to say—this is the Government's view—that the Bill is not of the same category of importance and that it would be appropriate to take it in the normal way. I thought that I owed it to the House and to the right hon. Gentleman to say that I had gone into the issue carefully.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the seamen's strike. Naturally we still hope that there will be a settlement between the employers and the unions. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade is in

425
touch with what is taking place. I shall discuss the possibility of a statement with my right hon. Friend. If it is appropriate, we can make the necessary arrangements.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me to rearrange the business on account of two further matters. I agree that they are both extremely important. We have not yet had the announcement on The Times. We do not know what it will be. The right hon. Gentleman may know. It is an important issue, but it could not possibly be right to rearrange the business on Monday for what he asks. Let us not be under any misunderstanding about the importance of the matter.
That applies equally to unemployment, which obviously is extremely important. I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said a short while ago. There was a debate in October and a further debate in November. The week before last there was a debate under a general economic heading in which employment was very relevant. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment replied to that debate. It is our view that we should adhere to the procedure that has been followed for a long time. The figures will be announced in the usual way. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is answering questions for the first three-quarters of an hour on that day.
Mr. Foot: I must press the right hon. Gentleman on the first matter, although we do not regard his other answers as satisfactory. We shall have to see how we deal with those matters next week. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has given the handling of the British Nationality Bill great and careful study. That is shown by his replies. However, it is a controversial measure,. The first Act to which the right hon. Gentleman referred was not controversial, in the same sense, in the House. The Bill is a controversial measure, in that it will have an effect on the nationality of British citizens, or those who may claim to be British citizens. We do not understand why the right hon. Gentleman described it as a Bill that is not of first-rate constitutional importance. That is a matter not for Mr. Speaker but for the judgment of the House.
The Bill affects the rights of individual citizens and therefore should be fully debated. Every hon. Member should have the right to be able to raise matters concerning his own constituency. If the Bill is sent to a Standing Committee hon. Members will be deprived of the opportunity to participate in the debate on a Bill of major constitutional importance.
Mr. Pym: I have taken careful note of what the right hon. Gentleman said. The fact is that before 1948 there was no such thing as British citizenship. The 1948 Act created citizenship of the United Kingdom and colonies. The Bill will divide citizenship into three categories. It is, in a sense, an amending measure of the previous Act. That is the position on constitutional importance. The 1948 Act was far-reaching in its constitutional implications, but in our judgment the Bill is not. I have described the precedents and the comparisons.
Mr. David Steel: I ask the Leader of the House to reconsider the matter, even though he has already considered it carefully. He has drawn a comparison with the 1962 Act. The Bill is of more far-reaching importance, I suggest, than that Act, which was taken on the Floor of the House. If the right hon.
426
Gentleman is going to remain immovable he should at least undertake that the Committee considering the Bill will be larger than normal, as was the arrangement for the 1971 legislation.
Mr. Pym: I shall be quite happy to consider the right hon. Gentleman's last point. I am sensitive to what he says. In the past week I have spent some time going into the matter carefully. It is the Government's judgment that the Bill should go to a Standing Committee. That would be in accordance with what has happened to Bills of a similar sort. I am sorry that I cannot be more forthcoming to the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Following the murder of an ex-Speaker and Lord Lieutenant, and the murder of his son—people who were the friends of many of us—may we have a statement early next week on what is being done to improve, in concert with the Irish Republic, security measures on the common frontier, and what steps are being taken to deny that frontier to terrorist criminal gangs?
Mr. Pym: I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I say that we were absolutely horrified by the murder that was perpetrated only recently. It is a sad event, which cannot possibly be condoned. I say to my right hon. Friend that in recent months there has been closer co-operation with the Government of the Republic of Ireland. There has been closer control of the frontiers between the two countries. That has brought a beneficial result to the work of the security forces against terrorism. I, agree with my hon. Friend that this was one of the most horrific murders. I am sure that the whole House feels extremely sorry for the family, that anything so awful should have happened.
Mr. John Silkin: I am sure that the leader of the House will appreciate that a Bill that will in some circumstances prevent a child born in our country from having British nationality is one of major original constitutional significance. I beg him to reconsider his position. It is a matter of great importance for those who are concerned immediately, and for our constitutional future.
Mr. Pym: It is fair to say that, in the same sense, the 1971 Act created original arrangements. I am not saying that the Bill is without constitutional significance. However, we are considering whether the Bill is of far-reaching constitutional importance. I know that some Opposition Members take the view that it is. We have considered the precedents and the evidence given by a number of my illustrious predecessors. I have even read the evidence given by the late Mr. Herbert Morrison and considered his view on the type of Bill that should be debated on the Floor of the House. It may be said that that view was expressed too long ago and that it is now irrelevant. I am merely saying that I have gone into the issue at great depth. It is the Government's view that the issue should be handled in Standing Committee.
Mr. Terence Higgins: How long has elapsed between the publication of the British Nationality Bill and the date that my right hon. Friend proposes for the Second Reading?
Mr. Pym: The Bill was published yesterday, and the Second Reading debate will take place on Tuesday week, which is about the normal interval.
Mr. John Silkin: The Leader of the House has missed the point. The question that I put to him makes the British Nationality Bill something without any constitutional precedent in the history of this country. That was not necessarily true of any of the other Bills about which he has spoken.
Mr. Pym: I do not think that I have anything to add. I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's point, but I have gone into the matter and the Government's view is that the appropriate way is for the Bill to be handled in Standing Committee.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: In view of the radical importance of the British Nationality Bill and its great complexity, and taking account of the strong position that has been taken up by spokesmen for Her Majesty's Opposition, will the right hon. Gentleman at least consult the Opposition to ensure that we can have two days for the Second Reading of this Bill, which is the absolute minimum within which it could be reasonably debated, even on Second Reading?
Mr. Pym: It appears that fewer and fewer Bills get more than one day. Perhaps that is a matter for regret. However, this Session started very late. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Of course there are constraints on time. What I certainly am prepared to do is to extend the normal time for one or two hours, or whatever is thought appropriate, and I shall institute discussions with that in mind.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: While I do not doubt for a moment the importance of the British Nationality Bill, I wonder whether my right hon. Friend will spare a thought for events in Poland, the changed situation in the Gulf since the release of the hostages, and the emergence of a new Administration in the United States, which are also matters of some concern to the House? Will my right hon. Friend be able to arrange a foreign affairs debate in the reasonably near future and, if possible, before the Prime Minister goes to Washington, so that she may know the views of this House before she has talks with President Reagan?
Mr. Pym: I appreciate what my hon. Friend says. I should certainly like to find time for that. I doubt whether I can do so in the time scale that my hon. Friend has suggested. For all the reasons that he suggests, I appreciate that the House would like the earliest possible and practical opportunity of a debate on foreign affairs.
Mr. David Winnick: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the widespread concern that ownership of Times Newspapers Limited will fall into the hands of a person who has already very substantial press holdings in Britain, even leaving aside his controversial political role in another country? Is it not important that once the announcement is made—there are strong rumours that it is to be made very shortly—there should be an immediate statement in the House?
Mr. Pym: I do not know about the question of a statement, but obviously events will unfold in the course of the day, and I think that we shall have to assess the position after that.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: In view of the distressing but not unexpected announcement today of a major closure by the Tate and Lyle company, which refines 90 per cent. of all imports of cane sugar into
428
Europe, will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement early next week on the question whether it will still be possible to fulfil the solemn agreement with the underdeveloped countries on the import of 1·3 million tonnes of cane sugar?
Mr. Pym: I shall consider that point with my right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture and the Lord Privy Seal.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I should tell the House that I have received a Standing Order No. 9 application on that question.
Mr. Eric S. Hefter: In view of the fact that Merseyside has the highest concentration of unemployment in the United Kingdom, and particularly as Tate and Lyle has now indicated that it intends to close its Love Lane factory, which has been there for a very long time, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that we can have a debate not on unemployment in general but on the problems of Merseyside, the continual closures there, and the terrible high level of unemployment, the deprivation, the poverty and the misery that exist in my area?
Mr. Pym: I share the hon. Gentleman's opinion about the sadness of the closure of Tate and Lyle's Love Lane factory. It is a very serious matter for Merseyside, which is already having a difficult time with its economy. I cannot hold out hope for a debate in the near future. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can raise the matter in other ways. I am sensitive to the point that he makes, but there is not the time in the near future. It would be misleading for me to pretend to the House that it would be likely to happen.
Mr. David Crouch: May I raise a rather smaller subject than has been mentioned up to now about a rather large item? I am referring to the new-size Hansard that we have today. Is my right hon. Friend aware that it was widely reported that I used to read Hansard in bed? This now has become quite impossible. It is like reading the London telephone directory. It is exactly the same size. This is a small matter, and it is early days in which my right hon. Friend is leading the House. However, is he also aware that the present Leader of the Opposition misled the House, in my view, after three debates on the subject? Will my right hon. Friend consider, if not next week, before very long, providing time for a short debate on this question to see how the new Hansard is being received in this House and by those outside who have to receive it?
Mr. Pym: I am sorry that my hon. Friend has difficulty in reading Hansard in bed. I am told that there are some Ministers who have been known to do their boxes in bed. I have never quite understood how that would be possible. Anyway, the fact is that the decision to produce this size of Hansard was taken after proper consultation and after a proper motion in this House, tabled, I think, by the right hon. Gentleman the present Leader of the Opposition. It was decided upon, and I do not think that it would be sensible to reopen the matter at this stage.
Mr. George Foulkes: Is the Leader of the House now able to answer the question that I asked last week, when he understandably asked for further

429
notice? When are we likely to receive the recommendations of the all-party committee on the conduct of Scottish business in the House, and when may we have an opportunity to debate that subject?
Mr. Pym: In the middle future, shall I say; in a few weeks' time.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Following up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), may I ask whether my right hon. Friend agrees that the more legislation that comes before the House the less competently the House can deal with the government of this country? Should we not be debating broad issues? Will he, therefore, find time for a debate on trade and unemployment in the general sense? The unfair competition faced by so many British industries is leading directly to the increased levels of unemployment. This is a vital issue to the North-West, and to Merseyside in particular. Will my right hon. Friend therefore provide more time for general debate and less time for useless, irrelevant legislation?
Mr. Pym: I think that I have on occasions heard even my hon. Friend ask for the odd Bill or two, but I may be doing him an injustice in saying that. The Government announced their legislative programme at the beginning of the Session. It is now in hand. We shall proceed with it. In so far as time is available for general debates, I am very much in favour of them.
The subject that my hon. Friend raises has already been debated in the House about three times this Session, but I take his point. Such days as are available we can use in that way.
Mr. David Alton: Does the Leader of the House realise that the sympathy that he has expressed today for the problems of Liverpool following the closure of the Tate and Lyle factory is not enough? What Liverpool needs is more Government action and a little less sympathy. To say today that there will not be a debate on the chronic unemployment problems of Liverrpool will not be good enough for people living in an area that is fast becoming a desert. Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise the implications of creating a siege economy in Livepool, where people will be rotting in the unemployment queues as a result of the present Government's policies?
Mr. Pym: The hon. Gentleman said that he wanted Government action. That might not necessarily follow from a debate. But these matters have been debated in a broader context on several occasions. I am just sorry that it is not practical at present to find time for a debate.
Mr. James Kilfedder: In view of the relentless, sectarian and murderous campaign being waged by the Provisional IRA against Protestants living in isolated and Republican areas along the border, may we have an urgent debate to discuss security perhaps even rearranging tonight's business to provide for that debate?
Mr. Pym: I shall consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland about that possibility. It is a very tragic matter when a murder such as this takes place. It is part of the very sad history of Northern Ireland in the last 10 years that this should have occurred.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Knowing that every hon. Member is always concerned when people
430
are incarcerated in prison without trial, whether it be in Iran, Afghanistan, America or this country, and given that there are hundreds of people in prison, on remand, who have committed no crime at all, if convicted criminals are allowed to go into an open prison as soon as they have started their so-called sentence, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that that is a disgrace? I refer to Lord Kagan. Will the Leader of the House do something about this disgrace? If he cannot allow time for a debate on my motion on the subject, will he discuss with the various Ministers concerned the fact that people who have committed no crime are put into closed prisons while convicted criminals go into open prisons?
Mr. Pym: I expect that the hon. Gentleman has raised the matter with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but whether or not he has I shall take the opportunity of discussing the matter with him.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. If hon. Members are brief with their questions I shall do my best to call those who wish to speak. But I must be fair to Welsh Members, who have an important debate today, and I have to live with them.
Mr. John Prescott: In view of the statement of the Leader of the House that he will consult his right hon. Friend about a statement concerning the seamen's dispute, will he also consider discussing the matter with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, in view of the decision yesterday by the shipping industry, which acts as an agent for the Department, to refuse to give unemployment pay to seamen who are not involved in the dispute, therefore identifying the Department with the employers?
Mr. Pym: I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend. Naturally, we all hope, as I know the hon. Gentleman does, that this dispute comes to an early end.
Mr. Laurie Pavitt: Do the Government propose to introduce a Bill on the health services during this Session? If not, does the Leader of the House recall the statement by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services on his dissatisfaction with the agreement with the tobacco industry? Does he further recall that the Secretary of State said that he felt that the House had the right to reach a decision, provided it was not before 31 July 1982? In those circumstances, will the Leader of the House give me time to get my Bill on to the statute book this Session?
Mr. Pym: I should not like to comment on the last request of the hon. Gentleman, but having reviewed the legislative programme I am doubtful whether there will be time to fit that Bill into this Session.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Does not the Leader of the House acknowledge that we are all intrigued by the leaks in anticipation of the Budget, particularly by his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, on the fact that there will be no increase in direct taxation? Will he give an indication of the type of reply that has been given to the various charities, including The Spastics Society, with regard to the imposition of indirect taxation, particularly VAT, in relation to their funds and endeavours?
Mr. Pym: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is obviously a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend

431
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Douglas) has put the point directly to the Chancellor.
Mr. James A. Dunn: Can a debate be arranged, or, with the influence of the Leader of the House, will the Secretary of State for Transport make a statement about the intended transfer of Roadline from Kirkdale to Merseyside and Manchester, and about the closure of two other depots on Merseyside, leaving it devoid of any National Carriers? In those circumstances, does not the Leader of the House agree that the matter is of sufficient importance to qualify for a statement? Is he aware that it imposes a heavy burden of further unemployment, added to those that have already been drawn to his attention today?
Mr. Pym: I shall certainly draw that request to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of state for Transport. It can be difficult to judge when the House wants a statement. We want statements on important issues—this is one of them—but we do not wish so to overload the programme that it becomes difficult at 3.30 pm.
Mr. Roy Hughes: Will the Leader of the House bear in mind the fact that reports are circulating to the effect that the Government intend to bypass the environmental considerations that are contained in the Armitage report? Will he try to arrange an early debate on this vital report so that the matter can be cleared up?
Mr. Pym: Yes, I wish to find time for a debate on the Armitage report because there is a great deal of interest in it, and it is clearly a matter on which many hon. members want to express an opinion.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Following the defence statement earlier this week, will the Leader of the House arrange an early debate on defence so that we can debate and reflect the rising tide of opposition and anger at the use and deployment of nuclear weapons, and particularly the decision by regional branches of the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians to black all work on cruise missile sites—a decision that Labour Members wish to endorse heartily?
Mr. Pym: I hope that it will be possible in the course of a few weeks to arrange a debate on the Government's decision to replace Polaris with Trident in due course. A general debate on defence will have to wait for the White Paper later.
Mr. Sydney Bidwell: With regard to the British Nationality Bill, may I reinforce the plea of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)—which is a little history-making from my point of view, and his? If our plea fails, will the Leader of the House also bear in mind the possibility of implementing the new procedure that was agreed by the House in October? That new procedure will enable us to take evidence in advance of the Committee stage of the Bill. The British Nationality Bill seems to be a good candidate for that proposal.
Mr. Pym: I do not have anything to add to what I have already said in relation to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. On the second part, it is true that my predecessor made clear that the experiment of the
432
Special Standing Committees was to be undertaken with Bills that were not controversial, in party political terms. This Bill clearly is controversial in party political terms. My predecessor also said that he thought that three Bills would be about the right number for the experiment, and we have now selected three Bills for this process.
Mr. Robert Parry: In view of the gross mishandling by the Minister of Agriculture of the sugar industry in this country, and in view of the closure of the Tate and Lyle factory, may we look forward to the right hon. Gentleman offering his resignation next week?
Mr. Pym: That is doubtful.
Mr. Alfred Dubs: On the subject of the British Nationality Bill, is it not a fact that one of the three Bills for which the new special Standing Committee procedure has been instituted is the Criminal Attempts Bill, about which there is already a comprehensive report from the Select Committee? Is the Leader of the House aware that the new procedure is not as important for that Bill as it would be for the British Nationality Bill, which is complex and surely requires as informed a Standing Committee as possible? Is it not a fact that the Government's reluctance to institute the new procedure for this Bill is based upon their well-founded fear that they will find no witnesses to support it?
Mr. Pym: The reason for excluding the British Nationality Bill was made clear by my predecessor. Three Bills have been chosen for an experiment. They seem to us to be appropriate for it, and we had better see how we get on.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I shall call one more hon. Gentleman before I call the Front Bench.
Mr. Frank Allaun: Is the Leader of the House aware that at 5 o'clock this afternoon it will be announced that Mr. Rupert Murdoch's bid for The Times has been accepted? Will the Secretary of State for Trade be asked to make an announcement to the House next week on the question whether he will refer the bid to the Monopolies Commission? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I ask that question because Mr. Rupert Murdoch already owns the Sunday newspaper with the biggest circulation and the daily newspaper with the biggest circulation, and he has extremely reactionary views? Should a man such as that be placed in charge of The Times?
Mr. Pym: The point has been well made by the Leader of the Opposition and others, but I shall also draw the remarks of the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) to the attention of my right hon. Friend. Like you, Mr. Speaker, it may be wise for the Leader of the House to say occasionally that he will not make a pronouncement on a hypothesis, even if the hon. Gentleman's knowledge is totally accurate. That would be unwise.
Mr. John Silkin: Is the Leader of the House aware that he said a few moments ago that three Bills had been selected for the new Standing Committee procedure? We know about the Criminal Attempts Bill, but the House has not been informed about the other two Bills. Will the right hon. Gentleman inform us about those now?
Mr. Pym: The Education Bill is one, and it will be taken the week after next. I am sorry that I cannot recall the name of the third Bill, but I shall let the right hon. Gentleman know afterwards.
Mr. James Dunn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the usual custom and courtesy, through the usual channels, that before announcements of this magnitude are made they are discussed, in order to obtain general consent? Without that consent the House cannot operate. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is departing from previous practice in terms of the regard that he has shown to the House.
Mr. Pym: I do not think that that is quite right. The Deep Sea Mining (Temporary Provisions) Bill is the other one that is to be taken.
Mr. Silkin: I should have thought that if the Leader of the House takes as his point of departure the argument that the Bills in question must be non-contentous from a party political point of view it would be as well if the usual channels were to decide whether the Bills were non-contentious from a party political point of view.
Mr. Pym: I take that point. I have taken over from my predecessor at a particular point in relation to the new procedure. He explained himself fairly clearly, and what discussions he had I do not know, but these are the three Bills that we shall use for the experiment. We had better see how that experiment works. Whether the House will like it or not I have no idea. That remains to be seen. Let us try it and see how we get on, and either continue it or not continue it next Session, according to how the House feels about it then.
Mr. Speaker: There are two applications under Standing Order No. 9 and I shall take them in the order in which they were received.

Tate and Lyle (Liverpool Refinery)
Mr. Robert Parry: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the proposed closure of the Liverpool Tate and Lyle cane refinery".
The matter has already been aired on the Floor of the House today and the House is probably well aware of the very strong feelings arising from the decision of the company to withdraw its operations from Liverpool.
Liverpool has had the presence of the sugar industry for well over a century, and the withdrawal of a company marks a further decline in the old industrial life of Liverpool. We have already seen the destruction of the shipbuilding and ship repair industries, and the massive loss of jobs on the docks.
The loss of approximately 1,800 jobs is serious enough, but my constituency, in which the refinery is situated, has already one of the highest levels, if not the highest level, of unemployment in the United Kingdom, certainly well above 50 per cent.
If the factory closes, there will be a spin-off effect which it is estimated will cause the loss of another 4,000 to 5,000 jobs. I refer to the brewing, sweets and confectionery, and cake and biscuit industries. There will also be a loss of jobs on the docks, which already have serious economic problems.
The Tate and Lyle company, which made the announcement this morning about sacking these people and throwing them on the scrap heap, also announced that its profits had increased by £4½ million last year, to a total of £30·7 million. This is the naked and vicious face of capitalism. It shows that the company has no consideration for human suffering or for the degradation of people in the inner areas of Liverpool.
A further important aspect is that the proposed closure will reduce the commitment, under the Loméconvention, to the import of 1·3 million tonnes from ACP countries. If the figure is to be only 100,000 tonnes, as has been mentioned, this will have a serious effect on the economy of the smaller countries in the Third world whose total economy is based on sugar cane production.
The Minister of Agriculture—who, unfortunately, is not in his place today—has a lot to answer for in regard to this closure. He has tried to ride two horses in the one race. He has always supported the sugar beet farmers's lobby, and this has been against the interests of the cane workers in Liverpool. It would be interesting if, some day, the right hon. Gentleman would tell us how much sugar beet he grows. If the Minister had listened to requests from myself and—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he must not make the speech that he would make if I were to grant the application.
Mr. Parry: If the Minister had heeded the requests made to him by me, by my colleagues and by the trade unions, this present problem would not have arisen. The right hon. Gentleman, according to the feelings of the workers in Liverpool, is a twister and has spoken in this House with a forked tongue—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Being an hon. Member of this House is incompatible with being a twister. The hon. Gentleman must find another word and withdraw the word "twister".
Mr. Parry: I did not call the Minister a twister. I said that he is considered by the workers in Liverpool—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must maintain parliamentary standards. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw the charge of an hon. Member being a twister.
Mr. Parry: I will withdraw, under pressure, Mr. Speaker. All I can say is that the Minister of Agriculture has sold these jobs in Liverpool down the river. In view of the serious economic problems on Merseyside, and the effect that the closure will have, I hope that you will accept the application.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry) gave me notice this morning, before 12 o'clock, that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believed should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the proposed closure of the Liverpool Tate and Lyle cane refinery".
The whole House will have listened with concern to the exchanges earlier this afternoon on this question. I understood that the hon. Gentleman was speaking under deep emotion. I was well aware of that when he presented his case to the House.
As the House knows, it has given me instructions to take into account the several factors set out in the Order but to give no reasons for my decision.
I have no doubt of the importance of the matter that the hon. Gentleman has raised, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order, and therefore I cannot submit his application to the House.

Northern Ireland (Terrorism)
Mr. Harold McCusker: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the serious escalation of the IRA campaign of genocide across the frontier of the United Kingdom, which resulted last night in the murder of the Sovereign's personal representative in County Armagh, the right hon. Sir Norman Stronge, MC, and his son James, and which is likely to lead to yet further bloodshed in that part of the United Kingdom."
That the matter is specific can hardly be disputed; that it is important no one would gainsay. Therefore, my task is to persuade you, Mr. Speaker, that urgent consideration is justified.
Six days ago an attempt was made on the life of a former Member of this House, Mrs. Bernadette McAliskey, and many people believe that last night's atrocity was a deliberate act of retaliation. I shall not enter into the argument whether that is so, but my experience in the Province—and particularly the lessons of the last few weeks of 1975 in my constituency, which culminated in the murder of 10 workmen outside Bessbrook—suggests that these events may prove to be a prelude to a renewed campaign of murder. I most strongly urge that the fear and apprehension felt throughout our community today deserve the urgent attention and thoughtful consideration of the House.
The House is well used to complaints from Ulster Members about inadequate security arrangements, particularly in border areas. Time and time again our fears have been dismissed by the Secretary of State with the assertion that security co-operation with the Irish Republic has never been so good. I submit that last night's events in my constituency testify to the worthlessness of such assurances, and make clear, for all to see, the ease with which terrorists continue to wage war against British citizens from the safe haven of the Irish Republic.
Fear and uncertainty in Northern Ireland have already been heightened by the political policies adopted by the Secretary of State, and this latest illustration of the Government's abysmal failure to secure the frontier and defend their citizens can only result in a further collapse of confidence and yet more lawlessness and suffering.
Lawlessness and suffering have been commonplace in the Province during the past decade. I seriously and respectfully submit that the situation in Ulster is more serious and more threatening than it has been for some time. In addition, a state of affairs has been permitted to develop in the Province that this House would have deemed unacceptable in any other part of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) gave me notice this morning, before 12 o'clock, that he might seek to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely:
"the serious escalation of the IRA campaign of genocide across the frontier of the United Kingdom, which resulted last night in the murder of the Sovereign's personal representative in County Armagh, the right hon. Sir Norman Stronge, MC, and his son James, and which is likely to lead to yet further bloodshed in that part of the United Kingdom."

437
Hon. Members always listen with more than anxious concern to statements of events in Northern Ireland. I listened with deep concern to what the hon. Gentleman had to say. As the House knows, my personal feelings do not enter into this type of question. I am guided by a very strict set of rules when deciding whether there should be an emergency debate tonight or tomorrow night.
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take account of the several factors set out in the Order, but to give no reason for my decision. I listened with care to the hon. Gentleman, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Questions to Ministers
Mr. Speaker: Presentation of Bill.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I am sorry. The hon. Gentleman gave me notice that he wished to raise a point of order.
Mr. Lewis: You are quite right, Mr. Speaker. I was about to make that point.
At 2·58 pm I gave notice to your secretary that I should like to raise a point of order at the end of Question Time. I was under the impression that the end of Question Time meant just that. I have been sitting here patiently waiting. I have listened to the business for next week and to two Standing Order No. 9 debates. You now propose, Mr. Speaker, to go ahead with the presentation of a Bill. Does the end of Question Time mean that, or does it mean that I can raise the point of order after 10 o'clock tonight?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman and I became Members of this House on the same day. I am therefore well aware of the extent of his patience. I apologise. The end of Question Time means the end of Question Time, and I should have called the hon. Gentleman earlier. Strangely enough, I did not notice him.
Mr. Lewis: I dare not say it to you, Mr. Speaker, and I shall not, but I can tell my hon. Friends that I cannot believe that remark. I wish to raise a genuine and difficult point of order.
Today's Order Paper contains 40 questions to the Prime Minister. Of those questions, 36 are identical. Four questions are slightly different. Three of them clearly refer to Prime Ministerial responsibilities. I refer to Nos. Q5, Q23 and Q34. However, in my opinion, to which I am entitled, No. Q12 is a sponsored question. Ministers of all parties conveniently arrange through the usual channels for such questions to be included. By that I mean that they are arranged with their party political hacks.
If I had wanted to table a question that asked the Prime Minister whether chickens are laying eggs, the Table Office would not have accepted it. It would have argued that the Prime Minister had no ministerial responsibility for such matters. I should have had to accept that, as I always do. Strangely enough, this question looks like a sponsored question, because normally the Prime Minister refers anything concerning agriculture and agricultural products to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I believe that such a Minister exists and that he deals with agricultural matters concerning the Common Market.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that you have no responsibility for the questions that are or are not accepted. However, if an hon. Member is entitled to table a question to the Prime Minister, or to any other Minister, which is obviously not within his or her ministerial responsibility, and if another hon. Member is prevented from so doing, the first hon. Member has an advantage. Discrimination occurs. We know, Mr. Speaker, that yours is the most difficult job in the House. You have to give all hon. Members a fair crack of the whip. It is almost impossible to do that because you are tied by rules, regulations, restrictions and precedents. Nevertheless, it cannot be right that the Prime Minister, or any other Minister, should be able to manoeuvre a question on to the Order Paper that gives precedence to an hon. Member to the exclusion of others.

439
Is it possible, Mr. Speaker, for you to hold discussions through the usual channels and to advise even the Prime Minister that she should not try to take advantage of Members of Parliament or to manoeuvre sponsored questions on to the Order Paper? If the right hon. Lady wants to make a statement, she has the right to do so. I know that you will always accord a Minister the right to make a statement. I suggest that when something like this happens the Prime Minister should ask for permission to make a statement and should not be allowed to manoeuvre a question on to the Order Paper.
Mr. Speaker: Of course, I shall consider the matter. I have some knowledge of the questions that are included on the Order Paper. Ultimately I am responsible. If a question is refused, hon. Members can appeal to me.
I understand that the Prime Minister has not refused any substantive question that has been included on the Order Paper in an effort to break the system of the open question—I do not wish to put blame on the Prime Minister—and to return to substantive questions if possible. However, I shall consider the matter.
Mr. Lewis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that all hon. Members were glad to hear your remarks. If my point of order has done nothing more than to bring this matter to light, I am pleased, I wish to open up this issue.

BILL PRESENTED
  EDUCATION
  Mr. Secretary Carlisle, supported by Mr. Secretary Edwards, Mr. Secretary Jenkin, Mr. Nigel Lawson, Dr. Rhodes Boyson and Mr. Neil Macfarlane, presented a Bill to make provision with respect to children with special educational needs: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 48].

Welsh Affairs
[Relevant documents: First Report from the Committee on Welsh Affairs, Session 1979–80, on the Role of the Welsh Office and Associated Bodies in Developing Employment Opportunities in Wales (House of Commons Paper No. 731) and Government Observations upon that Report (Cmnd. 8085)].
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brooke.]
4.28 pm
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): It was with a certain sense of surprise that I heard that the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), who is Chairman of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, would wind up the debate from the Opposition Front Bench. It is not the custom, and conflicts with the tradition that Front Bench spokesmen should not be members of Select Committees. It is a regrettable decision. It means that the hon. Gentleman will not speak with the authority that he has as Chairman of the Select Committee. All hon. Members will know that he has come here because he prefers to deliver a partisan polemic. What he does today will be judged on that basis.
This is the third Welsh day debate to be held since the general election. It is inevitable and right that it should concentrate upon the economy, unemployment and the report on these topics of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs. I intend to devote most of my speech to those subjects, but there are some important events which I think deserve mention. I shall not say anything about two topics simply because they have been debated in the very recent past—the extremely important rate support grant settlement, which was the first since the transfer of these responsibilities to the Welsh Office, and housing, which we discussed in the Grand Committee and which I was questioned about following my statement in the House.
In two fields of my responsibility, despite the economic climate, I have thought it right to increase expenditure in order to achieve important objectives. At Llanrwst, in April, I spelt out my firm commitment to support the priceless heritage of the Welsh language. That commitment has actually been transformed into reality by the expenditure of about £1·2 million in 1980–81, an amount greater than that provided by any previous Administration, which includes over £500,000 in grants to support Welsh language education. In the coming financial year, subject to the approval of Parliament, I shall be authorising total expenditure in the region of £2 million, something like three times the largest amount spent by any of my predecessors.
I do not intend to reopen the heated debate about the new fourth channel, not least because the subject of broadcasting in Wales is currently under detailed examination by the Select Committee. However, I want to dispel the mistaken idea that the Government, having put the Act on the statute book, are now resting on their laurels. In fact, a great deal of detailed work is going on to ensure the successful launching of this important new venture; and I am pleased to be able to tell the House that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is announcing today that a very eminent Welshman, Sir Goronwy Daniel, has accepted his invitation to serve as chairman of the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority. I am sure that he will carry out his task with drive, judgment and enthusiasm,

441
and I know that his appointment will be widely supported in Wales. The BBC's national governor for Wales, Mr. Alwyn Roberts, the IBA's national member for Wales, Professor Huw Morris Jones, Dr. Glyn Tegai Hughes and Mr. D. Ken Jones, who is Managing Director of Takiron Ltd., have also been invited to serve as members of the authority and I am glad to say have agreed to do so.
Mr. Ioan Evans: Before we leave the subject of the fourth channel, may I say that anxiety was expressed by some of the trade union representatives who gave evidence to the Select Committee? They said that the Welsh programmes on the fourth channel may well be delayed, and that the fourth channel for the whole of the United Kingdom might start first. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the Welsh programme is not falling behind and that it will start as soon as possible?
Mr. Edwards: It is still the Government's firm hope that the fourth channel will start in the autumn of 1982, and we are asking the newly appointed members to seek to achieve that objective.
The other area to which I referred, where there has been increased support, is to important sections of the agricultural industry. In Wales the recently announced increases in hill livestock compensatory allowance rates, the further increase in milk prices, the introduction of the suckler cow premium and the implementation of the sheepmeat regime will contribute greatly to the stability of the livestock sector on which Welsh agriculture depends. Taken together, these measures will inject something like £20 million to £25 million into the farming economy in Wales, and will add greatly to the well-being of hill farmers.
Nobody knows better than I the very real difficulties faced by the farmers in the marginal land areas. It is a pity that the last Government did not respond sooner to the problem. When we came into office we had to start almost from square one, and it is only now that the end of the essential survey work is in sight. When it is completed—later this year—we will put any case for an extension to the less favoured area to the EEC Commission. All these measures show our determination to safeguard the position of the industry.
Nowhere is the proper allocation of financial resources more important than in our road programme, which is so vital for the future of the Welsh economy.
I have to say that there was a certain air of unreality about the plans we inherited they included far more schemes than there was provision for money to finance them, and were over-optimistic in many cases about the speed with which the planning obstacles could be overcome. Of course, there has to be preparation of more schemes than there is likely to be money available to allow for unexpected setbacks in the planning procedures, but I have tried to inject a greater element of realism and to indicate on a more prudent basis the likely timing of major developments in the programme.
It would be unrealistic to imagine that the road programme, which is dependent entirely on public funds, could be insulated completely from the need to reduce public expenditure, but it has proved possible to maintain expenditure on the trunk road programme broadly at the high level of recent years, and the highest priority has been given to the strategic routes and especially the A55 in the north. Unfortunately, legal challenges have delayed the
442
start this year of the Hawarden and Bangor bypasses, but subject to their resolution I hope that their construction will start within the next 12 months. Preliminary work on the first phase of the A55 Colcon scheme, the Llanddulas—Glan Conwy improvement in the Colwyn Bay area, has already started, and the main work will start later this year. Preparatory work on the remaining stages, including the Conwy crossing, is being given the highest priority. I also expect work to start on the A5 Llanfair. PG bypass later this year, and in South Wales I hope to see a start very soon to the Carmarthen southern bypass and the A470 Abercynon—Pentrebach improvement.
Mr. Donald Coleman: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House and the people concerned that the A465, which was given a very high priority by the previous Government and which would have brought about the completion of the Heads of the Valley road as far as Swansea, has not slipped back in the programme?
Mr. Edwards: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the programme, he will see that that the A465 is not in the first phase of the building programme. However, we are naturally anxious to press on with it as quickly as possible. It will be recognised that in recent years we have given South Wales enormous priority. In my view, there was an urgent need to get on with the A55 in the north. Difficult choices have had to be made, bearing in mind that decision.
In two fields of my responsibility major consultation exercises are being undertaken—in education, on the nature of the curriculum and the place of the Welsh language in the curriculum, and in health, on the reorganisation of the National Health Service. A large number of representations have been received about reorganisation, and these I am now considering. No decisions have yet been taken. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, in winding up, will say a word about the major capital building programme that is proceeding.
Inevitably, the great majority of the major decisions that I have referred to so far involve difficult choices about priorities and the use of scarce resources. That brings me back to the economic difficulties that confront us.
Since this debate last year there has been a further substantial rise in the level of unemployment in Wales, and it must be a matter of grave concern to every Member in the House that this trend continues, and is likely to continue for some time to come, even if it seems increasingly probable that we shall see the first signs of industrial recovery this year. That is one desperately depressing aspect of the situation in which we find ourselves. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite will, during the course of this debate, emphasise this all too obviously shocking fact. I do not criticise them for that. What I do criticise them for is the shameless manner in which they seek to exploit that fact, regardless of their own record, their own share of responsibility, and their total failure to produce even the semblance of an economic policy to provide a remedy.
Lack of competitiveness lies at the heart of our present difficulties and it is sadly characteristic that in our last debate the right hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) proffered the cruel deception that the agony of Wales could be reduced by a two-year delay on any steel closure programme. If that advice had been followed, huge overmanning, enormous over-capacity and losses on a

443
staggering scale would have guaranteed the closure of major steel making in Wales. Always short-sighted, his colleagues offered every incitement to the work force to resist the corporate plan.
Fortunately, those engaged in the industry showed far greater realism and good sense, and the achievement of "slimline" has now given Llanwern and Port Talbot the chance to live. In a year, they have put themselves among the most competitive steel making plants in Europe. It is too early yet to know whether an adequate market can yet be carved out. The success of the "slimline" exercise so far and the support of BSC's corporate plan by the majority of its employees points the way forward to our industrial recovery. The BSC experience is matched by firms right across the industrial sector which report not only that they are now competitively manned but that they have rid themselves of many of the most destructive industrial practices of the past and are now negotiating far more realistic wage settlements than we have seen in recent years.
That return to competitiveness and the lack of industrial disruption, matched by the continuing fall in inflation, has to be set against the rising unemployment level in considering the record of the last 12 months and the prospects for the future. That returning competitiveness gives increasing grounds for confidence that this country can recover a larger share of markets in this country and abroad as they begin to recover.
For eight months in a row, the retail price index has risen by less than 1 per cent. Thus, in the last six months, prices have risen by only 3·7 per cent. That is an annual rate of well under 10 per cent. One understands why a number of commentators believe that the RPI will be down to single figures on an annual basis this summer. If that happened, it would have hopeful implications for a reduction in the minimum lending rate.
Mr. Donald Anderson: The Secretary of State must surely appreciate that that compression of retail prices is the direct result of the recession and nothing to do with Government policies.
Mr. Edwards: I have just read an article by Sam Brittan in the Financial Times. I prefer him as an economic adviser rather than the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson). The two views are precisely opposite to each other. Our firms are becoming more competitive and thus there is a greater chance of economic and industrial recovery.
These improvements are coming at a time when the destocking process is nearing an end, when there are signs that the level of output is bottoming out and in a period when business creation and inward investment has held up better than we might have dared to hope considering the severity of the recession. What we have to do now is to ensure that the improvements in productivity are maintained as we move into a period of recovery, and that necessary economies in public spending are achieved so that increasingly resources can be switched to productive industry. At the same time, we must continue, as we have done in the past year, to devote adequate Government funding to assist the process of change and to ease the position of the unemployed, particularly the young unemployed.
444
Last year in a similar debate I announced a substantial package of measures. Good progress has been achieved in carrying that programme into effect. I announced details on 1 April 1980. They consisted of the immediate building by the Welsh Development Agency of 1¼ million sq. ft. of advance factory space, the immediate acquisition and development of 500 acres of industrial land and the reclamation of another 325 acres of derelict land in the Port Talbot area for future industrial development. In addition, the Cwmbran development corporation was to build a further 250,000 sq. ft. of advance factory space on the Llantarnam site.
On 30 June I approved a further package of industrial development by the agency, including an additional 47,000 sq ft for the Newport district and 50,000 sq ft for Blaenau Gwent. That package gave the go-ahead for a further 220,000 sq ft in the Shotton travel-to-work area, bringing the total planned construction at Shotton up to 98 units, totalling 708,000 sq ft of new advance factory space started in a single financial year.
At the end of July the WDA announced an agreement with Norwich Union to fund at a cost of £5 million a 240,000 sq. ft. programme for the Bridgend area, and an agreement in principle with Wimpey Ltd, for a package deal worth £4 million to build at Newport the first phase of 184,000 sq. ft. of factory space. In addition to all this, the Secretary of State for Industry announced on 19 June that the Port Talbot travel-to-work area would be upgraded to SDA status and the whole of the Newport travel-to-work area and Cwmbran employment office area would become development areas.
Alongside these considerable measures for structural improvement, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has announced a major expansion of the special employment measures, and particularly the youth opportunities programme, That programme has been expanded threefold since 1978–79. A total of £208 million was spent on it in 1981–82. It has expanded from 162,000 places in the first year to 300,000 this year and 440,000 next year. In Wales it has been expanded from 27,000 in the current year to about 43,000 in 1981–82. Over £400 million a year is being spent on the temporary short-time working compensation scheme which is aiding over 500,000 people—nearly 53,000 of them in Wales. My right hon. friend the Secretary of State for Employment was justified when he told the House:
"That does not look to me like a Government who do not care about unemployment and young people."—[Official Report, 15 January 1981; Vol. 996, c. 1620.]
I deliberately quote the United Kingdom figures for the special employment measures, and present the programme on a United Kingdom basis as I turn now to the report of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs because my central criticism of that report and the principal reason why the Government could not accept some of its recommendations is that it failed to put them in the United Kingdom context or measure them in total United Kingdom impact and cost.
The fact that we have felt bound to reject some of the Select Committee's proposals has provoked a number of comments about the work of the Select Committee which seemed to me to be based on a misunderstanding of its role. I believe that the setting up of that Committee was an important event and that it can make a very valuable contribution to better government. For that reason, I advocated its introduction during the devolution debates.

445
It was presented then not as an alternative to devolved government as some commentators have suggested but as a means of imposing parliamentary government which remains the true alternative and which the Welsh people chose.
A Select Committee's role is to advocate, to argue, to probe, to examine and expose, and by those techniques to improve; but not itself to govern. The responsibility for the actual decisions taken has to remain with the Executive who are answerable to Parliament. It is natural, perhaps inevitable as my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) has pointed out, that the Welsh Affairs Select Committee should seek to obtain the maximum possible for Wales, that it should present a shopping list; but it remains the job of Government to balance the interests of the whole United Kingdom and to assess the consequences of acting in one part on all the others for which they are responsible.
I have to say to members of the Select Committee, including my hon. Friends, that while I understand why they pitched their bids so high, they must acknowledge that the measures could not possibly be taken in isolation but have to be matched in other parts of the United Kingdom with similar problems and that any Government would be bound to consider the overall impact of what is proposed upon their economic policies generally.
Of course, the Select Committee may seek to overturn a particular economic policy, but it must not be entirely surprised if its advice is rejected, for at the end of the day it has to be for the Government to accept responsibility for what is done, to respond to the criticisms made and then to seek approval from this House of Commons for its decisions. That is exactly what I am doing this afternoon in seeking the support of my right hon. and hon. Friends for the Government's policies in the light of our response to the Select Committee proposals.
Mr. Ioan Evans: The right hon. Gentleman will realise that six Conservatives serve on the Committee, outnumbering the Opposition parties. The Committee took evidence from all responsible organisations in Wales, and as a result of that evidence from industry, local government and all the bodies before it, the Committee said that there was a jobs chasm. It warned the Government that they had to change their present policies in order to deal with the problem of unemployment in Wales.
Mr. Edwards: It is often a mistake to give way. That contribution has added nothing to the discussion. It will be for my hon. Friends to decide whether the response that the Government have made and the explanations that they have given convince them to support the Government.
Sir Anthony Meyer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the nature of this Select Committee, in which members from all parties work together in the interests of the House of Commons and in the interests of Wales, imposes no restriction on it to tailor its demands to the national capabilities? The one thing which brings us together is the demand for more for Wales. We are united in demanding that, but we cannot be united in demanding that the Government should meet what are self-evidently almost impossible requirements in many cases.
Mr. Edwards: I made that point earlier.
Mr. Edward Rowlands rose—
Mr. Edwards: I have given way a number of times. There are many detailed points in the Select Committee response on which I wish to speak. I must press on.
Sir Raymond Gower rose—
Mr. Edwards: Perhaps my hon. Friend could make his point later. I wish to deal with many detailed points and I may deal with the point he wishes to raise. One of the difficulties about giving way early in a debate is that inevitably one discovers that matters raised will be referred to later in the debate.
There is one more general point I wish to make. A singular myth was created by a journalist whose newspaper published a summary of the report before it was published which has been taken up by others who I suppose never read it all. The myth is that the Government rejected all but two of the Committee's conclusions or recommendations. It is untrue. I have done a quick count and the reality is that the Government have accepted or agreed with about a third of what the Committee recommended or concluded, and in some cases what it pressed for has already come to pass.
There is a great deal more common ground between the Government and the Committee than has been acknowledged and I welcome much of the analysis that has been made in this worthwhile report. As we said in our response, the Government
"sees it as a central objective to assist the process of change and to ease the very painful social consequences that often flow from it. It will therefore continue to provide substantial financial support to enable the nationalised industries to modernise, to improve the infrastructure and encourage the creation and development of new industries and to help those who are unemployed, particularly the young unemployed".
We believe that we are carrying out those undertakings, and I have very firmly to reject the suggestion that the advance factory building programme that I have described is an inadequate response to the situation that we face. There is absolutely no evidence that site development preparations and factory building on a larger scale in the past year would have led to faster inward investment or the provision of new jobs in manufacturing industry.
The reality has been that land and factories have been available throughout the period for any potential investor. I believe it would do no service to Wales simply to have standing vacant very large numbers of factories for long periods. The truth is that we face a formidable challenge in the coming year to fill the factories that are nearing completion.
There is another important consideration, too. If we are to carry forward and sustain over a long period the programme of change and industrial regeneration that has to be set in train, it is vitally important that we should stimulate and encourage an increasing quantity of private sector investment in the factory building programme. That would not be possible if we swamped the market.
The progress so far has been encouraging. The £5 million deal already announced with Norwich Union is now at the construction stage, and good progress is being made with detailed negotiations on the £3 million deal agreed in principle with the National Coal Board pension fund. The agency is about to take new initiatives to raise money from the private sector through the sale of some of its existing tenanted factory stock. In all, the agency is looking to secure up to £15 million of private sector funds next year. If this can be achieved, expenditure on site

447
development and factory building expenditure will be up to 25 per cent. higher than would otherwise have been possible.
The need to arrange this increasingly important private sector property investment on a co-ordinated basis also provides one good answer to the criticism made by the Select Committee that we would have done better if we had not concentrated the remedial programme on the Welsh Development Agency. There are other reasons as well. The fact is that the agency' was established by the previous Government precisely to undertake this sort of task, and it is extremely doubtful whether we could have carried out such a massive programme so effectively by allocating the resources to a variety of organisations.
The programme was announced on 9 April. At this stage, only some nine months after the announcement, work is under way on site on about 200 factory units totalling over 1 million sq. ft. The remaining contracts to be let under the programme, including about another 80 factory units totalling an additional ½ million sq. ft., will be placed either on or ahead of schedule over the next few months. The first factory units from this crash programme will become available for occupation in May and the extensive site development work that has been carried out means that there will be ample prepared sites for further factory building in the years ahead. Incidentally, more than 3,000 people are employed in Wales, in one way or another, on this programme.
The other major area of disagreement is over the Committee's comments on the possibility of serious social disorder in Wales, in particular the emphasis given to that point by the Chairman in his press conference. Little evidence was put forward at the time to support the suggestion, and in the event the great mass of the Welsh people have shown far more good sense and judgment than they were given credit for.
Unfortunately, the suggestion has been used by some as an excuse for militancy, and the threat has been seen as a weapon to change Government policy. Those who claim—I believe that the hon. Member for Pontypool is among them—that the statement and the threat led to the decision to retain Llanwern are not only wrong, but are making a claim that can only be regarded as further encouragement to social disorder. The truth is that the proposal to continue steel making at Llanwern has been made by the British Steel Corporation not because of threats of disorder, but, on the contrary, because of the success of "slimline" and the absence of disruption. The one thing that could guarantee the failure of any plant in the present condition of the market is for social disorder and disruption to occur there.
I also have to say that the suggestion has significantly added to the difficulty of attracting new industry to revitalise the Welsh economy. In all my discussions on the Inmos project and over other possible developments from within the United Kingdom, as well as in my visit to the United States, I have been left in no doubt at all that the greatest single obstacle we face to industrial recovery in Wales is the entirely false image of Wales held by some—[Interruption.]
Mr. Rowlands: Disgraceful.
Mr. Edwards: I repeat that statement with all the emphasis that I can command—that this entirely false
448
image is damaging Wales, the false image that it is the home of disorder, an area of decay and dereliction, and a place where outsiders will be made unwelcome or their houses burnt down.
The reality is entirely different. There are those who by their words and actions, including Labour Members, reinforce that myth and do incalculable damage to the people of Wales.
Having expressed disagreement on the major issues, I shall refer now to a number of areas where there is much common ground. The Committee believes that Wales should remain a major producer of basic steel. Clearly I welcome the fact that the British Steel Corporation sees a continuing role for the major plants at Llanwern and Port Talbot, and the Government are currently considering its proposals. At the present stage, I cannot comment further on the details of the BSC corporate plan, but it is quite clear that that plan will involve further substantial funding by the taxpayer and our decisions on these matters and on the requests for funding by other nationalised industries obviously take account, as the Committee suggests, of the repercussions on other nationalised industries and on the economic base of whole regions. I welcome the fact that, after the Select Committee had reported, agreement was reached between the British Steel Corporation and the National Coal Board on the continued supply of indigenous coking coal beyond 1980.
The Committee emphased that, in addition to the threat to its market for coking coal, wider problems confronted the National Coal Board. If the board is to achieve its long-term strategic objective and maintain its major capital development programme, it must clearly re-examine the drain on resources at present taken by some of the older uneconomic pits.
We have to face the fact, as the previous Government had to face it on a large scale, that over the next three or four years we may see further closures of loss-making pits. However, I believe that the NCB will find opportunity for additional investment to strengthen the position of many pits in Wales and to increase job opportunities within them. The Government have, of course, made a massive commitment of taxpayers' money to the coal industry—a commitment of over £800 million in capital investment this year. That figure, incidentally, fits in exactly with "Plan for Coal".
Much speculation in the past has been exaggerated, as I believe much of it is today. Last year for example the right hon. Member for the Rhondda told the House that 15,000 jobs in coal were at immediate risk in Wales out of a total of 28,000. I have no reason to think that the National Coal Board is contemplating cuts either as large as that or on that timescale.
Of course I understand very well that any further closures will add to our difficulties, just as I clearly recognise that the latest proposals of the British Steel Corporation will have a further impact on employment prospects in parts of Wales, at Ebbw Vale, Shotton and West Glamorgan particularly. In the light of these proposals and of the serious increase in unemployment that has taken place, the Government will need to consider the implications for assisted area status and the need for further remedial measures. At a time when decisions about British Steel Corporation's corporate plan have yet to be taken, it is obviously premature for me to say anything at this time.
Mr. Rowlands rose—
Mr. Edwards: I have said that I cannot say more at this time.
Mr. Rowlands: On the coal industry—
Mr. Edwards: The hon. Member was the only Labour Member who took the trouble to attend yesterday's energy debate. No Welsh Member spoke in that debate, but I know that he was present and listened carefully to the debate. There is nothing that I can add to what was said about coal yesterday. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy made the position quite clear.
Since the Committee has reported and recommended that the Inmos project should be located in Wales, the announcement has of course been made that the production plant is to be built at Duffryn, Newport, and energetic measures are now being taken to ensure the success of this project. I am holding a conference before the end of this month with representatives of industry and other organisations to consider what further steps can be taken to improve the training facilities that are required in this new high technology area.
There are other encouraging developments in this field. I can confirm press reports that a firm decision is expected shortly from MITEL, the fast-growing Canadian telecommunications company, about a plan to establish an important production plant in South Wales this year. All the initial negotiations have been concluded and the company has stated publicly that the plant will initially provide about 1,300 new jobs increasing to 1,700 over the next two or three years and to 3,000 by 1990. It also tells me that perhaps as many as half as many jobs again may be created in companies to whom they will sub-contract. Obviously I very much hope that the board will confirm the decision to go ahead with this project.
It was not my original intention to say anything about MITEL's plans in this debate and I would certainly not have done so if the company had not itself confirmed its interest in a Welsh location. The company was of course responding to press speculation. I have in recent days read with mounting concern and dismay a number of newspaper reports about this or that development said to be in prospect for various localities in Wales and the role being played by this or that body in encouraging it. In my view, the time for publicity is when negotiations have been successfully concluded and it has been agreed with the company that an announcement should be made. Until that time, everyone should keep quiet. No purpose is served—except perhaps to gratify some people's egos—by premature disclosure, hints and half-promises.
More than this, advance disclosure that a company may be considering a particular location can do untold damage. For a whole variety of reasons—marketing strategy, its competitive position, the interests and attitudes of its existing employees or its financial position—a company needs to handle any significant expansion with care and delicacy. Loose, irresponsible talk could easily result in the loss of the development. I and my Department will continue to observe the most scrupulous care to maintain confidentiality about the information given to us. I strongly deplore any other approach.
Mr. Neil Kinnock: Red herring.
Mr. Edwards: The hon. Member says "Red herring," but I must tell him that the Labour leader of one major
450
council in South Wales, talking to me on the telephone not two or three hours ago, confirmed his grave anxiety about what has been happening in the last week or two.
Mr. Rowlands: The Government are spending more time on this than on the coal industry.
Mr. Edwards: It is a sad judgment on the hon. Member that he thinks that that matter, which could threaten the arrival in South Wales of hundreds or thousands of new jobs, is not a matter to be commented on in the House.
While speaking about these major new projects, Inmos and MITEL, both of immense potential importance for South Wales, I must emphasise the critical importance to both of them of our membership of the European Economic Community. I have spoken about the false image of Wales being an obstacle to inward investment. Another obstacle at present is the fear that Britain might withdraw from the Community. If that came to be seriously believed by overseas industrialists, it would be a catastrophe for the Welsh people, and indeed for the United Kingdom economy.
During my visit to the United States last autumn, I was left in no doubt at all that virtually every company considering establishing a new factory in Britain was doing so because we were a member of the Community and would immediately abandon its plans if the threat of withdrawal became a reality. Those who advocate that course therefore gravely threaten the possibility of industrial regeneration in Wales. I regard such talk as being wildly irresponsible, particularly at the moment when our trade balance with Europe has moved into credit for the first time. I must also emphasise the immensely important contribution that EEC financial assistance has made to this task of attracting new industry and creating new jobs.
There is a whole range of comments and proposals by the Select Committee which the Government either accept or on which there is a considerable measure of agreement. For example, in connection with criteria for regional selective assistance, we believe that those criteria are not discouraging applications and measures have been taken to increase the flexibility of the scheme, particularly for small firms. The Government accept the need for greater publicity, and measures to that end are being taken.
The Committee pressed for further assistance to employers with short-term difficulties and for an expansion of the STEP scheme. We have taken action to implement those recommendations. The Committee made recommendations about the investment activities of the Welsh Development Agency in relation to small businesses. We agree substantially with what the Committee said on that point. Our policies and, indeed, the approach of the Welsh Development Agency are in line with that.
The Committee emphasised the importance of the financial assistance provided to assist with transitional and settling-in costs of employers moving into the development areas. I think they failed fully to understand the scale of assistance now available under section 7 of the Industry Act and the assistance available towards the cost of training the new work force. I discovered in the United States that this is regarded as of particular importance for potential investors
We were urged by the Committee to pay particular attention to the development of co-operatives as a means

451
of creating employment. I had this very much in mind when I announced on 15 December my intention of making a grant of £40,000 available to the Wales TUC as a contribution towards the cost of its research study into the feasibility of setting up a resource centre. I regard the proposal for this study as a promising initiative which deserves every encouragement. In the light of the unemployment problems and prospects in Wales, I decided it was important to get the study under way without delay. Therefore, pending parliamentary approval of my Supplementary Estimate for the Regional and Industrial Development (Wales) Vote, necessary expenditure will be met by repayable advances from the Contingencies Fund.
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Edwards: I would prefer to press on, if I may.
The Committee rightly emphasised the importance of tourism to the Welsh economy. We have already taken measures to make more effective use of the resources available to tourism. I know that the chairman of the Wales Tourist Board is grateful for the scale of support that we have been able to give.
The Committee was absolutely right to emphasise the importance of close co-operation between the Welsh Office and the Manpower Services Commission. The new chairman of the commission's Manpower Services Committee for Wales, Sir Melvyn Rosser, is playing a detailed part in discussions that are going on to achieve that important objective.
Finally, in this review of common ground between the Committee and the Government, I would refer to the recommendation that the Welsh Office industry department should be designated the body to which all inquiries should be directed, and that the division of responsibility over the selection of tenants for factories should be clarified. There is no doubt about the last point. Under the guidelines, the responsibility rests clearly with the Welsh Development Agency. As to the first point, the Government accept this recommendation and we are taking steps to ensure that the Welsh Office industry department plays the key role, not only in seeing that inquiries relating to assistance are directed to it, but that it ensures the effective follow-up of all potential investment inquiries until they are brought to a firm conclusion.
There is another batch of recommendations which we have been unable to accept in whole or in part. I know that some of my hon. Friends were particularly disappointed that we were unable to agree to the phasing out of the four-month deferment of the payment of approved claims for regional development grant. I certainly share their view that it would be desirable to achieve this objective.
We have taken the view that the overriding priority is the need to cut public expenditure and, therefore, to get interest rates down. The House should appreciate that a 3 per cent. reduction in interest rates, which has already taken place, is, on the estimate of the CBI, already worth £¾ billion to the company sector. The biggest single contribution that we can make is to achieve further reductions.
452
We also felt unable to accept the recommendation about IDCs. I understand the arguments, but the evidence shows that, in recent years, the system has had little effect. It would be hard to justify a reintroduction of it at this time.
The Committee wished that the area for which the Development Board for Rural Wales is responsible should be extended. This was a point that I carefully considered both before and after the Committee met. I concluded that the board should continue at present to concentrate its existing resources on the area allocated to it by the previous Labour Government.
I have today given approval to the board's construction programme for 1981–82 outside Newtown. This provides for a start on the construction of 24 new factories and two factory extensions with a total floor space of 73,000 sq ft. When the factories in the current and newly approved programmes have been completed and fully occupied, the board will have a total of 283 factories providing over 7,000 jobs.
At the same time, I have approved extensions to the key worker housing scheme. There will be additional developments as well in Newtown. A press release today will provide all the details.
The House would expect me to say a little about my decision not to accept the Select Committee's recommendation that there should be an independent review of overseas investment promotion work and the suggestion that careful consideration should be given to the proposal that the overseas promotional work of the Development Corporation for Wales should be taken over by the Welsh Development Agency. I have set out the reasons for my decision in some detail in the White Paper response to the Select Committee. I do not believe that an independent report would have added very much to the knowledge available to us, and particularly to the very detailed assessment that I and my officials were able to make during the course of our extensive United States tour.
It would have been a great mistake to divert the attentions and energies of those engaged in their task at a time when they are having encouraging results. I also remain unconvinced that the agency, with its varied responsibilities, would carry out the task more effectively. I value particularly the fact that the corporation has a substantial industrial membership and commands support from local authorities in Wales.
I am not for one moment arguing that in this, as in other areas, there is not room for improvement. I believe that the Select Committee was absolutely right to call attention to the need for more effective public accountability and improved financial control. Steps have been taken to strengthen the link between the corporation and the agency and to improve accountability. Improvements have also been made in the relationships with the consular posts overseas.
I came to two principal conclusions about the work of the development corporation. The first is that it is effectively developing a wide range of contacts and creating extensive interest overseas. Everything that I saw in the United States confirmed that view. Secondly, the central role in the follow-up process can be carried out only by a Government Department, the Welsh Office, and the follow-up is a key task in the job of successful development.
I was greatly encouraged that during our visit to America, despite the severity of the recession, there was such widespread interest in what we had to offer in Wales.

453
I have never sought to underestimate the scale of the immediate problem that we face. When, however, during a time of recession, American companies are considering setting up here, we can take encouragement from the fact. A great many American companies, already established in Wales, spoke up far more effectively about the reasons for coming here than many Opposition Members, with their gloomy prognostications. If the board of MITEL approves the decision to go ahead with the project in Wales, it will be an event of great significance. Not only is it a fast-growing sector, but it will show that a company free to go to any part of the world has selected to come to Britain and to Wales because it believes it is the best place.
We are seeing encouraging activity in this country in filling our advance factories and in the number of inquiries. In a period of deepening recession, we formally allocated in 1980 131 Government advance factories, virtually matching the all-time record of 140 in 1979. I well remember the enthusiasm of Opposition Members when the Labour Government made 100 allocations in 1978. Within the Welsh Office industry department this year we have handled over 500 inquiries and more than 300 visits. Those figures are down on 1979 when there were 700 inquiries and 500 visits. However, they do not include the large number of inquiries for small units that are now handled by the WDA. The WDA itself this year has allocated about 1 million sq ft of factory space. It is a remarkable achievement.
All that confirms my judgment that, far from being an area condemned to industrial decline, Wales is an area of enormous potential. I share the judgment of the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency that the industrial belts of South and North-East Wales could be two of the growth centres of Europe over the next decade.
The problem that we face is enormous. The Select Committee referred to it as a jobs chasm. The fact that so much activity is taking place during the recession means that there must be a strong chance of rapid recovery as we move out of the recession and that we should be able to take advantage of our improved competitive position. Improved competitiveness is the key to recovery. Because the ordinary men and women in Wales, as in the remainder of Britain, have rejected the siren cry of those who call for the postponement of necessary action, or, worse, industrial disruption and social disorder, and have instead buckled down to the task of rescuing their companies, their jobs and their country, I confidently believe that our recovery is assured. [HON. GENTLEMEN: "Resign."] If the Opposition do not sell Wales short, we shall come through.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): I have no authority to control the length of speeches, but 18 hon. Members have indicated their wish to speak in this important debate. Perhaps Front-Bench and Back-Bench Members will bear that in mind.
Mr. Rowlands: The Minister took 52 minutes.
5.21 pm
Mr. Alec Jones: Before beginning the speech that I have prepared I should like to comment on the appointment of the chairman and members of the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority. They face a difficult and desperately important task. The Opposition wish them well and trust that they will be able to meet the deadline
454
date of November 1982. It would be a tragedy if Wales were behind England in the provision of the fourth channel.
When I listened to the Secretary of State, it did not appear that he lived in the same Wales that I live in. He seemed to wish to claim credit—to scrape it from whatever corner he could—but to deny any responsibility for the level of unemployment, the fall in industrial production, or the other calamities that face us.
I express my gratitude to the Leader of the House, although he is absent from the Chamber, for at least not shunting this important debate into the Welsh Grand Committee, which had been the intention of his predecessor. I do not intend to be disparaging to the Welsh Grand Committee, but the report is of great importance. My gratitude will end there if this debate is regarded as the one annual Welsh-day debate instead of an extra day to deal specifically with the Select Committee's report and the Government's response.
I am more than disappointed, and regard it almost as sharp practice, that we are having to debate a procedural motion on the Adjournment of the House rather than a definitive motion that would have been capable of amendment and would have enabled us more easily to show by voice and vote our total dissatisfaction with the Government's inadequate and miserable response to the report. However, I suspect that had a motion been tabled some Government Members might have been embarrassed.
In their response the Government say that they welcome the report, although the warmth of the welcome is more than chilled by the iciness of their response. It is an excellent report. I congratulate all members of the Committee, on both sides, for producing it. It is based on sound evidence and makes a proposal that could have been a blueprint for action. However, the Government have turned their back on it. I hope that those six Conservative Members who formed the majority on the Committee will not abandon this, their first legitimate child, and run away from the action to which their recommendations clearly point, but I fear that they will, as the back-pedalling has already begun.
Reluctantly, we can compare most unfavourably the encouraging response that the report received from all over Wales—the press, television, county and district councils and the Wales TUC, and even the Wales CBI was mildly encouraging—with the bitter disappointment when the Government's response was published. The report offered hope and pointed a way forward; the response offers nothing save a continuation of the disastrous policies that have brought us to our present plight.
The Secretary of State and some of his hon. Friends may say that I am merely showing my prejudice. I do not deny my Tory prejudices. I learnt them in a hard school, at a young age. However, I shall quote the Western Mail editorial on 2 December. It is a paper that I greatly admire, but I quote it because in South Wales circles it is never regarded as a keen supporter of the Labour Party. It states:
"The Government's long-awaited reply to the report on unemloyment in the Principality by the Parliamentary Select Committee on Welsh Affairs is a bitter disappointment. Its point-by-point rejection of every main recommendation is a slap in the face for the all-party group of MPs with its majority of Conservative members. If any group in Westminster knows the plight of Wales, then surely it must be the Select Committee, and their report was constructive and well-researched. It makes the Government's blindness to their views all the more baffling."

455
My only criticism is that "baffling" is putting it mildly. Unless the report's major recommendations are speedily implemented on coal, steel, development status, and so on, not only will Wales continue with its present big unemployment and suffering, but we shall be incapable of benefiting from any upturn in the economy should that come about, although it is getting more and more nearly impossible to contemplate any upturn under this Government.
There is another reason for being baffled. When the Select Committee was set up there was a flourish of trumpets. However, the Secretary of State did not seem so keen on it today. I can understand that. At the time that the Committee was set up, it was suggested that it was probably the best thing that had happened to Wales since the discovery of lava bread, but not now, since the Secretary of State has seen the first report. The first report, which was unanimous, has been virtually torn up. No wonder the people in Wales are asking what is the use of such a report, and even going on to ask what is the use of such a Committee. What is their use, under such a Secretary of State?
When some of us first heard hints of a Cabinet reshuffle we hoped that Wales would be lucky. However, we realised that our choice was between another of the Prime Minister's pet poodles and one of those brave bull terriers from the Back Benches, willing to bark but afraid to bite.
Despite the rosy picture that the Secretary of State seemed to be painting of Wales—it is not one that I recognise—the Government's response needed to be even more radical than the report. The situation has deteriorated rapidly since the report was produced.
Early last year some Labour Members predicted an increase of 50,000 in unemployment in Wales. They predicted that not with pleasure but with alarm and concern, because the unemployed, in the main; are our families, friends and neighbours in the areas in which we live. At that time—as he has again today—the Secretary of State castigated us for being too pessimistic and for painting too black a picture. He said that we were performing a disservice to Wales. He is an expert on disservice to Wales. The Welsh Office, in its evidence to the Select Committee on 10 March, said:
"I think if you pressed me on a figure here … then our senior economist would say, and I have discussed it with him, that a figure of around 125,000 was certainly well within the bounds of possibility. I said to you earlier that I am disposed to be more optimistic than that."
That 125,000 has come and gone. The unemployment figure in Wales for December was 138,000—12·7 per cent.—compared with 80,000 when the Secretary of State took office. That is an increase of 58,000. It is the sum total of his achievements.
Earlier this week the Secretary of State for Employment forecast a possible rise to 2·6 million unemployment in Britain. Based on our past experience, the Welsh share of that increased misery will be about 6·5 per cent. I think that the Secretary of State himself used that figure in Committee. That means that Wales can expect an additional 18,000 unemployed. Wales could end up this month with an unemployment figure of 150,000. If we reach that figure, will the Secretary of State still think that the Select Committee pitched its bids too high?
Mr. Anderson: My right hon. Friend must be aware that we cannot rely on the old relationship, because the proportion between Wales and the United Kingdom will increase—first, because of our dependence on steel and, secondly, because of demographic factors. My right hon. Froend is being too modest.
Mr. Jones: I accept that point. I simply used those figures to illustrate the fact that we could be faced with an additional 18,000 unemployed this month, which would push us over 150,000. I hope that that figure is not reached. If, when the figures are announced next Tuesday, the movement for Wales is in the opposite direction, no one will be more pleased than I. But if we reach that figure, I trust that the optimistic approach that was prevalent in the Welsh Office on 10 March will be replaced by a more realistic approach and by a determination on the part of the Government to do something about it. As a start, they could at least reconsider their response to the Select Committee.
The number of registered unemployed does not tell the full story. In many parts of Wales, certainly where females are employed—such as chlorine workers in my constituency—all the unemployed do not sign the register. The comparable figures show that that is the case. In the 12 months prior to June 1980 32,000 job losses were recorded in Wales, yet in that same period only 19,100 joined the dole queue. The number of redundancies notified to the Department of Employment in 1979 was 39,022. The number notified in 1980 was 118,966. That is an average increase of 10,000 a month.
I accept that the notified redundancies will include some that are later withdrawn, but they will also exclude redundancies affecting fewer than 10 people. The figure of 118,966 notified redundancies in 1980 is a clear indication of the scale of the problem and a valid reason to expect a better response from the Government.
I recall that when the Labour Party was in Government the Secretary of State was never keen on the temporary employment measures. He derided the Labour Government for them. There are now 71,220 workers in Wales covered or protected in some way by special employment training schemes. I welcome that. About 59,000 are covered by the temporary short-time working compensation scheme. However, it is another case of the Government's giving with their left hand and taking back with their right. They extended to nine months the period of support under the short-time working compensation scheme but reduced the rate of payment from 75 per cent. to 50 per cent. I have discussed the matter with some employers and have reached the opinion that the lower level of 50 per cent. will not be sufficient to enable them to make the same use of the scheme as they have in the past.
I wish to draw attention to one aspect of the youth opportunities programme. I welcome any increase in that programme, because one of the great tragedies is the number of Welsh youngsters out of work. The weekly allowance paid to the youngsters is £23·50. It was last increased in November 1979. It is probably the only allowance, pay equivalent or pension equivalent, that has not been increased in that period.
Mr. Garel-Jones: I am listening with great care to the right hon. Gentleman's introductory remarks. Will he say whether at some time he will feel that he and the Opposition party are obliged to give some idea of the alternative policies they wish to put forward?
Mr. Alec Jones: I came prepared for that. I have a copy of the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) from this Dispatch Box last week, in which he spelt out exactly the Labour Party's policy. If the hon. Gentleman had attended that debate his education would have been furthered apace.
I wish to deal specifically with the rate of the allowance. I shall quote from a letter from the community opportunities scheme at Gilfach Goch. It employs 13 adults and 70 youngsters. The letter states:
"These young people work a full working day from 8 am to 4.15 pm in a setting that we believe will best equip them for the world of work, they undertake valuable work within the Community as well as industrial sub-contracting … We have a situation in Gilfach Goch where for example a young person on our scheme is now worse off by attending the scheme than by remaining unemployed. The training allowance is £2·85 more than unemployment benefit … However the daily bus fare is 36p—10 trips costing £3·60. Therefore such a trainee is 75p a week out of pocket for doing a full day's work."
Mr. Coleman rose—
Mr. Jones: I shall give way, but first I wish to make the point that on each occasion on which I have spoken from this Box on Welsh days I have been accused of continuing for far too long.
Mr. Coleman: I wish to confirm my right hon. Friend's remarks. Only this morning I received a similar letter from the clerk of the Neath borough council which runs a similar scheme. It expressed exactly the same point as that which is mentioned in my right hon. Friend's letter. I wish to press for something to be done about uprating the allowance.
Mr. Jones: I quoted the letter from Gilfach Goch, but other people have written to me along similar lines. If youngsters are to be encouraged to take part in the schemes, the allowance needs uprating. I have tried to analyse how I see the level of unemployment developing in Wales.
I have referred to the inclusion of a high percentage of young people, but there are two other problems. First, in many parts of Wales unemployment has been long-lasting. That leads to the greatest individual hardship. Secondly, we have particular black spots that are partly obscured by official statistics. I use my constituency as the best example. My constituency's figures are officially published and merged as part of the Pontypridd travel-to-work area. However, the planning officer of the Rhondda borough council has computed figures for Rhondda, and the result is an average unemployment rate of 19.6 per cent.—female unemployment of 15.5 per cent. and male unemployment of 23.1 per cent. If, in addition, we had to face pit closures, it would be a disaster.
It is against that background, and not the rosy background painted by the Secretary of State, that we have to judge the Government's response. In my view the right hon. Gentleman was found lacking in his response.
Mr. Garel-Jones: I suppose that the right hon. Gentleman is saying that if we do as well as the Labour Government did we shall be all right.
Mr. Alec Jones: The hon. Gentleman should check the figures from 1974 to 1979.
Mr. Garel-Jones: The right hon. Gentleman closed 13 pits. Will he give way?
Mr. Alec Jones: I do not propose to give way again. I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once, and if he intervenes from a sedentary position he cannot expect me to observe the courtesy of giving way.
I want to refer specifically to the part of the report relating to steel and coal, which are both vital in Wales. Having accepted, as the steel workers and the steel industry did—the Secretary of State paid tribute to this—the closure of Shotton, the slim-down at Port Talbot and Llanwern, and the loss of thousands of associated jobs last year, as well as changes and improvements in working patterns, to which the right hon. Gentleman also paid tribute, the steel industry in Wales is now facing further redundancies. It seems that there will be 400 at Shotton, 1,000 at Velindre and 400 at Ebbw Vale, and a continuation of the slim-down in other plants.
The Government's response quite rightly was that it was premature for them to comment further before the proposals of the British Steel Corporation were known. They are known now. I hope that in the discussions that are to take place—I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be playing a part in them—the Government will seek to ensure that the corporation enjoys the same advantages as its competitors in Europe.
For example, if the BSC had the same level of subsidy on coking coal as the industry in Western Germany, it would be about £35 million a year better off. If Britain had the same transport aid as other EEC countries, the BSC would be about £10 million a year better off. The higher energy prices in the United Kingdom penalise the corporation to the extent of between £50 million and £70 million. Those are not BSC management matters; they come within the province and responsibility of the Government, and that is why the future of the steel industry in Wales will depend on the Government's willingness to accept their responsibility.
As I said, Velindre will lose about 1,000 jobs. According to my information, it is traditionally a profitable plant. It has achieved international manning levels and has a good record of customer service. I understand that representations have been made to the Department. I hope that when he replies the Minister will indicate his view on Velindre.
We all know that the coal industry is linked in many ways with the steel industry. The coal industry received nothing but a rebuff in the Government's response. For example, there is to be no Government financial assistance for the much-needed Ancit replacement plant at Abercwmboi. There will be little assistance to maximise the use of indigenous coking coal.
Coal imports rose to 7½ million tonnes last year. I do not understand the logic of importing to that level when in the same year we stocked 38 million tonnes of our own coal on the ground. No one denies that cost is a factor. I have no doubt that at present it would be cheaper to import all our coal. However,
"that is a dangerous, unworthy and foolish argument. It would make us totally dependent on imports for our very life blood, which in the event of hostilities, would bring us to our knees in a week, expose us to grave danger in the event of a sudden political crisis or an earthquake in some foreign country, and would cast away our principal asset, namely, our huge energy reserves."—[Official Report, 24 November 1980.]
I would not have said it as elegantly as that. I am sure that the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) recognises the contribution that he made in the coal

459
liquefaction debate. He was pointing out the folly of relying on other countries for scarce and essential energy supplies, and with that I agree.
The South Wales coalfield, in management and men, has made a tremendous effort in the past year. It has accepted the halting of recruitment, although there is a real risk in doing so for too long. If that happens, the supply of future generations of miners will begin to dry up. Contractors have been removed from the pits and the purchasing of new equipment has been delayed. In nine months there has been a 5 per cent. increase in productivity, with an extra 204,000 tonnes on the ground.
We had a debate on the coal industry when the Coal Industry Bill came before the House on 24 July. During the debate the Under-Secretary of State for Energy said:
"this is not a closure programme".—(Official Report, 24 July 1980, Vol. 989, c. 898.]
He added that the programme was based on the assumption that the closure pattern would be the same as for the past year. The content of his speech suggested that it was linked with the document entitled "Plan for Coal". Is that still valid? As was said yesterday during the energy debate, we have all seen press reports that 25 pits in the United Kingdom are to be closed. Those of us who represent South Wales areas fear that some of the 25 will be located in those areas. We need to know the Government's view. Is "Plan for Coal" still valid, or is it out of date? On 24 July it was receiving the Government's backing and support.
It is obvious from what the right hon. Gentleman said this afternoon that he has been having discussions with the NCB. I hope that he has had better discussions on recent occasions than the ones that took place some time ago. I hope that when the Minister replies he will tell us more about the discussions that seem to be taking place between the Welsh Office and the NCB, and certainly more about the consequences for the South Wales coalfield. I remind the Secretary of State that during the election campaign those Conservative Members who now represent Welsh seats fought the election on the promise that
"We will continue modernisation of the coal and steel industries."
The modernisation of the steel industry has had disastrous results so far. I trust that we shall not see similar modernisation in the coal industry.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the request by the Select Committee for the upgrading of certain areas for regional development status. He said that the Government had responded by upgrading Port Talbot, Newport and Cwmbran. Those upgradings are welcome, but the Government could not do much less in areas such as Port Talbot, Newport and Cwmbran. The Government state in their response that there was no justification for any change in Swansea, Newport, Aberdare or Llanelli, or the areas covered by the Development Board for Rural Wales. They said of the DBRW that the numbers involved were relatively small and that the trend towards rural depopulation had been checked. Unless regional aid is restored to Mid-Wales, I am frightened that, given the present economic climate, the progress of the DBRW, on which the Secretary of State commented, and which he praised earlier, could be halted. That is not just my view, it is the view of many people working in that area. I have
460
a quotation from the Western Mail in which the chairman and managing director of a company in Newtown said that the
"withdrawal of regional aid for Mid-Wales could halt the progress made by the board. My concern is that the new Government policy for Wales is going to undo what has been achieved".
Therefore I ask the Secretary of State to look at the question of development area status as it affects Mid-Wales.
If one cannot justify the upgrading of those areas covered by the DBRW because of the relatively small numbers of unemployed people there, that cannot be the argument for Swansea, Neath, Aberdare and Llanelli. In Swansea 13,000 are unemployed—12·1 per cent of the population; in Neath the figure is 3,700, or 13·7 per cent.; in Aberdare it is 3,400, or 15·4 per cent.; and in Llanelli it is 5,019, or 13·5 per cent. Even those figures are a month out of date. If one takes a sounding one finds that Llanelli is likely to be upgraded because, according to a press report this week, the Secretary of State well understands that a serious situation is developing in Llanelli. However, with 5,019 unemployed, or 13·5 per cent., a serious situation is not developing; it already exists.
If the loss of the 1,000 jobs at Velindre takes place, the Secretary of State may find that restoring development area status to Llanelli—which shows how foolish he was to take it away—may not be sufficient, and he may need to grant special development area status. If Llanelli is to get that, what about Swansea, Neath and Aberdare? Will those three towns have to wait for further blows before their needs are recognised? On the Government's published unemployment figures the Select Committee's request for those areas should be met. I could have mentioned other areas, but I have dealt only with those recommended by the Select Committee.
The Select Committee produced a number of other proposals, some of which have been mentioned. I do not propose to go into those, because my hon. Friends will pick them up later. I saw the report as a package of proposals that could have helped close this job chasm—whatever the Secretary of State for Wales cares to say about it. The unemployment figures will be published next Tuesday and we shall see how wide that chasm is. If those proposals had been implemented they would have brought hope to Wales. There is not much hope in many parts of Wales today. Instead, we have had a response from a Secretary of State who is so out of tune with life in Wales that he has produced a mouse of a report, offering nothing but despair. In my view he has failed to fulfil his obligations to Wales and has earned the contempt of the people of Wales. For that reason we shall vote against him, his response and his Government.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must tell the House that I realise that I shall not be able to call some hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate. It is 5.55 pm and I have not yet called a Back Bencher. There remain about three hours for Back Benchers. Unless there are 10-minute speeches we shall be very unfortunate.
5.54 pm
Sir Raymond Gower: We are holding today's debate against a background of certain facts and factors

461
that could be widely agreed. For a long time, Britain's economic and industrial performance has been extremely disappointing and quite inadequate. For 15 years or more, with only occasional intervals, inflation has been excessively high and for most of the past decade, with few interruptions, there has been a steady growth in unemployment. As stated in Cmnd. 8085
"The Government fully shares the concern"—
which was expressed in our first report from the Welsh Select Committee—
"about the large increase that has taken place in unemployment levels in … recent years and the present upward trend."
I am sure that all of us will echo that deep concern. We must also reiterate our concern for the causes of this unemployment, which include inflation, the shortcomings of British industry and the mistakes that have been made by successive Governments in the past.
The House should note paragraph 3 of the Cmnd. Paper:
"As the Committee notes, Wales' current difficulties have been long in the making. They cannot be put right overnight."
I do not know whether the right hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) will accept that. That was our feeling on the Select Committee and it was accepted by the Government. I accept the assertion in paragraph 5 that:
"The economy of Wales is an integral part of the economy of the United Kingdom".
Listening to some of the remarks that we have heard today one might have thought that that was not so. Only a section of nationalists would disagree with that assertion there may be some divergence of opinion among us, and perhaps among members of the Select Committee, on the remainder of paragraph 5, which states:
"In considering the proposals of the Select Committee, the Government is bound to consider how they relate to its central strategy on which the economic recovery of the whole country depends, and to their effect on other parts of the United Kingdom."
The right hon. Gentleman said that that was inadequate for Wales, but he must surely understand and agree that while our remit in the Select Committee was Wales, the Government's remit at all times is the whole of the United Kingdom. For that reason there is bound to be some divergence with any Government or Select Committee. If one has a remit for a part of the United Kingdom and the other has responsibility for the whole, there will clearly be some divergence. I accept the general validity of that statement. The responsibility of the Government was and is the United Kingdom, and by definition the responsibility of the Select Committee was limited to Wales.
Mr. Rowlands: I have been following the hon. Gentleman's argument. In the light of his comments, will he explain what is the remit or role of the Secretary of State for Wales?
Sir Raymond Gower: The remit of the Secretary of State is primarily, as a member of the Cabinet, for all the United Kingdom. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."] Oh, yes. Each Minister in the Cabinet is responsible for the whole United Kingdom.
Mr. Rowlands: The Secretary of State is the voice of Wales.
Sir Raymond Gower: Each Minister has a particular responsibility, I agree, after that, and subsidiary to that.
Mr. Rowlands: Subsidiary?
Sir Raymond Gower: Yes, subsidiary, because the responsibility of a Member of Parliament is for the whole
462
country before his own constituency. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman understands the British constitution. He will appreciate that a Government have to recognise that while the problems of Wales are serious and valid, and deserve our earnest consideration, there are other parts of the United Kingdom—even Northern Ireland—which have worse and more serious problems.
Mr. Joan Evans rose—
Sir Raymond Gower: I cannot give way for the moment.
I find that some divergence is inevitable. I do not want to stretch this too far. I have a few provisos to that general statement. I do not want to overstate the case. If we are satisfied that the Principality's undue dependence on the old industries of iron, steel and coal remains, a case for special consideration may be substantiated. If we are persuaded—to a large degree, I am persuaded—that Wales has had to bear a somewhat disproportionate share of the cutting down of the steel industry and the crippling loss of jobs in the main industries, there is an enhanced case for special treatment in this respect.
I accept that in considering this matter the Government have to consider the background in the United Kingdom, but I find it inevitable that in dealing with the problems of the whole of the United Kingdom the Government must recognise these special reasons, which have subsisted for some time and still subsist in the Principality.
I mention another recommendation in the first report. It is that Wales should remain a major producer of steel, however small the British Steel Corporation may become. There are limits to what can be achieved if it becomes very small. The Government have noted this recommendation; they have accepted the importance to Wales of the location of steelmaking; and they have commented, as the right hon. Member for Rhondda pointed out, that further comment before the strategy was announced appeared premature. The right hon. Gentleman did not go on to comment on that, as I thought he might, because, with a few exceptions, in the event surely the strategy was less injurious and frightening to Wales than many had feared. I think that that is a fair comment.
Further significant loss of employment in iron, steel and tinplate must be more injurious, however, in the context of Wales than it probably is to any other part of the United Kingdom. In other words, bearing in mind the size of the Principality and the amount of iron and steel work, and particularly tinplate making, that has gone on in Wales, it is evident that the loss is more injurious than in probably any other part of the United Kingdom.
As a Select Committee, we reported that the unemployment rate might approach 20 per cent.—I think that that was the figure in our report—and that unless there were a substantial commitment to provide new jobs the projected increase in the labour supply in Wales would result not only in outward migration but in increased unemployment. As we were an interrogatory, inquiring Committee, it is obvious that these estimates had to be based on the evidence given to us by witnesses. Clearly, that is not an exact science. It is not surprising that the figures may diverge, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out.
The Government's response to this, on page 6 of the Command Paper, has been attacked by the right hon. Gentleman. For my part, I welcome the £141 million spent

463
or committed for advance factories, to which my right hon. Friend referred, and for other construction. The Welsh Development Agency, in particular, is doing a remarkable job in this respect. I am glad, too, that similar work was reported by my right hon. Friend, by the Development Board for Rural Wales. I presume that there has been some such work by the Cwmbran development corporation. I also welcome the estimate of up to 10,000 new jobs that could thereby be provided, although again I recognise that this cannot be an exact figure.
There is surely some encouragement to hon. Members on both sides of the House in the regional selective assistance of £23 million for projects likely to create about 12,000 new jobs. Again, we should like these figures to be larger, but they are considerable and significant. There must surely be good wishes—this was not mentioned by the right hon. Member for Rhondda when referring to Swansea—for the success of the new enterprise zone there. It will surely make a significant contribution to the economy of that area. This concept has its critics as well as its supporters, but it is imaginative and it should make available special opportunities that have not hitherto been available in Wales. That four factories totalling 70,000 sq ft have already been let in that area is excellent and very encouraging news.
Mr. Anderson: The hon. Member should also know that by cutting down the money available to the city council the Government are hobbling that scheme from the start.
Sir Raymond Gower: I can only reiterate that it is surely encouraging that so soon after that project was allocated to the Swansea area—the hon. Gentleman's constituency—70,000 sq ft have been let in the new area. Likewise, there is a welcome for the Inmos project. It will surely bring some benefit to the constituency of Newport.
I turn to our Select Committee's recommendation that the four-month deferment of the payment of approved claims for regional development grant should be phased out over the next 12 months. That appears in paragraph 39. Here I am at odds with the Government. After acknowledging the effect of this deferment on cash flow, the Government's view, in the report, is that the phasing out should be rejected because of substantial public expenditure considerations.
Like other Members of the Committee, I was very impressed by the evidence of witnesses on this subject, particularly on not only the effect on cash flow but the fact that in many cases this was aggravated by administrative delays. This must surely have a restrictive effect on the production of companies whose production is needed to sustain the public sector. It seems a most undesirable way of containing public expenditure thus to penalise productive companies. That is why I disagree with the Government's decision on this question of the payment of a subsidy which has already been approved and whose merit has been established, thus interfering with the cash flow of the companies in question and otherwise damaging the effect of the benefit which was supposed to accrue to them.
I have considered the Government's answers to our recommendations concerning the rundown of employment in the Port Talbot and Newport areas. On the whole, I accept the validity of the arguments in this respect.
464
I am probably more critical of the Government's energy policy than of any other of their policies. Several major industrialists in Wales have expressed their anxiety about the price of energy used in industry. I can cite an example in my constituency. The important company of Dow Corning, silicone manufacturers in Barry, has written to me as follows within the last few days:
"The whole field of energy presents us with one of our major problems. In particular, the resolution of gas supplies and prices to bring us into line with our European competitors is key to us, and indeed to British industry generally."
BP Chemicals Ltd, which has a large undertaking in my constituency at Sully, wrote in very similar terms about energy supplies for industry. It said:
"The excise duty of £8 a tonne on heavy fuel oil is considerably higher than applies to the rest of the European Economic Community; it represents a direct additional charge on manufacturing industry which distorts their economics."
The company also advised me that
"electricity tariffs for large scale continuous users in the United Kingdom are frequently not competitive with those of our Continental counterparts."
In relation to gas, BP Chemicals points out:
"The use by the British Gas Corporation of a gas oil price standard, for industrial gas users' continuous supply, puts UK industry at a significant disadvantage compared with the Continent."
Those are two very important large-scale companies, providing excellent employment, and they are both highly critical of the whole energy policy in which we are persisting. I hope that the Government will look at this matter again. It is not limited to Wales; it extends over the United Kingdom.
BP Chemicals has also expressed a good deal of dissatisfaction about the efficacy of the EEC methods of dealing with unfair trading practices by countries outside the EEC. No doubt my right hon. Friend is aware of that. It is hoped that the Government will press for more resources and personnel to deal with the many applications that our industrialists have to put forward complaining of dumping and other unfair practices.
I hope that neither side of the House will be unduly pessimistic about the prospects of the Welsh economy. At the same time, we must be realistic and we must recognise the formidable tasks that we face. I hope that there will also be a recognition of the desirability of expanding—even beyond the proposals that have already been announced—the retraining programme. There is a manifest shortage of suitable apprenticeship schemes in Wales. That has become worse in recent years. Some years ago, an excellent scheme was run by Sir Alfred Nicholas on the part of a company in Gwent. Some hon. Members may remember that. Similarly, there were marvellous schemes in other industries. At present we lack those schemes—
Mr. Roy Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When you recently returned to the Chair you pointed out that little time was left for this debate. You called for short speeches, and you mentioned a time of 10 minutes. May I point out respectfully that the Secretary of State took no no less than 53 minutes for his opening speech? The hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) has now been on his feet for 17 minutes. Would it not seem that there is some sort of filibuster on the part of Conservative Members in order to prevent Labour Members from making a contribution?
Sir Raymond Gower rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) will allow me, I made my appeal to the House because I realised the anxiety of many hon. Members who wanted to take part in the debate.
Sir R. Gower: I shall certainly abbreviate what I intended to say. I make one further point, which relates to the frequent references in the Welsh press about cuts in educational standards. That is also related to our economic problems. I should like an assurance from my hon. Friend when he replies to the debate that any reductions in the number of teachers that have taken place in the last few years have not led to a serious change in the pupil-teacher ratio. It is asking a lot for him to have those figures ready, but I hope that he may be able to produce them by the time he replies.
6.13 pm
Dr. Ifor Davies: I welcome the opportunity to congratulate the Select Committee on its sense of priorities in choosing the question of employment opportunities in Wales as the first matter to be investigated. I also pay tribute to its chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) for his effective work. It is a matter of satisfaction to us that this is the first report from the Select Committees that were appointed last year to appear before the House for examination.
There is no difference of opinion regarding the seriousness of unemployment. Many different adjectives have already been used to describe the position. The Secretary of State for Employment has described the situation as appalling. He has gone even further, and has forecast a figure of over 2½ million unemployed in the near future. The situation in Wales is not merely appalling, but disastrous and extremely grave. We have suffered as much as, if not more than, most areas of the country because our manufacturing industries—particularly steel—have been so grievously affected by the recession.
In our special development areas the latest figure for unemployed males stands at 16·5 per cent., and for women at 13·4 per cent. Those are some of the highest figures ever to be recorded. In total, over 138,000 people are unemployed in the Principality. Referring to the high level of unemployment, the Secretary of State for Employment said on 15 January that
"we must do all we can for those areas and those groups that are hardest hit"—[Official Report, 15 January 1981.]
"All we can"—those were the right hon. Gentleman's words. I suggest to the Minister and the Secretary of State that action speaks louder than words, and the action that the Government can take immediately is to reverse their policy of downgrading the special development areas.
That is also a recommendation of the Select Committee. This is a matter of great urgency, particularly in West Glamorgan. I readily acknowledge that the recent delegation that met the Secretary of State for Industry and the Secretary of State for Wales received a sympathetic hearing and a promise of further consideration, but the Government still said in their observations on the Select Committee report:
"A change is not at present justified."
I wish to challenge that comment. Time is not on our side, and unemployment gets worse day by day. When the Secretary of State for Industry cut one-third of the planned expenditure on regional assistance, the effect on Wales was to downgrade from special development area status to
466
a lower status, thus qualifying for less aid, a total of 21 employment exchange areas, of which at least 12 are seriously affected by the new BSC proposals. As a direct consequence there has been a dramatic reduction in specific incentives for the region. But next year the value in real terms of regional assistance is likely to be half what it was in the mid-1970s.
A strong regional policy is essential for Wales. I acknowledge that the phrase "regional policy" involves a distinction between the worst affected and the less badly affected areas. The whole point of regional policy is a redistribution from the country as a whole to the areas that are considered to be in most economic need. That was the philosophy that inspired earlier Acts of Parliament, which were pioneered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) during his earlier days at the Department of Trade. One such Act was the Distribution of Industry Act 1945.
A belief in regional policy is not confined to politicians. Industrialists are also in favour of it. I was glad to note the comments of the CBI in its evidence to the Select Committee. It emphasised its strong support for regional policy and its conviction that such a policy had succeeded in widening the industrial base and the creation of new jobs. The CBI also stressed that stability in regional policy was crucial, if companies were to be encouraged to invest and expand.
That leads me back to Government action, and particularly to the situation in West Glamorgan. I referred earlier to the loss of incentives suffered by this county by the downgrading of development area status. The claim of West Glamorgan for reconsideration of its development area status is all the greater because of the additional body blow that it has suffered as a result of the BSC plan affecting the Velindre works.
I take note of your appeal for short speeches, Mr. Speaker, and I shall follow your advice. However, I am sure that the House will permit me a few minutes to deal with this serious issue. That plant, which is in my constituency and in the centre of West Glamorgan is faced with a redundancy of two-thirds of its workforce in consequence of the proposed survival plan. I emphasise the word "proposed", because the matter is now in the hands of the Government, together with its financial implications. Therefore, the Government still have a heavy responsibility in connection with the matter. I should fully support further financial help to the BSC in order to sustain and maintain the steel industry.
On the other hand, I make this earnest appeal to the Government. Before they give their support to the plan—I know that time is running out—they should examine very closely the proposals for Velindre. I am obliged to my right hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) for the support that he gave me when he mentioned Velindre. I can strengthen his case by saying that the number of people likely to be redundant is not 1,000 but 1,500, yet this is one of the most efficient plants within the tinplate group.
Velindre Tinplate has won a proud place in the export market. It has an outstanding record of good industrial relations. It has a proud record of efficiency in productivity. Equally important, it has operated at a profit over lengthy periods. So my constituents ask the natural question: "Why Velindre?" Recession in trade is given as one of the answers, and that is fully understood, but one effective and sensible way of dealing with the problem is

467
to have a system of work sharing within the tinplate group as a whole. That proposition has been submitted by the Velindre works council. It would considerably reduce the number of redundancies. It would also ensure that this efficient plant could continue its key role as part of the tinplate industry.
The remarkable fact is that, during the past 12 months, work sharing has been operated within the tinplate group by the BSC as a matter of policy. Indeed, it has been a traditional feature of the industry. Why cannot the BSC continue this policy and prevent so much unemployment? In these circumstances, I deplore the fact that the BSC did not include in its plan a continuation of the work sharing policy within the tinplate group, instead of leaving the burden of dealing with the issue to Velindre alone.
Velindre has emphasised that it has not adopted any attitude of opposition to any other plant, but is fighting for the future of the tinplate industry as a whole by facing competition more effectively, with the co-operation of the three units in Wales all working together.
The specialised nature of the market for tinplate, and its close relationship with the canning industry, can change very rapidly, due to the sensitive nature of the trade. The need, therefore, is to keep the tinplate group in a state of competitive readiness to meet the increased demand that is bound to occur. I am glad to say that there are already signs that the market is improving.
It is clear that the destruction of Velindre and the great loss of so much skilled labour will do irreparable harm to the whole industry. The entire work force at the plant realises that the essential basis of good industrial relations is a spirit of co-operation and good will, and that it has provided in good measure. That is why Velindre has been desribed as the jewel in the crown of the BSC by none other than Mr. Peter Allen, the managing director of the Welsh division.
I urge the Secretary of State and the Industry Minister in particular to investigate closely the position at Velindre before they give their blessing to the survival plan.
6.24 pm
Mr. Tom Hooson: Time is not available for me to comment, I should hope constructively, on a number of subjects arising from the Select Committee's report and also from the Government's admirable 10-year policy statement "Roads in Wales 1980". It is regrettable that I have to limit my time on the subjects on which I can touch, because I feel an urgent need to eradicate three widespread myths about the Select Committee's report. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was quite right to use the term "myth" in this connection.
Myth No. 1—and the most outrageous—is that the Select Committee's main message was allegedly that riots in the streets were the coming thing in Wales. There was no basis in the report for that impression. There was merely an expression of opinion by the Wales TUC. It was most unfortunate that at the press conference there was a totally personal statement by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), because that was the basis for the widespread impression that appeared in the press. It became the main news story in usually reliable newspapers such as The Times and The Daily Telegraph, demonstrating conclusively that the journalists could not
468
have read the Select Committee's report. The hon. Member thus opened last summer's silly season in the press.
The suggestion originated in evidence from the Wales TUC, and the Committee's only comment—which was too polite a response to an ill-thought-out assertion—was to say that it was
"impressed by the conviction of our witnesses"
on this matter.
Anyone can play the game of making selective quotations from what he regards as the core of the report, and if the hon. Member for Pontypool is entitled to do so, so am I. I prefer to quote as the fundamental and representative framework of our report the opening sentences of paragraphs 6 and 7.
Paragraph 6 states:
"The employment problems facing Wales stem from several main causes, of which the dominant factor is the depressed level of economic activity in the United Kingdom as a whole. This is dependent, inter alia, on the economic policy being pursued by the Government of the day, and the present Government have made it clear on many occasions that their overriding priority is the control of inflation, which they regard as the precondition to the return of full employment."
Paragraph 7 states:
"We accept that there may be sound reasons, on a national basis, why a particular economic policy should be pursued by the Government."
The really pertinent comment in the paragraph commenting on the TUC's unsupported expression of opinion was:
"Some of us believe that in the long run the prevailing general Government economic policy will succeed and bring relief;, others of us have no such convictions."
Myth No. 2 is the impression that any Select Committee is entitled or competent to assess total public expenditure. Our terms of reference are far more modest. They are
"to examine"
merely to examine—
"the expenditure, administration and policy of the Welsh Office and associated public bodies".
We are free from budgetary responsibility, but the Government are not. All that we have discussed in the report could not possibly happen overnight or even in a few years. Incidentally, the unlamented Welsh Assembly would have had powers that were comparable to the Select Committee's powers to examine the activities of the Welsh Office.
Myth No. 3 results from a particular style of Select Committees which emphasises compromise in writing—
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hooson: I shall not give way. I have a great deal to say and I have been asked to limit my remarks to 10 minutes. The hon. Member will undoubtedly have an opportunity to speak later.
Myth No. 3 results from a particular style of Select Committees which emphasises compromise in writing, and which traditionally leads to attempts to exploit the result in half-baked propaganda. This is a familiar style which has arisen historically with Select Committees. The truth about every Select Committee is that it is and should be a biased pressure group, pressing for more funds for its own subject—more than can be afforded. There is no reason why Welsh Conservative Members should not

469
vigorously demand—such demands have so far been successful—that Wales should not suffer disproportionately in the slimming down of the steel industry.
I shall focus constructively on certain subjects in the report of the Select Committee. As a mid-Wales Member I have a keen interest in paragraphs 35 and 59 of the report. I draw attention to the recommendation about the criteria of the Industry Act on the qualifications—particularly as regards Wales—other than those of employment. It refers to expected unemployment and to the problem of depopulation. Paragraph 59 states:
"We are concerned that the proposed changes in assisted area status may have serious diversionary consequences for the internal distribution of industry."
The combination of intermediate status for grant-aid and the remarkable performance of the Development Board for Rural Wales has proved successful. We were promised that there would be a review of the situation before any loss of intermediate status. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be just as deeply involved in that review as is the Secretary of State for Industry. I hope that a timetable for the representations that some of us wish to make to both my right hon. Friends will be put forward this evening or in the near future.
Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I confirm that I shall be fully involved in the review.
Mr. Hooson: I am happy to hear that assurance from my right hon. Friend. The region's problems are distinctive. It is true that the number of unemployed is relatively small compared with the immense problems facing the industrial parts of Wales. The only comparable body to the Development Board for Rural Wales is the Highlands and Islands Development Board. I hope that we shall find some way of meeting the needs of mid-Wales. Perhaps we should consider increasing the powers of the development board, because there is considerable evidence to show that it is effective.
I was delighted to see a press statement from the chairman of the board, Mr. Emrys Roberts. He said:
"In difficult economic times I am glad to say that, with 53 factories let in the past 10 months, the Development Board for Rural Wales has already surpassed its highest annual level of lettings … In 1980–81 the Board will be building 75 factories totalling 293,500 sq. ft. Thirty-four of these are already under construction. Today we announce a further programme of 41 factories."
The factories are spread widely throughout mid-Wales. Within my constituency six towns benefit from the programme, namely, Brecon, Builth Wells, Ystradgynlais, Llandrindod Wells, Rhayader and Presteigne.
I wish that the report had concentrated more on tourism. It touched on the fascinating point that there might be a high return on investment in tourist facilities. When the Select Committee chooses its third subject, I hope that a spotlight will be trained on that area.
In the interests of time I shall refer to only one of the subjects that I had wished to mention, namely, training policy. A great deal of pertinent information has been brought to light. I was glad that my right hon. Friend recognised the need for improved liaison between the Welsh Office and the Manpower Services Commission. There has been a gap in communications.
It is alarming that, despite the high unemployment figures, there are a number of job vacancies for skilled
470
people in Wales. In addition, Wales has one of the lowest percentages of apprentices in Great Britain. I stress that the evidence shows that the Government, the commission and employers face a challenge. In addition, the trade unions should adopt a more enlightened attitude.
6.34 pm
Mr. Barry Jones: The Select Committee's first report on employment opportunities in Wales has become a central feature of the debate. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Dr. Davies), I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), who is an able Chairman of that Committee, on a statesmanlike report. The report points to some of the ways in which the Welsh economy could be rescued.
No one would deny that Wales took a terrible social and economic beating between the wars. Many citizens endured great indignity and humiliation. Many of them left Wales to find work elsewhere, but the memory of those years lingers on. Among ordinary people there is a deep-seated fear that something similar is about to happen. When Ministers appear before the House, they seem uncertain. Some of us have the impression that they know that the Government's monetarist policy of an over-valued pound and high interest rates is deeply injurious to Welsh manufacturing industry.
Some of us have come to the conclusion that Ministers—at least those in the Welsh Office—are the policy prisoners of Whitehall's monetarist cage. They are the pawns of the Treasury and of Downing Street. My constituency's problems illustrate the destructive nature of the Government's policy. Last year 7,000 jobs were lost at British Steel's Shotton works. It is proposed that another 1,000 jobs should soon be lost. The over-valued pound has partly destroyed the export potential of steel.
Hundreds of textile jobs have been lost and jobs in other mills teeter on the brink. High interest rates and lack of protection from unfair overseas competition have thrust the man-made fibre mills in my constituency deeper into a depression. About 500 jobs are involved in our paper mills at Flint and Greenfield. If those mills do not receive some form of energy subsidy, they may soon be in desperate trouble. The car workers employed at Vauxhall in Clwyd are to be sacked because the over-valued pound has destroyed the plant's export potential.
Last July the Secretary of State told me that 1,700 new jobs were in the pipeline for 1983–84. By December he had revised that figure to 1,000 new jobs. But there is a record number of 8,200 citizens seeking work. In the near future, another 1,000 steel workers and about 500 car workers will join the queues of those seeking work. My constituents say that Ministers are not delivering the jobs. Worse still, they are supporting policies that are destroying jobs in manufacturing industry. I remind the Government that in the town of Flint—a town of considerable size—male unemployment still exceeds 30 per cent. That is a grave indictment of Government policy.
In my view, Wales needs a massive investment in a public works programme. It needs a new deal, something on the American scale that Franklin Roosevelt brought in before the Second World War. Moreover, the National Enterprise Board should have a massive increase of funds, and the Welsh Development Agency should have its scope to participate in industry considerably enlarged. The railway system in Wales is crying out for more investment, enlargement and, in some cases, electrification. The

471
existing road programme, which was once perhaps described as ambitious, should be expanded immediately. The construction industry, with its frightening unemployment levels, should be rescued from the depths of depression by the launching of a major crash programme in public housing. Investment in the coalfields should be boosted, and we should not allow the remaining productive capacity in steel to drop even by one tonne.
It is morally wrong for an oil-rich State to tolerate mass unemployment and to permit it to rocket upwards month by month. That is foolish in economic terms, and it is dangerous in social terms. There is no doubt that mass unemployment can demoralise whole communities. Certainly it demoralises individual citizens. It encourages those who have a vested interest in disaffection, even disorder. Mass unemployment makes for uncertain relationships between senior pupils and teachers in our high schools. In the home, it can easily take away self-esteem and self-confidence. It can quickly rot away any warmth and spontaneity in family life.
We have suffered this before in Wales. Last time Southern England was relatively unscathed. Labour Members want no more of the grim consequences of mass unemployment. I believe that the Government are morally obliged to alter their monetarist policies. The Tory Party is undoubtedly and recognisably a party of unemployment.
6.44 pm
Mr. Geraint Howells: Perhaps we should congratulate the Secretary of State for Wales on the number of times that we have had debates on Welsh affairs over the past year or so. I have lost count of the number of hours spent discussing this or that problem, both in the Chamber and in Committee, going over again and again the desperate problems that are besetting the Welsh economy, and the future, if any, of Welsh industry.
Despite that, I am rather dubious about the right hon. Gentleman's motives in promoting these debates. Perhaps he is using them to camouflage the lack of any action on his part or on the part of the Government. Is he seeking to disguise the lack of any effective power of the Welsh Grand Committee? Or does he believe that talking about it will make up in any way for the almost complete rejection by the Tory Government of the serious recommendations made by the Welsh Select Committee last summer—recommendations that were endorsed by the Tory Members of that Committee? This will not do. The time is surely here to take action and refute the accusation that is often made against the Welsh, namely, that we can only talk and not act.
I shall take heed of what Mr. Speaker said earlier, that we should confine our speeches to 10 minutes.
Since the report of the Select Committee was produced in July of last year the Welsh economy has deteriorated even faster than we then thought, and the unemployment figures have exceeded our worst fears. Sir Hywel Evans, the permanent secretary at the Welsh Office, in his evidence to the Committee last summer, said that a figure of 125,000 unemployed in Wales by March of this year was well within the bounds of possibility. In fact the most recent figures show that at 11 December 1980 the number of umemployed stood at 138,003, or 12·7 per cent. of the
472
working population. To judge from the nervous Government statements that have been made recently, a far worse figure is expected shortly.
In my constituency of Ceredigion the unemployment figure in December was 18·7 per cent. In the industrial area of Gwent the figure was 17·5 per cent. In rural Anglesey the figure was 17·1 per cent. That compares with a United Kingdom average of 9·3 per cent. I must ask the Secretary of State, as he watches the Welsh crisis deepening and the unemployment figures rising, when he and the Government will be moved to implement some of the main recommendations in the Select Committee report? Will it be this year? Will it be next year? Or will they wait until the economy and the industrial base are finally destroyed beyond repair in Wales?
Even the most obstinate monetarist must now admit that Wales is not the place for the Government to come to carry out their bizarre experiments. There is now a desperate need for considerable Government investment in Wales in order to get the economy moving again and to prevent massive unemployment from becoming a permanent feature of Welsh life, undermining the confidence of a nation and destroying whole communities.
As the Member for a largely rural constituency, I want to underline the dangers of rural deprivation. The actual numbers of people may be fewer, but the area is no less important for that. Communities in Mid-Wales are under threat, with the danger that its young people will, through necessity, have to leave to find work, perhaps never to return. A whole way of life is in danger.
In my view it is essential that industry is given the maximum encouragement to come to Mid-Wales. The Welsh Office decision to downgrade the development area status of Mid-Wales is greatly to be deplored, as is its refusal to consider extending the area of the Development Board for Rural Wales beyond its present boundaries.
The Government, in their reply to the Welsh Committee report, insist that it is their aim to improve the infrastructure in Wales, but in practice they are failing miserably. Roads are not being improved, because of a lack of funds. British Rail, because of the tight cash limits imposed upon it, is threatening cuts on vital routes through North and Mid-Wales. I urge the Secretary of State to take positive steps to encourage British Rail to put money into these routes, including the Cambrian coast-line route, as they are socially and economically necessary.
One of the main industries of Mid-Wales is agriculture, which is also going through a bad time. I should like to hear more encouraging words from the Secretary of State on that subject. Farm incomes fell by 24 per cent. in real terms in 1980. It is calculated that for hill and upland farms in Wales the figure is nearer 58 per cent. That is unsatisfactory and bodes ill for the rural economy as a whole, dependent as it is upon agriculture.
A further blow to farming interests in Mid-Wales came with yesterday's announcement that 25 key posts will be lost to the Ministry of Agriculture establishment in Aberystwyth. They are to be transferred to Cardiff. That serves no useful purpose. It represents a centralisation of administration, which goes against the recommendations of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs. It is another blow to employment prospects in the area.
In addition, Aberystwyth has for a long time been regarded as the agricultural capital of Wales. The plant breeding station, the Trawscoed experimental establishment, a highly regarded university agriculture department

473
and the Welsh college of agriculture are in Aberystwyth. The headquarters of the Forestry Commission and the Meat and Livestock Commission are also there. Yesterday's decision by the Government is a great shame. It is seen by all concerned as a retrograde step which should be rescinded at all costs.
I ask the Secretary of State for an assurance that he will visit Aberystwyth and talk to the unions which represent the staff at the Ministry of Agriculture and to representatives of the Farmers Union of Wales and the National Farmers Union, who have expressed their concern. For 60 years excellent service has been given by all the people employed at the headquarters in Aberystwyth. It is a pity to undermine the stability and continuity there.
I endorse the sentiments expressed by many hon. Members. On behalf of the Liberals in Wales, I wish Sir Goronwy Daniel and his colleagues the best of fortunes in safeguarding the interests of the Welsh people in relation to broadcasting in Wales. I am sure that the majority of hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that a Select Committee will never solve the problems. The sooner we devolve power to the people of Wales, the better. We demand our own Parliament in order to solve the problems.
6.53 pm
Mr. Delwyn Williams: I am a new Member and was proud to become a member of the new Select Committee on Welsh Affairs when it was launched last year. We held our first meeting in Cardiff. We were a pretty mixed hunch. If we had been a football team, one might have said that we were a subtle blend of youth and experience. We were chaired, or managed, by a man of tremendous parliamentary experience, a gifted lawyer, the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse). If we had been a football team, we should have been looking for promotion. On many occasions the chairman of the Select Committee has stick up for minorities and respect for law in the House.
Our report is not universally accepted, but it is not universally rejected. Let us examine exactly what the Government said in response to it. According to the Western Mail there was a point-by-point rejection by the Government. The Western Mail got devolution wrong, it got my election result wrong and it gets most racing results wrong, so we need not take too much stock of its opinion.
The Government agreed to the supply of coking coal by the National Coal Board to the British Steel Corporation, the substantial commitment to providing more jobs in Wales, and the extension of STEP at a critical time. They agreed that the employment prospects for women were bleak. They agreed that the Welsh Development Agency should not reduce its activities in Wales outside the steel closure areas. They agreed that the Welsh Development Agency should assist small businesses. They said that that was completely in accordance with the Government's views.
One cannot call that a point-by-point rejection. The Government said that BSC (Industry) Ltd. should extend its development of new small businesses. They agreed that we should pay attention to the development of co-operatives and that we should attract more serious industry and jobs from London. They agreed that we should review the scope and content of skillcentres. They agreed that the Welsh Office should evaluate Mid-Glamorgan's Inmos
474
system. They agreed that the Welsh Office industry committee should be designated as the main source of contact for financial assistance. They agreed that there should be closer co-operation between the Welsh Office and the Manpower Services Commission.
If one adds to that the survival that we recommended of Llanwern and Port Talbot, one finds that the press allegations of a point-by-point rejection are ludicrous. But then, who are we in Wales, on the Tory side of the House, to dare to criticise the bias of the Welsh media?
There is more than the Government's acceptance of our report. The evidence to the Committee was invaluable to me as a Welshman. I come from Mid-Wales, where knowledge of the South tends to be sketchy. Anybody who has read the evidence to the Committee is now a more involved and informed person. The knowledge of the whole of Welsh industry is at our fingertips. The report was not unanimous, but much of it was accepted.
I turn to what my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Hooson) said about paragraph 28 of the report, which has been blown up out of all proportion. That paragraph referred to the threat of social disorder if unemployment rose, especially among young people. I am a lawyer, and I have to agree that that was said in evidence. However, a lawyer must look at the weight of the evidence. I do not attach much weight to that evidence. I have been proved to be correct. The secretary of the Wales TUC, Mr. George Wright, a main witness—and this is what all the fuss is about—said:
"There are very real possibilities of disorder in this country unless we get some sense of gentleness into the manner in which we effect change."
Let us remember that phrase.
On 28 November, in the Western Mail, Mr. Wright showed precisely what he meant by "sense of gentleness". In a report in that paper he claimed that plans were being drawn up by the Wales TUC to harness a community explosion of protest. He said that hundreds were prepared to go to prison. That is the sensible and gentle approach of the Wales TUC. He said that targets would include roads and Government Departments.
That statement about disorder was prompted by the chairman of the Select Committee, who said that some hon. Members had been brought up in a Wales of unemployment and a remarkable degree of acquiescence and reverence for authority. I was saddened to see, in the same edition of the Western Mail, that my chairman hinted that he could agree with the TUC's sentiments. He hinted that such a campaign might, in the last resort, win his backing. So much for his reverence of authority in Wales. The hon. Member for Pontypool confessed that he had been arrested for political activities when he was in the Armed Forces. That saddened me. I have always had a tremendous affection for my chairman, but he stands with the Opposition tonight and must bear the brunt for his words published in the Western Mail. It saddens me that he should support Mr. Wright's unseemly conduct in Welsh matters.
Mr. Wigley rose—
Mr. Williams: The hon. Gentleman will have his chance in a moment.
It is against the background that I have outlined that we should listen to the hon. Member for Pontypool when he sums up. In Wales we now need unity. Language and cultural issues divide us, but there are two things that

475
cannot be taken away from any Welshman—his Welsh blood and his Welsh countryside, which all Welshmen love.
Some of us may have to migrate. I hope not, but it has happened before. In 1912 and 1914 Welshmen went away from Wales. They went away in the 1930s. But we are born leaders—we are innovators, entrepreneurs, gifted artists, and we have nothing to fear from competition from across the border. We have much to give this country. It is regrettable that, although there are now 400,000 job vacancies, people must travel to fill them. We must get that message across to some of those who are now out of work.
Labour Members should not tell me that today is like the 1930s. In the 1930s there were not so many women at work, and there were 8 million more women in the population, so one cannot compare the situation now with the 1930s.
In Wales we have the highest standards of education in the United Kingdom. We have old traditions and old skills and the backbone to get out of this recession. We ask the Government to create the conditions to allow us to get out of this mess on our own. We do not want handouts. For 50 years, in South Wales in particular, we have been given handouts, but South Wales is still a depressed area. The North-East, which has also had subsidies, is still a depressed area. Subsidies do not make jobs; employers create jobs. Employers should not be crippled. If the Government give employers the right conditions, we will create jobs for the people in this country.
I sound one note of warning to the Government. In Mid-Wales agriculture is in trouble. Mid-Wales has survived the recession so far because of the farming community and the service industries that depend upon it. I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to use his powers to impress it upon the Government that the marginal farming review must come quickly. Incomes are down by 24 per cent., costs are going up, bank borrowing is rising, and land values are falling. That is a recipe for imminent disaster. When the Secretary of State upgrades our status I hope that he will take on board that valid point.
7.3 pm
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I am glad to speak after the hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Williams) because I have rarely heard such an incredible speech in a debate of this Magnitude.
The hon. Gentleman said that if the Government gave Wales the right conditions more employment would suddenly arise. I thought that the report to which he added his name, along with the other members of the Select Committee, was about creating such conditions. As the Secretary of State admitted, he had, for various reasons, to turn down two out of every three recommendations made by the Select Committee. The hon. Gentleman said that we do not want grants in Wales, for developing jobs. I wonder whether the farmers in his constituency would agree with that.
We also heard a remarkable attack on the Wales TUC and the representations made by Mr. George Wright on 30 April 1980. I ask the hon. Member whether he was present at the meeting of the Select Committee on 30 April when Mr. George Wright gave his evidence. The minutes, as he will remember, show that he was not, any more than he
476
at was present for more than eight out of the 16 sittings of the Committee. Thus, to give such a homily tonight is unacceptable. It is no more acceptable than the fact that two Conservative Members on that Committee have not deigned to turn up for this important debate.
Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The hon. Gentleman should know that my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) is abroad and could not get back in time for the debate.
Mr. Wigley: I can understand why the hon. and learned Member for Denbigh (Mr. Morgan) is not here—he is ill—but it is a matter for the hon. Member for Anglesey to decide his priorities.
Tonight's debate is the last chapter of the charade that we have seen since 1 March 1979. The Select Committee has not reflected the balance of opinion in Wales. The party political complexion of that Committee clearly shows that imbalance. Six out of its 11 members were Conservative Members, when the overwhelming proportion of the Welsh electorate rejected the Conservatives. My party was in the invidious position of having no voice on that Committee—we would certainly have turned up for more than half its meetings—and both of us are present tonight.
I commend the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), who has brought forward a generally good report, although it contains some inadequacies. The attitude of the Government to that report has been the final explosion of the myth that the Select Committee could take the place of the proposed Assembly.
Tonight's arrangements are unsatisfactory. We have a debate on a motion for the Adjournment. We do not have a substantive motion and therefore cannot propose amendments. It is rubbish for the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Hooson) to say that the Select Committee and the Assembly would have identical powers. I assume that the Assembly would at least have been able to debate a substantive motion in respect of its decisions. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Assembly would have had executive powers and would have been able to carry them out.
Mr. Hooson rose—
Mr. Wigley: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He did not give way to me.
I am sure that the Assembly would have carried much more clout than being a mere pressure group, which is the clout that the Select Committee can use on the Welsh Office in this matter. If it was a condemnation of the Assembly that it was in danger of being a talking shop, how much more true is that of the Select Committee?
The Secretary of State said that he had to turn down a number of recommendations in the report because they had to be considered in the context of the United Kingdom. He could not take decisions relevant to the needs of Wales, because Wales is constrained by United Kingdom considerations. Thus, we see unemployment rising from 80,000 when the Government came into office to 140,000 now, and projections being made of unemployment of 25 to 30 per cent.
Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Was not the whole Select Committee report little more than a bid for substantial financial support from England? Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that separating Wales from the English economy would help?
Mr. Wigley: We should not be going down at the present rate if we had the powers which are so necessary for our people.
Mr. Delwyn Williams rose—
Mr. Wigley: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He did not give way to me.
I now turn to the individual points not recommended by the Select Committee. As hon. Members know, I feel that there is a need for an economic plan for Wales. We worked out a forecast for the increase in unemployment of 177,000. That figure looks much more realistic today than the 125,000 accepted in the evidence given to the Select Committee at the meeting earlier in 1980.
We should like to see democratic accountability. We were disappointed to note that the Select Committee did not emphasise that. It was proposed in the evidence from the Wales TUC. There is a need to sustain a higher level of public expenditure in Wales. We realise that there was a difficulty caused by the imbalance of power in the Select Committee, with the preponderence of Conservative Members.
We were disappointed that the Select Committee did not call for direct evidence from the EEC or compare what had happened with the IDA in Ireland and the Scottish Development Agency. Those avenues have been worth approaching, but were not followed up.
Equally, there are other serious points which were made by the Select Committee and have not been accepted by the Government, such as the question of structural changes and the broadening of the DBRW boundaries and the structure of the development corporation. Those matters are necessary. Surely we need a proper hub for inquiries for industrial development in Wales. Those matters could have been undertaken without causing any embarrassment to other parts of the United Kingdom, if that is a dominant consideration of the Welsh Office. The Government should take those points on board in deciding these matters.
The question of development area status must also be considered. We have seen that in Gwynedd. I accept the needs of Llanelli, Swansea, Aberdare and Neath, but the Arfon and Dwyfor area has, according to recent figures, a higher male unemployment rate than those four areas. There is an overwhelming case for those areas to retain special development area status.
The BSC is now being further emasculated, but the Government have given no response. Only in recent weeks we have heard of the tragic prospect for Velindre, one of the best plants in Wales.
The recommendations in paragraph 53 for a selective temporary employment subsidy have been rejected by the Government. That would have been a first-class tool to sustain employment over this temporary recession—if it is temporary. If it is permanent, there are problems, but if the Government believe what they say, that it is temporary, such a tool would be ideal to sustain industry over this difficult period. As the Secretary of State knows, there is a predominance of branch factories in Wales. The danger is that it is the branch factories that are closed while the head offices remain. When the economy picks up again and the head offices want to expand, they will not reopen factories which have been closed once and for all. The suggestion in paragraph 17 of the report, that the limit of 50,000 sq ft on exemption certificates should be brought down, could have been taken on board.
478
If the policies recommended by the Select Committee when it drew up its report in June, when unemployment was 99,000, were needed then, how much more are they needed now, when unemployment has increased by 40 per cent., to 144,000? The steel industry faces a shattering prospect at the moment—a pound that is too high and a Government who are taking no action against the unfair competition on manufactured imports. The coal industry's labour force is now down to about 26,000 compared with 253,000 in 1923. The danger is that on 10 February we shall hear that six or seven more pits in Wales are to be closed.
The cost of production—the competitiveness as the Secretary of State described it—of coal in Wales compares well with other countries which are sending coal to the United Kingdom. The cost of production of a tonne of coal in Belgium in 1979 was £58;in France, £45; in Wales,£43; in West Germany, £41. The difference comes in subsidy. In Belgium, it is £34 a tonne, in France £18 and in West Germany £15. That is why we miss out, why we lose our markets.
Perhaps even more serious than the danger of closing pits—that is a serious loss when pits with workable deposits are being closed—is the decision to put on ice the investment in Margam and the new coal possibility there. A £200 million investment in Margam would have provided 1,000 jobs directly for at least 50 years and probably 75, with a return on investment that meets the criteri laid down for the NCB. I regretted that the Select Committee did not have the opportunity to go in greater detail into the Margam question when its members met the representatives of the NCB, but that is certainly something to which the Government must respond.
That leads me or to the question of energy costs for industry generally. In my area, the county of Gwynedd, we have industries that are critically dependent on energy costs. An example is Rio Tinto in Anglesey. The Secretary of State is aware of the representations which are being made for some electricity agreement to be reached so that the company can consider expansion based on cheaper electricity. Since there are two nuclear power stations in Gwynedd and one pump storage system in operation, with another about to come into operation, it is not unreasonable to look for cheaper electricity for industry in Gwynedd.
But it is not only cheaper electricity that is important. The cost of energy to industry in the development areas and special development areas should be considered one of the legitimate tools for developing industry. There should be cheaper gas for companies such as Ferodo, in Caernarvon, which is considering 350 redundancies spread among three plants. That would not cut across international agreements. Other countries subsidise their industry with cheaper energy, and we should do the same. That should be one element of regional policy in the United Kingdom and it should be applicable in a county such as Gwynedd.
I was disappointed that the Secretary of State gave so little attention today to the needs of my county. I appreciate that there will be some investment on the A55, but already the schedule has slipped back 12 months, from mid-1987 to mid-1988, and I bet that it will be closer to 1990 before it is completed.
We need special development area status returned to Arfon, Dwyfor and Meirionnydd. The DBRW area should be changed to include the Dwyfor district. We need to fill

479
the empty advance factories, because it is no use building them if they are to stand empty, as has been our experience in Gwynedd for many years.
We have seen the deindustrialisation of Gwynedd with numerous factory closures and we see no action by the Government to reverse it. The road programme should be speeded up, not slowed down, and we need an employment subsidy to keep us ticking over until times are better.
We need a much more positive and aggressive attitude by the Welsh Development Agency. In only the last three or four weeks, I have had separate complaints from small companies in my constituency about the way in which their cases have been treated by the WDA. I know that the agency gives its main attention to Deeside, Glamorgan and Gwent, where there are major closures, but it has the responsibility for my constituency at the moment. I should be happy if it all went over to the DBRW—it could get on with it—but if it is with the WDA, let us have some action from the WDA.
There are some opportunities—for example, at Holyhead, there is an excellent opportunity for a ferry link with Belfast. I should like the Government to explore the possibility, which has not been explored much in recent years, of turning a port such as Holyhead into a free port. That would give the opportunity to develop industry in Anglesey and would therefore benefit the whole of Gwynedd. Railway links are important. There could be a coast line and the North Wales line could be electrified
Many of these things were touched on by the Select Committee, which made important recommendations, but sadly the Government were not in a position to accept, in part even, more than a third of them, and in total even less than that. That is the condemnation of the system within which we are working, and that is why the people of Wales are facing their present problems.
7.16 pm
Sir Anthony Meyer: I can understand the difficulties of the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley), who is a well-known moderate, in trying to prove the impeccability of his revolutionary credentials to a party that is rapidly disappearing off the edge of the political spectrum. I can understand them, but not respect them.
I am concerned and saddened by the appearance of the distinguished chairman of our Select Committee, the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) on the Opposition Front Bench. He has made a great mistake in appearing there, as by doing so he has diminished the impact of the Select Committee's Report. He has raised doubts in some people's minds—not in mine, I add—about his suitability for the chairmanship. Those doubts were inevitably fed by the gloss that he put on the report that we had agreed, in which he placed that quite unwarranted emphasis on the risks of social disorder. I have great respect for the vigour with which the hon. Member led us, but those doubts now subsist.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman's appearance on the Front Bench casts no slur on the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Dr. Thomas), who is widely admired and liked on both sides of the House, and who is now deprived of the opportunity of delivering another of his onslaughts from the Front Bench on this occasion.
480
The Secretary of State has fought magnificently for the interests of Wales and has succeeded to a remarkable extent in sheltering Wales from the worst effects of the recession and the side effects of the necessarily harsh medicine that the Government are making us swallow. What he cannot do, and what no one can expect him to do, is protect the living standards of the people of Wales in the present recession. What we asked him to do, and what, to a startling extent, he is succeeding in doing, is to protect investment in the future of Wales.
My only criticism is the same as that voiced by my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Sir. R. Gower)—that my right hon. Friend did not find it possible to do away with the four months' delay in the payment of investment grants. That is a serious handicap to investment.
I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State would reiterate the commitment to proceed with the dualling of the A55, which is the lifeline of North Wales.
I raise one point of real importance to my constituents in the Mold area, who have made heroic efforts to raise funds for the badly needed community hospital in Mold, with a pledge from the Government that work on it would begin in 1981. Can my hon. Friend repeat that pledge tonight?
I make my next point with some apprehension. There is a project for the construction of a plant at the Point of Air for the extraction of oil from coal. That is a vital technological project. I know the difficulties and disadvantages, but there are reports that the Government are having second thoughts about it. I beg them not to. There is always some good reason why this country should not exploit the latest technology or opt out of one thing or another. We shall finish up as a nation selling bootlaces on the street corner if that becomes our national attitude.
To my mind, almost the key recommendation of the Select Committee's report is contained in paragraph 12, in which we state that whatever the extent of the reductions that have to be made in steel-making capacity in the United Kingdom,
"we believe that Wales should remain a major producer of basic steel".
As if in answer to our prayer, the strategy evolved by Mr. Ian MacGregor provides for precisely that. It is now up to us in Wales to ensure that that strategy succeeds.
The Labour Party has a key role to play in this. It must do what the principal union in the steel industry has so lamentably failed to do. That union, illustrating that moderation does not equal good sense, has consistently given bad advice to its members over the past two years and is now urging them not to work this recovery plan. If Labour Members could raise their sights just a little higher and see the long-term interests of the people of Wales, I am sure that they would urge their supporters to go against the advice of the union and to make this scheme work if they possibly can.
Mr. Coleman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Anthony Meyer: I shall not give way, as I intend to keep to my 10 minutes.
The Labour Party is full of criticism, but it has nothing to offer by way of a policy for reverting to full employment. Its extreme Left wing, which appears to be in the ascendant, offers a solution on Polish lines. We have

481
seen that that does not work. It remains to be seen whether whatever may emerge in the centre of British politics offers something better.
The Liberal Party has some admirable long-term principles. I have no difficulty in subscribing to nearly all of the 10 points put forward for discussion by the Leader of the Liberal Party but, on the evidence so far, I do not believe that they answer the principal question that must be faced: how do we make British industry competitive again? The only people who are offering answers to that vital question are my right hon. Friends. They are not agreeable answers, but they are the only ones.
It is a mistake to suppose that the picture before us is all gloom. Very good news has come from British Aerospace at Broughton, for example, where work on the European airbus is expanding at a tremendous rate, and more workers are having to be taken on and jobs are being created. That project was turned down by the Labour Governments of 1964–70, and it is purely because Hawker Siddeley, then a private firm, decided to risk its own money that we are in that venture at all. That is a sobering lesson for those who say that only State enterprise will provide jobs. It also points to the vital necessity for this country to remain within the European Community.
Quite apart from our reputation for fixity of purpose, the number of jobs at stake if idle threats about withdrawal are uttered should cause people to stop playing cheap party politics with this issue.
Mr. Coleman: The hon. Gentleman should stop it himself.
Sir Anthony Meyer: I have said before, and I say again, that for me unemployment is the supreme peacetime evil. It is far worse than a fall in living standards—I say this frankly—even for those near the bottom of the heap. No one wants unemployment, and no one has a monopoly of concern about it. If the Labour Party claims any such monopoly, it damages the credibility of parliamentary democracy. If the Conservative Party leaves unemployment at the back of the queue of the problems that are jostling so urgently for our attention, we in turn might inflict a deep and lasting wound on our democracy.
An article that I read on holiday—I believe that it was in The Sunday Times—suggested that according to some reports the Prime Minister hoped to win the next election, despite very high unemployment figures, because by 1984 those still in work would have a sharply rising standard of living. Frankly, I do not believe a word of that report. But if it were true, I sshould regard that as incompatible with my idea of one nation and I could not agree with it.
I believe, on the contrary, that the Government's policies are designed to restore full employment and will indeed do so. If we as a people will swallow the extremely nasty medicine being proffered to us we shall get back to full employment. But if we expect the people of our country to swallow that very nasty medicine, Ministers must offer more in the way of hope than many of them do.
I exclude my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State from these strictures. He has balanced hope and realism very well, but some of my right hon. Friends seem to take a positive delight in telling us of the horrors that face us and spend very little time showing us what could happen if, as a nation, we were prepared to go through with it for the next couple of years. We need that glimpse of the sunlit uplands that Harold Macmillan was so skilful in offering to us.
482
If we can use our manufacturing base to produce the vast wealth of which modern technology offers the possibility, that wealth can be used, not just to line everybody's pockets, not just to import hundreds of thousands of Japanese transistors, but to provide this country with the kind of education, health and social services and the kind of environment that an educated democracy justly expects in the world today.
7.28 pm
Mr. Donald Coleman: The pettiness with which the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) began his remarks in his references to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) and to my own trade union show up the paucity of his argument and the manner in which he has swallowed what has been handed down to him from the Government Front Bench.
This is clearly a debate in which great concern and worry will be expressed. In the opening words of its report the Select Committee set the backcloth for this debate when it said:
"For many years, unemployment rates in Wales have significantly exceeded those for Great Britain as a whole."
There is, therefore, no doubt about the justification for the fear of unemployment in Wales that is being shown and felt by people in all walks of life and of all political persuasions to a greater degree now than at any time since the depressions of the 1930s.
One is saddened that the Welsh Office, for which there was long agitation in the political history of Wales, should have failed to respond and should have taken little or no account of the views expressed by the Select Committee. It is incredible that the Secretary of State should have acted as he has. Did he not, with a great flourish, commend the setting up of the Select Committee as a great step forward in the democracy of Wales, and was not that device in fact the means by which he covered his nakedness and the opportunist stance that he showed over devolution?
Having poured scorn on the Secretary of State, the Government and the Welsh Office for their shabby rejection of most of the report, let me say that I am grateful to my hon. Friends and to Conservative Members—even though they tried to run away from what they had done—for the work that they performed in the Select Committee. Their report is a valuable contribution towards understanding the problem of unemployment in Wales—a problem that afflicts us so sorely today. It also provides suggestions that make for the solution of this problem. Because of that, the people of Wales should take heart in the Select Committee and give it their support, which is more than is due to the Government or the Secretary of State.
Paragraph 36 of the report deals with the development status of South Wales. It states:
"we recommend that the whole of the Swansea travel-to-work area and the whole of the Llanelli travel-to-work area, should become development areas"
and the status of
"the Aberdare travel-to-work area and the Neath travel-to-work area"
be reviewed
"with a view to making them special development areas."
That view has been pressed on the Government by deputations of right hon. and hon. Members, members of local authorities, trade unions and employers' organisations. We have seen the necessity for this. We have told of the distress that has been caused because of the

483
Government's refusal to accede to this suggestion. Now we have a Select Committee, composed of members of all parties, saying exactly the same thing. Does not the Secretary of State, even at this late stage, think that he ought to question his attitude, and move away from his isolation from all these other voices which have arrived at the same opinion on what the policy should be for Wales and for those parts of Wales mentioned in the Select Committee's report?
I repeat again—I cannot repeat too often—the situation that the Neath travel-to-work area is now experiencing. There is 13·5 per cent. male unemployment, 14·3 per cent. female unemployment, and total unemployment of 13·7 per cent. I remind the Under-Secretary that when he and his colleagues came into office the level of unemployment in Neath was 7 per cent. Since that time it has risen, and I suspect that the next set of figures that come from the Department will show that it is continuing to rise.
There are several other points that I wish to make. The first concerns the youth opportunities programme, to which reference has already been made. I re-emphasise what my right hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) said by quoting from a letter from the chief executive of Neath borough council to the Secretary of State for Employment. It states:
"Neath borough council are sponsors of a community service agency in their area. I have been instructed to write to yourself with regard to the present rate of payment being made to youngsters who work on the scheme. At the present time there are 80 youngsters employed on the scheme, and it is hoped to increase this to at least 110 from the commencement of the next financial year. However, the authority would like to register its disappointment that the payment to trainees was not increased in line with other increases in social benefit payments in the last review."
It would seem to the authority that the position of these youngsters has been adversely affected by the decision that there should be no increase in the sum paid to them. That means that while they remain on £23·50, a person who remains at home and does not make the effort to join a scheme of this nature is entitled to £19·50 a week, as I understand the position. That means that youngsters on the scheme, who must pay large sums in travelling expenses—which is now the norm—earn only as much as a youngster who stays at home, and in certain cases less than such a youngster. That destroys any inducement to participate in such a scheme. I hope that the Government will take this matter on board in order to encourage young people to take advantage of the scheme.
Another point has come to my notice concerning the exploitation of young people who have joined these schemes. It has been said, particularly in the distributive trades, that firms are in the habit of laying off, or putting on short time, regular employees while at the same time taking on young people under the youth opportunities scheme. That was never the intention of the Government or of Parliament. I sincerely hope that the Secretary of State will look into such cases.
Incidentally, while talking of the distributive trades, and referring back to what the Secretary of State said about competition, I recently read in the Western Mail that the Asda hypermarket, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) and
484
on the boundary of my constituency, has 300 jobs on offer. There were 8,000 applications. Is that the kind of competition about which the Secretary of State is talking?
I should also like to refer to overseas investment in this country. During the Christmas period—here I join the right hon. Gentleman in condemning the media for the manner in which they treat negotiations aimed at securing investment in Wales—I heard and saw references to Japanese investment in Wales. Frankly, the impact of those references was most dismaying. A great deal of effort has gone into securing investment; it continually does so. That investment is warmly welcomed in Wales. There is no doubting the benefits that it will bring both to the investor and to working people. I should point out clearly that every support will be given to investment in Wales from wherever it comes, because unless that is done the people of Wales will be a lost people.
7.38 pm
Mr. Roy Hughes: No sensible person would dispute the fact that Britain is at present in deep economic trouble. Wales is very much a part of the United Kingdom, and it is perhaps suffering worse than most regions at present.
Some of us have said for quite a long time that the Government are making a difficult situation even worse. I noticed a report in the business columns of the Western Mail on Monday. It stated that the Thatcher economic experiment was doomed to failure. It indicated that by 1985 unemployment would be 1 million higher than it is today. Bearing in mind the Secretary of State for Employment's prediction that unemployment will shortly be in the region of 2·5 million, this forecast presumably means that by 1985 there will be 3·5 million out of work.
The report stated that by the same date inflation would be running well into double figures, with the balance of payments showing a massive deficit. Industrial production would be 10 per cent. down on the 1979 figures. The report finally accused the Government of wasting North Sea oil #revenues to finance a recession. This would seem a formidable indictment of the Government. The report did not come from a member of the Shadow Cabinet. It did not come from any trade union leader. It did not even come from my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn). It came from a firm of international repute, the stockbrokers and economic forecasters Phillips and Drew.
There are many more reports of a similar vein at the present time. It is known that many Conservative Party supporters and sympathisers are also expressing their concern. A week or two ago there was the dramatic intervention by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who pointed out that the Government were pursuing socially divisive policies which, in his view, could only lead to economic disaster.
We know all too well that there is no separate Welsh economy. We are just about the most depressed part of the Uniited Kingdom. When there is a recession in the United Kingdom, Wales really takes a hiding. In No. 10 Downing Street the so-called "Iron Lady" seems to be impervious to criticism and unconcerned about the devastation she is causing to the economy and our people. She is carrying through her policies with all the single-mindedness of a zombie.
We are witnessing in Wales, in particular, mass unemployment on a scale unknown since the 1930s, with

485
all the despair that goes with such a situation. We see what has happened to our steel industry, the cornerstone of our economy in Wales. It has been nearly destroyed. Capacity has been reduced to a puny 14 million tons annually, and even that figure is in jeopardy. According to figures that I noticed last week, Soviet Russia produced 152 million tons of steel in 1980. I am not preaching Communism; far be it from me to do so. I would only say that Britain claims to be a major industrial power. Soviet Russia, also a major industrial power, is producing 152 millon tons of steel while we have capacity for only 14 million tons. That is a ridiculous situation.
I have witnessed what has happened to the Llanwern steelworks in my area. I have recently seen 5,000 jobs go—5,000 households affected. I recall also the speech a few months ago in Swansea by the Prime Minister. The gist of her message was to tell the people of Wales "If you cannot find a job down here, pack up and go." It would seem that this message is being taken literally by some firms. An ideal example is the Plessey company in Newport. It proposes to close the machine shop. Hon. Members will not need reminding that the machine shop in a factory is essentially where the skill exists. Plessey has a proposal to pack up the equipment in the machine shop and take it to Ilford, in Essex. It has invited the people working in the shop to transfer to Ilford. This is an insult to our people. It is the reality of the message that the Prime Minister preaches and what she spelt out decisivly in Swansea a few months ago.
There is no doubt that many of the electors of Britain, particularly in Wales, realise the terrible mistake that they made in 1979. Britain, above all, at this time needs a Labour Government who are pledged to policies to tackle the essential crisis of capitalism. It needs policies designed to secure a massive expansion of the public sector. This means a complete reversal of present Government strategy.
My argument is based on the premise that unemployment, in economic terms, is like a tap turned on and left running. It is simply waste. We need, as we in Wales know too well, massive new road schemes. We need investment and not the rundown of our railway network. We need many new hospitals and schools. Above all, we need many houses. There would be no better way to secure a stimulation of the economy at present than a boost to the building and construction industry. In housing, we are rapidly going back to the "lodgers" situation, so characteristic of the 1930s, of young couples living with their in-laws.
I have received today an answer from the Secretary of State for Energy about the Severn barrage scheme. The Minister indicates to me that the Severn barrage committee has concluded its report and expects to report to the Minister shortly. If such a scheme were given the go-ahead, it would create a new confidence in the business community and give heart to many people in these desperate times.
In advocating this massive expansion of public expenditure, I bear in mind that Keynes is back in vogue. Those who have studied his economic theories will be aware that our economy is suffering from lack of effective demand. We know, too, that the equation of investment and saving ultimately balances.
In order to bring about the recovery, particularly for Wales, as well as massively expanding the public sector, the next Labour Government must free us from the
486
shackles of the Common Market. Our membership has done untold harm, as some of us always forecast that it would. We need to be free once again to buy our food in the markets of the world. With a strong pound because of North Sea oil, it would be an immense bonus to the British economy and particularly to the British housewife.
We should then be able to protect our essential basic industries. In the early 1930s, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, when he was elected President of America, called for a new deal for the American people. The people of Britain need a new deal. It can be obtained only by getting rid of this disastrous Government and returning a Labour Government.
7.51 pm
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: Tempting though it is, I hope that the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) will forgive me if I do not take up his comments.
No sooner was I on my feet than the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) chose to say that I represented an English seat. I do not intend to indulge in "Taffier than thou" contests with the hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Member. I am proud to have been born Welsh. I do not feel a need to wear my Welshness on my sleeve. I am happy to carry it in my heart.
My constituency of Watford is a long way removed from many of the difficult problems that have been mentioned tonight. I learnt this morning from the jobcentre in Watford that we are suffering an unemployment rate of 3 per cent.—and in my area we regard that as suffering. The figure includes the elderly who are not seeking employment and a considerable number of disabled people.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the Select Committee report is a bid—and I regard it as a perfectly proper bid—by Welsh Members for English funds.
Mr. Rowlands: Not English funds.
Mr. Garel-Jones: In the six years that I have been associated with my constituency, I have heard no one in my constituency raise that as an issue. Wales is rightly regarded by my constituents as an integral part of the United Kingdom. I make that point because I wish to underline my undisputed right to take part in the debate as a Member representing an English seat. That right was underlined by the referendum in Wales before the last election. I make no apology for being here.
In the referendum the Labour Party took the wrong view. With some honourable exceptions, the view that ultimately turned out to be the view of the people of Wales, to the extent that it was represented by any political party, was more represented by the Conservative Party. I repeat That the outcome of the referendum underlines the unity of the nation and the integral part of Wales.
I represent a constituency that could well be described as the apex of the golden triangle that is the South of England. We feel nothing but concern about the problems faced in Wales. I repeat that never has any constituent of mine baulked at the assistance that is properly given to the Principality.
My right hon. Friend referred to the expenditure and the actions that the Government have taken over the Welsh language, youth employment, road schemes, advance factories and so on. No Opposition ever accept that the

487
Government are doing enough. It is right and proper that the Opposition should always press for a little more. However, the extreme rhetoric and hyperbole that we have heard tonight from the Opposition is not helpful.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) was earlier jumping up and down and shouting about pit closures. I hope that this Government will not feel it necessary to close 39 pits, as the Labour Government of 1964 to 1970 did, or even 13 pits, as the Labour Government from 1974 to 1979 did, putting 3,000 people out of work.
Mr. Rowlands: No. Nonsense.
Mr. Garel-Jones: I was not a Member at the time, but I hope that my hon. Friends were not unduly and unnecessarily critical of the harsh decisions that the Labour Government had to take.
Mr. Rowlands: I want to get the facts right. If the Secretary of State has better figures, I shall be happy if he intervenes. Between 1970 and 1980, a period in which we had one Conservative Government and one Labour Government, only 11 pits were closed in Wales. I believe that the figure was seven between 1974 and 1979. Will the hon. Gentleman check his figures? To talk of 3,000 jobs being lost is nonsense. Until this moment every pit worker has been able to be redeployed to neighbouring pits. The hon. Gentleman should withdraw his remarks.
Mr. Garel-Jones: I shall not withdraw them. My right hon. Friend nods to confirm that my statistics are correct. I was merely wishing to emphasise the Opposition's partisan approach. I hope that the Conservative Opposition showed some understanding of the difficult decisions that the Labour Government had to take to close down pits in Wales.
In a speech to the Welsh CBI in Cardiff just before Christmas the Prime Minister said:
"our third rule, Mr. Chairman, is what I call constructive intervention. I say constructive because I mean stimulating industries which do have a future, rather than shoring up lost causes—helping to create tomorrow's world, rather than to preserve yesterday's.
One example is the National Enterprise Board's stake in the new biotechnology company in Cambridge. This will develop products and know-how based on the excellent research in biotechnology which is being carried out there.
Another example is the Government's backing for the Inmos microchip project."
I wish to concentrate my remarks on an important subject, namely, constructive intervention. I agree with the Prime Minister that that is a good description. Intervention must be not only constructive, but well thought out. We must know why we are intervening, where we are intervening, and how we intend to intervene. I draw the attention of the House to some studies by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology on what it calls the long wave theory. The business cycle is thought to move up and down in a relatively regular pattern. The economists at the institute say that overlying that pattern is a long wave which is dragged along by one central technology. The clearest example of that during the last century was the railway system, which was the central thrusting technology that dragged everything else behind it. The development of the steel and coal industries was brought about by the railways.
488
That group of economists is saying that the most difficult and tense time for any free economy is when it reaches the end of a long wave, enters a deeper recession, and has to transfer almost into a new world. That is a difficult and painful process. It is my contention that Britain—indeed the Western world—is reaching the end of a long wave. There is a duty on the Government to make imaginative and constructive interventions in the economy to help Britain into the new wave of technology.
One example of the non-dogmatic approach of the Conservative Party was the grant of £40,000 to the Wales TUC. It was later given an additional £5,000. the purpose of the grant was for the TUC to study co-operativism and its potential in the Principality. That illustrates that there is virtually nothing to which the Conservative Party is opposed on dogmatic grounds. If it concludes that co-operativism has a future in South Wales. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Government will give it every support.
When the TUC goes to Spain and visits Mondragon, I hope that it will take careful note of the hours of work in that co-operative, the lack of restrictive practices, and the strictness with which time-keeping is adhered to. All those factors are part of the reason for the success of the Mondragon co-operative.
Britain is possibly the only Western industrialised nation that has not built up an adequate and sensible set of mechanisms for that sort of intervention in the market. We have not done so because the party political controversy in the House—the sort of hyperbole that we have heard frm the hon. Member for Newport—is not conducive to a climate in which it is possible for two parties to talk sensibly and arrive at a certain amount of common ground. The Opposition seem to believe that the only way to return to office is by riding on the back of their opponents' failure. They overlook the fact that the ultimate success of this nation, and certainly of the Principality, depends on this Government succeeding. The Labour Party has a stake in ensuring that the Government succeed. I am confident that if the Labour Party were to choose areas of common ground and work with the Government and were to attack them in other areas a great deal of the credit for that success would redound to the Labour Party.
I shall mention only two of our competitors in the Western world. It is naive to think that when great British industries compete abroad for contracts they are competing in a free market. There is no such thing as a free market when GEC bids to build an electrical plant. The United States has a defence budget and a space budget. Their object is to put a man on the moon and to defend the territorial integrity of the United States. But there is a secondary object—to ensure that great American corporations such as IBM and GEC are kept in business. The American Government place orders with those companies which demand that research should be carried out. They fund that research. In West Germany one Ministry is entirely devoted to research and technology and to seeking out those areas in which the private sector, for one reason or another, has either not spied the opportunities or is not able to take them up. It supports and nurtures the private sector while encouraging it to enter those areas.
For a number of social and historic reasons, I regret to say that Britain has not devised the sort of mechanism and common ground that exist in the United States, Germany and France.
Dr. Roger Thomas: How does the hon. Gentleman explain the present difficulties in West Germany, and the prediction of mounting difficulties there, even the break-up of the coalition?
Mr. Garel-Jones: No one in the House would say that a free democracy in the social market economy in which we live could be without difficulties. Of course there are difficulties and periods of transition. My point is that those countries have devised a mechanism for sensible Government intervention which is common ground between the trade union movement, industrialists and what I refer to as the mainstream political forces. We have failed to do that.
Some work has been done. The previous Labour Government established the extremely useful sector working parties which began to identify some areas where such things could take place. That is why I was delighted to hear the Prime Minister in Wales referring to "constructive intervention". I hope that it will not be done only on a one-off basis, such as the Inmos decision. That was a courageous decision by the Opposition. In order to make that investment, they had to include in their calculations the possibility that three or four individuals might make a great deal of money. They had to accept that. They had to undertake to make an investment of £50 million which, if the project is successful—and I hope that it will be—will make one or two individuals very rich men indeed. No doubt those who believe in the curious dogmas that are hawked about in the Labour Party opposed that decision.
I am not ashamed to admit that my party also had to bite the bullet when deciding to grant a further tranche of £25 million, which has ensured the continuation of the project. I do not wish to detain the House by arguing whether Inmos will be successful, or whether it is a sound investment. But the principle must be right. The principle of that sort of investment involves the Labour Party accepting that individuals, entrepreneurs and the market place are important factors in the whole mix. It must accept that. For our part, we must accept in a more general way than we do that there is a role for constructive Government intervention. The Conservative Party has begun to move in that direction. There are many examples of the Conservative Party moving towards constructive intervention. There is not sufficient coherence about it yet-, but I think that we are moving in that direction. There is a genuine role for the Opposition to play in all these matters. It is a constructive role and one that involves the Opposition recognising the stake that they have in the success of the Government.
That is why I have found this debate somewhat depressing. I listened to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones), who opened the debate on behalf of the Opposition. His speech consisted of reading out a long list of statistics and failures. There was not one constructive suggestion. There was not one ounce of feeling that the Opposition were identified with the success of the Government or in trying to help the Government to succeed, which is what they should be doing. He paraphrased Alexander Pope when he talked about the Government Back Benchers being willing to bark and yet afraid to bite. I reply in the words of Alexander Pope which I think that I have quoted once before:
"Let such teach others as themselves excel,
And censure freely who have written well."
8.11 pm
Mr. Ednyfed Hudson Davies: Several hon. Members have made comparisons with the 1930s. I was interested to note that the hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Williams) said that in his view things did not compare in any way with the 1930s. There is one sense in which things are very much worse than they ever were in the 1930s. In the 1930s we were faced with ill-understood economic forces, whereas our predicament these days is, to a considerable extent, caused by shortsighted Government policies.
I start with a quotation:
"We all simply have to reduce dependence on oil, particularly OPEC oil, a source which is accident prone, crisis prone and finite. We must turn to alternative major sources like coal, gas and nuclear."
Those are the words not of a coal board spokesman but of Sir David Steel, the chairman of BP, in Cardiff on 12 January.
What will happen when the chairman of the National Coal Board meets the union on 14 February? We were given no information last night by the Secretary of State for Energy. How much does the Secretary of state for Wales know? There are bad omens. There is talk of 25 pit closures. What will be happening in Wales? Will Wales once again bear the brunt of the load that is to be carried? Last night the Under-Secretary of State for Energy blandly said:
"It is for the management of the NCB to decide about closure of individual pits."
However, it is this Government who set a financial scene that made necessary the closure of pits. They cannot pass on the responsibility to the National Coal Board. It is they who demanded profitability in 1983–4, an impossible task in a recession that has been considerably brought about by their own policies.
It is the Government who have brought restrictions of investment within the coal industry. In the face of a decline in domestic demand and in the face of foreign competition, it is left to the NCB to prune the industry and to abandon investment programmes at the very time when we should be investing in the future of the industry.
Do not the Government understand that we cannot turn coal production on and off like a tap? Let us consider investment over the past nine years. In 1972–3 investment in the coal industry was about £7 million. It grew to £35 million in 1976, and it has continued at about that figure every year since then. This is the last year in which the expenditure committed by the policies of the previous Labour Government are running through. We now see the imminence of an enonnous drop in investment. This may happen at precisely the time when investment is being dramatically translated into improved productivity.
It is nonsense to talk of cutting investment at a time when we can afford investment in the coal industry. We cannot afford not to invest for the future. It is axiomatic, to use the phrase of the tripartite agreement, that restructuring in the coal industry means new investtment as well as discarding uneconomic production.
Do we need a viable coal industry in the future? If so, we cannot afford to jeopardise it in the interests of short-term considerations. If we allow a contraction, we cannot immediately step up production. It is nonsense to bring major restructuring investment within the restriction of cash limits and the public borrowing requirement. Margam has already been mentioned by the hon. Member for

491
Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley). The development of the Margam field would have started this year, but it is to be postponed indefinitely. It would have had a lead time of eight years. We are now unlikely to see anything happening at the Margam field until well into the 1990s. It would have been an investment for the future. However, the Government say that the demand has gone. However, at the Margam steel works no coal has been used other than imported American coal for the past 12 months. That is because of a price differential of about £6 or £7 a tonne.
The BSC at Margam is taking betwen 800,000 and 1 million tonnes a year. That means that the corporation is saving about £5 million or £6 million a year, which is a frightening figure compared with the subsidy for coal in many other countries. The Welsh coalfield is losing a market that is the equivalent of three conventional pits. That is putting into jeopardy the equivalent of 2,000 jobs. Let us translate those 2,000 jobs into the redundancy payments that would be involved, the unemployment benefits that would have to be paid, the death of local economies and the death of corner shops. In the long run, it is not a cost-saving exercise. It will amount to a massive national loss.
Our coal industry is in desperate straits and yet we are importing 7½ million tonnes and stockpiling our own coal. Do we need to plan for the future, or do we give way to short-term economic considerations? In replying to the debate last night the Under-Secretary of State for Energy, when referring to some Labour Members, said:
"one wonders whether they are aware of the world beyond this country, whether news has reached them of the revolution in Iran or the war between Iran and Iraq. While that war continues, the danger is that vital supplies of oil will be interrupted and that the world will face another price explosion.
Even after the world returns to calm on the world markets, we shall still be using our supplies faster than we discover new ones."—[Official Report, 21 January 1981; Vol. 997, c. 334–338.]
Does the hon. Gentleman realise, and does the Secretary of State for Wales realise, that the implication of that comment—it is a valid one—is that we need a viable coal industry?
As I have said, American coal is still being used at Margam. It is being bought by the BSC for three short-term considerations. One is the artificially low cost of freight transport across the Atlantic at a time of depression. But if we had, as we easily could have, a massive sale by the United States of grain to the Soviet Union, there would be an immediate soaring of Atlantic freight charges.
Secondly, we have the high value of the pound giving an artificial advantage to American exporters.
Thirdly, the Americans extract cheaply and they find it to their advantage to get into this market. But there is no guarantee that the American price will stay low when we lose the alternative domestic producing capacity, and the present Government are in danger of allowing that to happen in Britain.
Therefore, we are putting aside considerations of the future for the sake of the immediate present.
The result of this is that the valleys of Wales are heading into a time of desperate difficulty. There is a widespread feeling of resentment. Concentration is, understandably, being given to seeking new employment and to tackling the problems in areas in which there have
492
been dramatic steel closures. But there is great concern also over the slow, less dramatic deterioration in the coal industry and the implications of this for the life of the valleys of Wales. After all, over 60 years the labour force of the coal industry has declined to one-tenth of what it was. That decline is continuing.
Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The hon. Gentleman said that we were abandoning considerations of the future for short-term considerations. The Government are making available £800 million for investment in the current year, which is fully in line with "Plan for Coal". What the hon. Gentleman has been doing throughout his speech is advocating that that money should be put into uneconomic pits at the expanse of the long-term investment in the pits for the future, which will guarantee that long-term considerations will be fully taken into account.
Mr. Hudson Davies: That is not so. I am not advocating uneconomic pits, but I am advocating two things. First, the Margam coalfield should have been developed. Until that happens we shall have a problem of employment in the pits of South Wales. But there will come a time when it will be far more viable and proper to run down many pits of low production level, if one has an alternative such as Margam to absorb the employment. But a development for the future has been put to one side. In the words of Mr. Emlyn Williams, of the National Union of Mineworkers, it has not just been put on ice; it has been put on deep ice. That is very sad news for the people of Wales.
The situation in the valleys of Wales is one of an existing severe state of depression, which is being exacerbated. What will be done? How do the Government and the Secretary of State feel about the valleys? Does the Secretary of State belong, like his Prime Minister, to the group of people who feel that perhaps the days of economic viability of the valleys are over? The Prime Minister says that if people want jobs they should go to find them. I do not know where they can go these days for jobs. The moral is that the valleys are finished. Does the Secretary of State subscribe to that view?
I spend a lot of my time talking to old-age pensioners in small communities. I find there that there are elderly people who know each other and who belong to each other, and who will never know the meaning of loneliness in old age. That is the essence of a real community. It is something that one cannot give to people if they start moving around and breaking up their communities.
Where does the right hon. Gentleman stand on this matter? What does he really believe, in his heart? I hope that the Welsh Office view will be given later in the debate.
Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I was asked a question and I shall answer it, although I answered it in my speech earlier. I said that I believed that the South Wales industrial strip would be one of the great growth areas in Europe, and that it would provide plenty of opportunities within the travel-to-work distance of the valley communities.
Mr. Hudson Davies: There is great concern in the valleys about what is happening—for instance, in the kind of development that will occur on the coastal strip—and that what we shall see is outward movement from the

493
valleys. That is happening already. I have heard nothing from the Secretary of State that indicates that he has any serious intention of doing anything about it.
Representations have been made to the Secretary of State. I was present on one such occasion. That was when the Heads of the Valleys Standing Conference presented the case for the valleys as a matter of urgency. Representations have been made to the right hon. Gentleman also by the Standing Conference on Economic Policy. The three Glamorgans and Gwent have argued, correctly, that on the usual criteria of social deprivation—matters such as the level of unemployment, the state of housing, the lack of indoor sanitation, pre-1880 schools and so on—the valleys would have as strong a claim as would, say, Northern Ireland, on many of the criteria, to be treated as an integrated operation zone for EEC assistance.
Representation has been made to the Secretary of State on these grounds. I should be glad of an indication before the end of the debate as to what is happening. Is the Secretary of State making progress in Brussels? Is he pursuing this cause? If so, will he indicate what hope he has of success?
I make two brief comments in closing. The local authorities in my area—the Rhymney Valley district council among them, along with Mid-Glamorgan county council—are discussing with British Rail, with some misgivings, the British Rail proposals for the valleys. In the context of the Welsh need, does not the Secretary of State agree that it is nonsense that the Government's passenger support grant is made as a block grant to British Rail? If he has any strategy in mind for revitalising the valleys, would it not make sense for there to be directions from the Ministry of Transport on the use that British Rail makes of the grant and, further, that British Rail should declare publicly how it makes use of it?
Lastly, we hear a great deal from Conservative Members of their proud boast and their satisfaction in connection with youth opportunities and special temporary employment projects being carried out through the Manpower Services Commission, but is the Secretary of State aware that many local authorities are finding it more and more difficult to act as sponsors, because they receive their financial reimbursement as sponsors quarterly in arrears? They have put up the funds first, under the Treasury office of accounts rules. Therefore, will the Secretary of State discuss with his right hon. Friends in the Treasury and the Department of Employment ways of removing this nonsensical hurdle to youth employment projects?
The valleys are dying. That is not a debating point, but a plea on behalf of hundreds of thousands of people. I ask the Secretary of State not to treat this as a vague political problem to be deflected, but to do something urgently, before it is too late. That is his responsibility as Secretary of State for Wales. Even if it puts him in conflict with his Government, will he accept that responsibility on behalf of the people of Wales?
8.29 pm
Mr. Ioan Evans: This is a debate on Welsh affairs, but we have rightly concentrated on the report of the Select Committee. There is no doubt that, by considering employment opportunities in Wales, the Select Committee has established itself in the Principality.
494
It has been suggested that other bodies should have been invited to give evidence, but when it is remembered that the Welsh Office, the Welsh Development Agency, the Development Corporation for Wales, the Wales TUC, the Manpower Services Commission, the Development Board for Rural Wales, the Council for the Principality, the Welsh Counties Committee, the NCB, the CBI, the BSC and the Secretaries of State for Wales and Industry gave evidence to the Select Committee, it can be seen that there were a variety of witnesses.
The Committee felt that it was better to report before the recess, because even as the witnesses were giving evidence the information was becoming outdated due to the fact that the economic situation was deteriorating. I am surprised at the Conservative Members who served on that Committee. As members of Select Committees we do not attend wearing our political hats; we attend to review the evidence.
The Chairman of the Committee has done an excellent job. The Secretary of State spoke for over 50 minutes in this debate, and I am glad that the Chairman of the Committee will be allowed more than the 10 minutes that Back Benchers have been allowed to make his comments.
On the question of the cause and effect of unemployment in Wales, all members of the Committee unanimously agreed that witnesses had expressed their concern about the dangers and social tensions that would arise if the responses to our unemployment problems were inadequate. That was said not only by the TUC, but by the CBI and representatives of local authorities.
Mr. Hooson rose—
Mr. Evans: I am sorry, but I do not have time to give way. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Hooson) has put forward his case in this debate, but he has not had the courage today to stand by the conviction that he expressed in the Select Committee. That is why I quarrel with Conservative Members. This is not really an Adjournment debate. I wish that it were. It would have been far better to have put before the House the question, That this House accepts the report of the Select Committee. That would have been a real test for Conservative Members. They should abstain when we vote tonight.
As the report rightly assessed, there is not a jobs gap in Wales; there is a jobs chasm. I should like to mention one or two constituency matters, because certain items in the report would have helped the employment situation in Wales in every constituency, even in that of the Secretary of State for Wales. His problem is that he has to be loyal to his Cabinet and, presumably, to his party. He must recognise that the time will come when he will have to go to the people of Pembroke. If the report had been implemented in full, the people of Pembroke and other Welsh constituencies would have benefited.
With regard to Aberdare, the Committee considered that the capital investment that was sought by the NCB for the Phurnacite plant at Abercwmboi should be made. That was overtaken by events, because the Department of Energy turned it down. Cash limits have now been imposed on the coal industry, as they have been on the steel industry. We have seen the effect on the steel industry, and we can imagine the effect on the coal industry.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) referred to special development area status, and I

495
and my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman) recommended that that status should be restored. If all Governments say that that status is beneficial, it must be recognised that if that status is taken away the result is damaging. That is why I condemn the Government. This Parliament has failed Wales. At a time of growing unemployment, local authorities have had to face an added difficulty because of the withdrawal of that status.
Evidence was given to the Select Committee on that issue. Sir Howard Evans from the Welsh Office gave evidence. There are optimists and pessimists in the Welsh Office, and we struggled to get a figure. To deal with unemployment we must know what the problem will be. The figure looked pessimistic at the time. It was said that 125,000 people would be unemployed by 1982–83, and other figures were put forward.
When the Wales TUC gave an estimate of 140,000 by 1983, it was accused of scaremongering and told not to sell Wales short. When we try to get the Government to face reality, to face the facts and the results of their actions, we are told not to sell Wales short. Before the end of last year the unemployment figure was 138,000. When we get the next figure we may well find that it is not far short of 150,000, not 140,000. We have already heard from the Secretary of State for Employment that the next figures will be shocking. Unemployment in Wales is higher than in any other region in Britain. That is the position that we face. [Interruption.] I am sure that our figures equal those of the North-East region, if they do not surpass them. After the changes in the coal industry, we have had massive changes in the steel industry.
There is a decline in the total number of male employees in employment, and a steady increase in the number of females seeking employment. The Welsh Office figures show that despite the existing unemployment and the effect of the Government's policies, which are producing a massive increase in unemployment, there is an expectation that the labour force will rise by 179,000 in the period from 1976 to 1991.
Even without the present Government's policies there would have been an employment problem in Wales—I concede that—but the implications of the Select Committee's report are that the Government's policies are worsening the position. What is the Government's attitude to regional policy? We were fortunate in having before us the Secretary of State for Industry—the guru himself. He is the man who, more than anyone else, is advising the Prime Minister on monetarist policy. The right hon. Lady has also sent for Professor Walters—at £50,000 a year—to tell her whether the Secretary of State for Industry is giving her good advice.
The Secretary of State for Industry told us about his three concepts in reviewing regional policy. The first was that the Government wished to maintain an effective regional policy within a lower public spending total expressed as a proportion of national revenue. That is a nice way of saying that the Government intend to spend less. We have seen the way in which the Government have spent less in Wales. That concept is wrong. If the need for regional policy is seen to be greater at a time of recession, surely there must be greater public spending to meet the greater need. The Government are cutting regional aid when they should be greatly increasing it, so that concept of the Secretary of State for Industry is wrong.
496
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that regional policy does not cost less; that the money that is spent on regional policy comes from somewhere. Of course it comes from somewhere. The implication is that if there is a saving on regional spending, there is a total saving by the Government. The fact that the Government have withdrawn help from small industries has meant that the industries concerned have failed and the people in them have joined the unemployment queues. As a result, the unemployment benefit that has had to be paid is far greater. The abandonment of regional policy is more expensive and contributes to unemployment and the consequent cost of unemployment benefits.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the transfer of resources meant that jobs achieved in the regions tended to be at the expense of jobs somewhere else in the economy. He wanted to argue that if Wales was to have jobs, jobs would be lost in London and elsewhere. He believes that the answer to all our problems is competition. Monetarism is the financial method. He argues that to intervene in Wales and to encourage industry to go to Wales is against the interests of competition. He fails to recognise that there is competition beyond this island's shores. If industry is not encouraged to set up in Wales, the North-East and the North-West, those areas will suffer from competition.
The concepts that the Secretary of State for Industry holds are wrong. Unfortunately, the Secretary of State for Wales has to agree with those policies. The Select Committee's report should be borne in mind for the future. It was accepted by the Committee. It is a compromise document. All the contents, including references to a fear about social tension, were agreed unanimously by the Committee. I should want to go further. I should like more radical Socialist policies to deal with the problems that have accumulated.
Kenneth Galbraith condemned the previous Tory Government and the "You never had it so good" philosophy that they followed. In his book "The Affluent Society" he coined the phrase "private affluence and public squalor". That is not the policy that the Government are pursuing. The Tories have created a deprived society. There is public squalor, but there is also private deprivation.
The Prime Minister has told people that they should leave Wales and find employment elsewhere. People have had to leave my area in order to go to a resettlement camp in Henley-in-Arden. Because an individual refused to go, his benefits were stopped. Although he has no income, he has to live on the benefits that his mother receives. As a result of the Government's instructions to the DHSS, he is expected to pay part of the rent of his mother's house although he has no income. Earlier today, I had a phone call from the citizens advice bureau. The mother has been threatened with eviction. Such people suffer deprivation as a result of the Government's policies.
The Select Committee on Employment is tackling the problem, but if Conservative Members agree with the Government's policy, I predict that not many of them will come back to the next Parliament.
8.43 pm
Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: Some hon. Members may wonder why the hon. Member for Kensington wishes to speak in a debate on Welsh affairs. However, I would like to declare that I and my family have

497
substantial property interests in Glamorgan and we certainly have a stake in the upturn of the Welsh economy. It is not inappropriate that Members with non-Welsh constituences should take part in the debate, because the problems of the Welsh economy are not peculiar to Wales or to Britain.
Setbacks face mixed economies all over the world as a result of the high price of oil and the breakdown of the old Bretton Woods system. In a world in which the population is rising quickly, in which terrible poverty exists and in which there is such great scope for development, it is wrong that we should be cutting not only our production of food, textiles and steel but our ability to produce those highly necessary items. So there is certainly scope for fresh thinking.
I remind the House of the wisdom of the remark that a nation is the wrong-sized instrument to intervene in the economy. It is too large to intervene in industry, and it is too small to run its own paper currency. The increasing uncertainty about the future, as judged in terms of national paper currencies, is causing the setback in investment and the decline in investors' confidence throughout the Western world.
The post-Smithsonian experiment of depending on national paper currencies as a substitute for the gold standard has failed. We thought that it might initiate a new era in which floating exchange rates could be managed by the central banks and there would be a civilised approach to long-term economic planning, taking note of the changes taking place in various regions of the world. We have now seen enough to know that this experiment with ethnic paper currencies is not a success, and that we must move on to something else.
No long-term project at present can be embarked upon with confidence by private business unless it has some form of State guarantee. The problem is not just a British one. On the Continent and in North America and, indeed, in the Far East, the State is increasingly required to intervene, without being confident of how to do so successfully. That is a problem in the Welsh Office, just as it is for Finance Ministries, central banks and central planning departments throughout the world.
Another anomaly in the British economy is obvious if one looks at the advertisements in the national press for imported Japanese equipment and luxuries: there is still too much consumption for the amount of investment. Of course, increasingly large elements in society are no longer able to enjoy the consumption boom. But as a community, we are living on capital, and we are not creating new wealth, as we must do to maintain our standards. This cannot go on.
How should the Welsh Office seek to encourage investment in Wales? One proposal that I noted in the report of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs—an admirable document, which has already shown that it is standing the test of time—is the recommendation that the exchange risk guarantee scheme for European Investment Bank loans should be extended. That is essential if we are to take advantage of the low interest rate facilities that are available to investors through the EIB. I hope that the Government will commit themselves firmly to continue that form of State intervention.
There has been much debate today about the different forms of grants that are available and the ways in which they should be applied. I shall say no more on that subject. But I feel that we should give a rather guarded welcome
498
to the idea of enterprise zones. They are only another form of subsidy with a very broad aim. Whether it will prove successful in the long run, only experiment will show.
One matter that I particularly commend is my right hon. Friend's highly imaginative gesture in giving a subsidy, albeit a small one, to study the further development of co-operatives. If I had time I should like to develop some of the hopes that I have for a new climate in industry—it has to come—in which we drop the "two sides" mentality and stop playing the destructive game of money barons against wage slaves. Those concepts are obsolete and damaging in today's industrial context. But I am sorry to say that there are people in Wales who want to keep those games alive, and to promote the prejudices that frighten off foreign investors and damage productivity, trust and satisfaction in work.
I want to mention something that I hope to have the opportunity to develop in the debates that we shall have this Session on company law reform. We have to consider the possibility of creating a new class of share for both private and public companies, half-way between a debenture and an equity. I am increasingly worried about firms that are heavily in debt to the banks and yet are not sufficiently confident of their profit record over a short span of time, perhaps of a few years, to go confidently to the market and raise funds in the normal way by an issue of equity shares. We must see whether such firms can change the class of their indebtedness to bring down the interest rates that they have to pay and yet give guarantees to shareholders so that they can be confident of their investment plans.
Many firms are not at present working profitably or are discovering through the introduction of inflation accounting that they are not profitable but are basically sound and necessary for the economy. We must find a method of allowing them to make a charge on their future value added so that whatever happens to their profit record the investment is reasonably secure and the shareholders have a stake in the business.
I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will note my next suggestion, particularly at this season. We need a tax change to allow a commitment by a company, based on its value added, to rank as a prior charge like a bank loan or a debenture.
I would like now to emphasise the argument in favour of a project that is the most vital of all the really long-term projects in view to assist the Welsh economy. I refer to the proposal for a Severn barrage. Many people believe it to be so futuristic and imaginative that it will never change the economic scene in their lifetime. I remember the campaign for a Severn bridge and the mockery that used to be expressed at the idea that such an ambitious scheme should ever be launched. Yet today the scheme seems not ambitious enough.
The Bondi Committee on the Severn barrage project is about to issue its final report. I understand that we can confidently expect its report in the next few weeks. I hope that the Welsh Office will respond to the report as favourably as possible. I hope that it will take the lead in promoting the next stage—the move towards a large-scale pilot project.
It is difficult to make cost comparisons between energy derived from oil, coal hydroelectric schemes and nuclear energy. However, some considerations in connection with the Severn barrage are overriding. First, there is the strategic advantage of having a large alternative source of

499
power ready for the time when the oil runs out, or if anything should happen to our oil investment. I shudder to think how much damage to our industrial base could be done by one Russian submarine loose in the North Sea. The strategic advantage of having an alternative source of energy is a major consideration.
We must remember, too, that whereas some forms of energy can be generated with relatively low capital investment, the Severn barrage would be an ultra-long-term investment—an asset lasting far into the next century. That is an important consideration when we are so short of capital. We should also add up the secondary considerations. I refer to a deep water port, a new crossing of the estuary, and the engineering know-how generated by producing such an imaginative and enormous project.
Most important, we must also consider the social impact. In the West of England and South Wales, such a project would give employment to the very many people who do not have the skills to enter the small factories such as the Inmos works where they can develop highly paid skills, but only in small numbers. In South Wales large numbers of people want work but do not have the skills to compete with young people with specialist training. We should give them hope for their future and a project they can fasten upon which will give them confidence in the future of their country.
8.54 pm
Mr. Donald Anderson: The hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) shares one characteristic with Dr. Billy Graham—he has many texts but one sermon.
The Welsh people were tremendously disappointed at the Government's negative response to the Select Committee's recommendations.
We started work in high hopes as a result of the failure of the devolution proposals in the referendum. We worked hard as a non-partisan Committee, produced our report in August, and the response of the Government was negative, arrogant and dismissive, characteristic of much of the tone of this Government. The debate has also been characterised by the cacophony of Conservative Members seeking to deny paternity of that report to which in July, they were willing to add their signatures.
The situation which we described began in March last year, with the estimate by Sir Hywel Evans of a peak of 125,000 people unemployed in Wales. The situation worsened during our discussions until our conclusions in July, and has worsened ever since.
The estimates given by our advisers, Moore and Rhodes, who are used by the Welsh Office, varied according to the methodology and assumptions, from a low of 144,000 to a high of 172,000, at a time when the Welsh Office thought that the peak would be 125,000. It based the assumptions of the Manpower Services Commission on that inadequate estimate of the gravity of the crisis faced by Wales.
We know that 1980 was the worst year in Wales for redundancies, which were more than 64,000. The county which was worst affected was West Glamorgan, with 15,550. The leader of the West Glamorgan council has written to the Department of Industry in these terms:
"I begin to despair of making any impact at all in the Department's understanding of the grave problems in South Wales."
500
The Government's policy is one of bankruptcy and the dole queues, and they refuse to adjust to changes in unemployment. That applies particularly to the spiralling decline in the county of West Glamorgan, which will be made much worse by the anticipated fall in Velindre with, directly, well over 1,000 people unemployed, and consequential knock-on effects in excess of 3,000. Yet the Welsh Office refuses to face up to the new situation in that county.
I ask the Secretary of State carefully to consider the Velindre problem and the proposals on work sharing that have been suggested by the work force. They were shocked by the news of the effects on their company of the new corporate plan produced in December. The workers were not at fault; they were not inefficient and undisciplined. They had worked hard and their quality of work was good. It would have done the Secretary of State good to meet those men face to face, the victims of the policy of this Government.
I hope that the Secretary of State will reconsider the work-sharing proposals and not automatically accept the corporate plan which has been put forward by the British Steel Corporation. The crisis is grave and demands a change of policy now. If we are to meet that crisis in Wales, we need all those tools which the Government are ideologically committed to refuse. Anything which the Government are prepared to accept will help us in no wise.
From where does the Secretary of State seriously expect new investment to come which is so desperately needed by the people of Wales? Will it come from the public sector? Hardly, because of the cuts brought about by the Government's basic economic programme—the cuts in local authority expenditure and in central Government expenditure, and the revision of the guidelines of the Welsh Development Agency.
The WDA was extremely coy about using its powers to invest in industry. Less than 6 per cent. of its total budget for the financial year 1979–80 was used for investment, and that will probably be cut by the new guidelines imposed on it by the Government.
The £48 million that the Government have given to areas most affected by steel closures is hopelessly inadequate, as the Secretary of State knows. It is estimated that it costs about £30,000 of public funds to create one job.
Mr. Nicholas Edwards indicated dissent.
Mr. Anderson: The Secretary of State shakes his head. I ask him to look at the report by Mrs. Marquand, commissioned by the Government. Her conclusion was that, at 1979 prices, it cost about £27,000 to create one job. The estimate of Moore and Rhodes is £30,000 per job. On those estimates, the £48 million which the Government have given to the steel crisis areas would produce 1,600 jobs, at a time when we already have 138,000 unemployed—and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the figure will go substantially higher.
We shall clearly get no help from the public sector for the increased investment we need. What about the private sector? Are there serious hopes of any increased private investment in South Wales? Those who go to the major investment analysts for advice on where to put their money will have been told that they will get the best return from investing in property in the South-East of England. There is little hope for South Wales in that context, so the investment will not be coming.

501
The job gap is widening all the time and it is getting worse for Wales, for demographic reasons and because of our dependence on steel. The future is frightening indeed. Even the modest proposals of the Select Committee have been rejected out of hand by the Secretary of State and his advisers.
The Bank for International Settlements has said that we in Britain are subject to a "laboratory experiment". The Secretary of State for Industry said that the Government had wasted their first year. If there is a laboratory experiment, we in Britain, and particularly in Wales, are its victims.
When I first became active in politics in the late 1950s and early 1960s, we young Welsh people were inclined to scoff at the descriptions by our fathers of conditions and their suffering in the 1930s. My own father had to leave Wales for Plymouth and was unemployed for much of the 1930s. We scoffed at the tales of our fathers, but a new generation of Welshmen are now learning the hard way that, as the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Health) has recently said, the Conservative Party is still the party of unemployment.
9.3 pm
Mr. Ray Powell: There is little time left to go over the difficulties experienced in my constituency. I should first like to congratulate the Chairman of the Select Committee on an excellent Report.
At Question Time today the Prime Minister referred to her right hon. Friend the Minister for Unemployment. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes—she referred to him as the Minister for Unemployment. That is what we have today. If anybody has created unemployment it is the present Minister, ably assisted by the Secretary of State for Wales, who has been one of the worst tragedies that the Principality has ever had to endure.
I want to refer particularly to my constituency. When the Government were elected, in May 1979 ours was considered to be the growth area of Wales. The Ford factory was being built there. We had a minimum of unemployment. Factories were working flat out. There were full order books and excellent trade union relations. Banks and businesses were all flourishing. Families were moving into the area from all parts of the country, and even from other countries.
Then calamity struck the Ogmore constituency and Wales. The Tory Government were elected by greedy, avaricious, selfish electors. Bribed by Tory promises of tax cuts, swayed by Saatchi and Saatchi propaganda and cheated by fraud and deception, they elected this disastrous bunch of mad monetarists, hell-bent on destroying the industrial base of this country. Wales, the bastion of the Socialist cause, is destined to suffer more than anywhere else.
We fully appreciate the reasons. The Government decided upon steel de-manning. That is undoubtedly the main cause, with a ripple effect on smaller industries. With over-valuation of the pound imposing a 40 per cent. tax on exports and a 30 per cent. subsidy on imports, over an 18-month period British industry suffered an unprecedented loss of competitiveness. The consequences of the Government's economic policies on British Steel, British Leyland, ICI, Courtaulds and many other leading companies are plain to see, but the damage to smaller firms and the long-term penetration of markets has yet to emerge.
502
What is the Government's answer? They have decided that 24 small units will be established on the Bridgend industrial estate, which over the next three years will employ as many as 500 people. Set that against the further de-manning at Port Talbot by 700 jobs, and the prospects look disastrously bleak for my area. It is not enough to build advance factories. The major change that is needed is a Government policy to retain existing factories. In the past 12 months, 10 well-established factories in my constituency have closed. They wished to provide protection for existing jobs. Further WDA developments could absorb the high percentage of unemployment. Let us spend less on defence and destruction and use some of the £9,753 million on economic and industrial recovery.
What else can we do? The Secretary of State seems to be losing his grip on matters affecting Wales. Unless he asserts the needs of Wales and strives to get at least as much for Wales as other regions, Whitehall will soon take over. There is evidence that that is already happening.
Secondly, there must be a plan for the development of employment in Wales—a planning framework with clear targets and with responsibility placed in departments in the Welsh Office and other agencies in Wales. There must be a positive plan for the reconstruction and regeneration of the economy of Wales. Without an agreed plan, the Welsh Office, the WDA and others will continue to flounder along and get nowhere.
What else can we do? We could introduce a selective temporary employment subsidy for firms with short-term difficulties, but with a sound base and good prospects. We could give intermediate area status to the areas covered by the Development Board for Rural Wales. We could encourage the development of co-operatives to create employment. We could improve apprenticeship and training schemes. Wales is still the least favoured area in the country with regard to apprenticeships. We could improve the methods within Wales of attracting and encouraging inward investment. The Secretary of State should consider again paragraph 97 of the report.
Finally, I refer to the difficulties experienced by local authorities and councillors in implementing the cuts that are being imposed. County and district authorities are having to cut all services to the bone—services for the elderly, the handicapped and the disabled and social services in all their aspects. Those cuts in themselves add to the number without jobs.
Local authorities must carry out policies that have been dictated by the Secretary of State for the Environment. In many quarters it is referred to as Tarzan's trap to tranquillise, trip and truncate the councillors and to demote them to rubber-stamp the policies that he dictates. He expects them to sit on councils, unable to fulfil promises that they made to their electors.
Labour will fight these cuts and will win the county elections in May. In so doing it will denounce the Government's policies with enthusiasm and sincere conviction.
9.10 pm
Mr. Leo Abse: When he commenced his speech, with the churlishness that is characteristic of him, the Secretary of State indicated his surprise and disapproval, if not despair, at the fact that I would be making a speech from the Opposition Front Bench. I share his surprise, and I understand his dismay.

503
He proceeded to tell us that he wanted to indicate the duties of people who served on a Select Committee, the Chairman in particular. We do not need sententious lectures from the Secretary of State for Wales on how we should observe the proprieties and conventions of this House. We act as parliamentarians in the Select Committee. There, we seek a consensus. There, our allegiance is not to party Whips, but rather to the House to which we report. When we come here we do so as party politicians, glad indeed to vitalise the institution of Parliament by the blessings and boons of party politics. Therefore, let not the Secretary, of State begin to give us lectures.
When we come here tonight, we know that we are engaging in a debate that is not on the Select Committee report. If that were so, I should be sitting on the Back Benches. However, in order to save his Back Benchers from the consequences of their own action and signatures, the Secretary of State has ensured that today we are indulging in an Adjournment debate on a general issue. He would have been well advised not to incite his hon. Friends who sat on the Select Committee to take up a stance that does them little credit, because it means that they have been compelled to resile from their original positions. Wales will notice how they run like rabbits from the consequences of their own commendations.
Despite the valuable contributions that have come from both sides of the House on the matters contained in the Select Committee report, the House has not had its attention specifically directed to some of the major issues that arose in the report. I understand the Secretary of State's studiously and carefully avoiding drawing the attention of the House to those issues in respect of which he felt most hurt.
When, during the first sitting of the Select Committee, Sir Hywel Evans, the recently retired, distinguished head of the Welsh Office appeared before us, I must admit that I did him a grave injustice. Happily, it was an injustice that I did privately and not publicly. His reply to what was almost my final question to him—it was almost his last public comment as a civil servant—was, I thought, a little bizarre. I had asked him:
"Could you tell us what your feeling is on how you could improve upon the leverage which you think you now have with Whitehall?"
A little wistfully, I thought, he replied:
"I would like to see a map of Wales hanging in the rooms of all senior officials in the Department of Industry."
He then added boldly, and perhaps encouraged by the imminence of his approaching retirement:
"The ideal condition would be that before anything was formulated at all we—
meaning the Welsh Office—
"were fully associated with it. We are a lot of the time now but I would be misleading the Committee, and I do not think that you would believe me, sir, if I said it happened always … I think the situation would be improved by ensuring that right from the very word go, from square one, the Department was fully associated with the formulation of overall policies."
It was many sessions later, following painstaking investigations, that the full significance of that comment, founded so evidently on long and painful experience, was appreciated by the Select Committee. The truth is that Whitehall treats the Welsh Office with contempt.
Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Rubbish.
Mr. Abse: I do not want a running commentary by the Secretary of State from a sedentary position. I shall come to him in a moment. Perhaps if he wants to speak, he will rise to his feet.
The Select Committee, including all my Conservative colleagues, concluded, as the Secretary of State knows, that there were profound defects in the arrangements within the Government for disseminating information on matters of vital importance for Wales. The whole Committee, every member of it, explicitly declared that the Secretary of State—I am referring to the report for Wales—fared no better himself. The Secretary of State and the Welsh Office were left in ignorance about major matters vital to Wales. That was the opinion expressed by the six Conservative Members on the Select Committee.
Mr. Nicholas Edwards: That conclusion was reached on one piece of evidence. One official of a nationalised industry, who later apologised, had failed to provide one piece of information on one occasion to the Secretary of State. That was the quality of the report that the hon. Gentleman produced on this matter.
Mr. Abse: The Secretary of State is easily wounded. He does an injustice to his colleagues to imagine that they would come to conclusion of that kind—so significant a conclusion as it is—on one piece of evidence. It is true. What the right hon. Gentleman says did occur. Misleadingly, we observed that he had come to the Grand Committee and that there he had made it clear that he did not know—or, if he knew, he was misleading the Grand Committee—of the arrangements being made inside the industry about major redundancies then taking place.
It was not the only piece of evidence. My colleagues are not so jejune or naive as to rest an opinion on one major blunder of that kind suggesting that the whole links of the Secretary of State for Wales and the relevant Departments and the nationalised industries in Wales are either, as all of us said, illusory or are operated in an incompetent fashion. Of course they did not come to those conclusions alone on that basis. Other instances were being brought to our attention.
There was the whole question of the communications that went on between the chairman, as he then was, of the BSC and the Secretary of State for Industry, in which it was made clear that the whole industry could be liquidated, or would have to be liquidated, if £400 million was not provided to the steel industry. Did the Secretary of State, when he came before the Select Committee, tell us of it? Did he know of it? It was abundantly clear that he was in ignorance of it. I do him the justice of knowing that he would not deliberately have attempted to mislead the Select Committee. The Select Committee was profoundly affected and disturbed by the fact that the right hon. Gentleman was kept in ignorance. If the Secretary of State wants another example, let me give him one.
Is there anyone in Wales who believes that when the speech was delivered with such exquisite tact in Cambridge by the Home Secretary, telling Wales that the Conservative Government were reneging on their policy concerning the fourth channel, the Secretary of State for Wales was privy to that decision?
Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The hon. Gentleman has made three consecutive statements that are totally and completely untrue, and that one is also untrue. That decision, like all other important decisions affecting

505
Wales, was taken collectively by the Government. The Welsh Office and I, as I have always made clear, were involved fully with my right hon. Friend in that decision.
Mr. Abse: I presume, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman has also been privy to the somersaults that have taken place since. I presume, further, that he assumes full responsibility for the gymnastics over the television world in Wales. However, we know that the relationship between the Departments was that described by Sir Hywel Evans, who clearly had known for a long time that there was a need for Wales to be able to be represented more effectively when the decision-making was taking place. The fact that Whitehall is treating the Welsh Office and the Secretary of State as dogsbodies is not a light matter. Never in the post war years, now that we have a worldwide recession, has there been a greater need for a tough Secretary of State and an emboldened Welsh Office able to fight its corner.
The goal of the Department, declared in the memorandum submitted to the Select Committee and repeated in the Government's response, was to bring the rate of unemployment in Wales close to the average rate throughout Britain as a whole and to stem migration from the Principality. All that is as naught if the Secretary of State is pushed into an anteroom away from the corridors of power. After all, to achieve the declared goal, the Secretary of State and the Welsh Office have to begin a fight with the Prime Minister, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) made abundantly clear.
Swansea and the Principality will never forget the right hon. Lady's mocking advice to the unemployed, to which again I presume the Secretary of State was privy. She would have turned us into gipsies. Romany, not Wales, is the promised land. She gave the workers of the Principality a message that will never be forgotten. Given the folly of the zealots, wholly committed as they are to illusions of monetarism, founded upon the restriction of the spending and respending of borrowed money desperately needed to restructure our industries, the Secretary of State would need to fight for every penny of public money that is so parsimoniously being given by the Treasury. Not only is the right hon. Gentleman compromised by his monetarist belief that idle plant capacity and increased unemployment are the only ways which to arrest inflation, but evident acceptance, in the view of the committee, of a subordinate role in the Government makes him easy prey to his tougher-minded colleagues. They are proceeding on their way without him.
There are many instances in which we are concerned about his lack of fight. My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Hudson Davies), in a notable speech, brought home the dangers to the coal industry in Wales. We noted that the Secretary of State in his speech yet again treated the coal industry of Wales almost as an aside. My right hon. Friend the Shadow Secretary of State has pressed him, and I press him again.
We know that there is a need to fight for Wales to ensure that reduced Government assistance to the coal industry does not mean that Welsh coalfields will be wiped out. It is clear that the recession, compounded by the folly and failure of the Government's monetarist policies, has effectively destroyed the Coal Board's always slim chances of meeting the well-nigh impossible targets that the Government set the industry last year.
506
When the Coal Industry Act 1980 was passed, what caveats did the Secretary of State for Industry receive from the Secretary of State for Wales? Given the notorious vulnerability of our geologically difficult pits, what contingency plans did the Secretary of State formulate—knowing the catastrophe that would befall Wales if the stringent targets laid down by the financial restrictions of the Government were not met? And they will not now be met. Is he supinely waiting for another fait accompli, with the clear danger that when the Coal Board meets the Secretary of State for Industry and the National Union of Mineworkers next month it may be forced to say that the financial parsimony of the Government compels large-scale redundancies?
We want to know what, if anything—and before it is too late—the Secretary of State is doing to ward off that fearsome threat. We want to know that tonight. Is he, or anybody from the Welsh Office, attending the meeting on Monday between the Secretary of State for Industry and the Coal Board? Does he even know about the meeting? I want to give the Secretary of State a warning—though he takes unkindly to warnings, preferring always to insulate himself in a cocoon from the harsh realities. As many hon. Members have stressed, he scoffed at the warnings of impending mounting unemployment figures, recklessly accusing those of us with more prescience of extravagance, of dangerous rhetoric and of provoking difficulties for Wales. He prefers, Micawber-like, to come to the House as he has today, and declare the success of his policies and how he can look to the future with optimism, when he has attained the remarkable achievement of allowing unemployment in Wales to rise from 80,000 when he took office to a level which, unhappily, will probably reach 150,000 within a matter of days.
I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to accept the warnings of the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) that the Tory Party will be stigmatised as the party of unemployment. Doubtless he shrugs off the admonitions of Harold Macmillan. Nevertheless, I warn him that he and his Government are playing with dangerously combustible material. There appears to be a suggestion that the six months reprieve for Port Talbot and Llanwern is not permanent. There were ominous tones in his 53-minute speech, which included a chilly suggestion that if the market did not meet the required standards once again Llanwern and Port Talbot could be at risk. If that is what he meant, and if that is how it was intended to be interpreted—if the reprieve is not permanent, and if there is a failure by the Government to assist the Coal Board, with the consequences that we have stressed to our coalfields—we warn him that he will find that his failure to practise the politics of prevention—not the politics of provocation and confrontation, which is his habit—that were urged by the Select Committee, will bring about the real risk of social disorder, of which the whole Committee spoke.
I have observed, as the whole House has observed, the comments that have been made by the hon. Members for Montgomery (Mr. Williams), Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Hooson) and Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) in joining forces with or acting as an echo for the Secretary of State for Wales, who decided that in some way he would try to wash his hands of the conclusions that we had reached.
The hon. Member for Flint, West, oscillates a great deal. He oscillates from spirited independence, which he

507
shows fitfully, to extraordinary obsequious acts of reparative guilt. The hon. Member has had to suffer a great deal. The Secretary of State, as the media told us, sent him to Coventry as the leading member of the Select Committee after the report appeared. That is a deprivation that I could endure easily. However, the hon. Gentleman evidently does not have that sort of toughness. For the six months since the report came out—almost from the first day—he has been building his fences and bridges in order once again to be the blue-eyed boy of the Secretary of State.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor decided that it would be his day and that he would make it clear that all that had happened was that he and his colleagues had heard a response from a leading trade unionist from South Wales. The statement concluded with Mr. Wright saying:
"There are very real possibilities of disorder in this country unless we get some sense and gentleness into the manner in which we effect change."
The hon. Members for Flint, West and Brecon and Radnor, among others, then went on in our report to make the following comment:
"It is an assessment we reluctantly share."
Sir Anthony Meyer: Read on.
Mr. Abse: I will read on. That was a view that we all shared. We continued to talk about how impressed we were by the conviction of some of our witnesses. We went on to say that there were risks in existence, and we underlined them. We said, speaking of the risks of serious social disorder,
"When such real risks abound."
The hon. Membersfor Montgomery, who made an ebullient speech that could hardly be taken seriously, showed me considerable solicitude in case I became arrested. Let me assure him that I would never go to him to ask him to defend me. He and the hon. Members for Brecon and Radnor and Flint, West said:
"When such real risks abound."
Do they now claim that all they did was to register passively a view that was impressive when coming from someone else? They said that the risks were real.
Mr. Hooson rose—
Mr. Abse: No, I will not give way now. They are running away from it. At that time, with the witnesses in front of them and feeling the impact of hearing and testing the evidence, they understood that there were grave dangers, as there are. I want to tell them and the House something else. I shall tell them why the risks are much greater than they used to be. It was the Committee's conclusion that the prevailing threshold of tolerance is low in the face of reducing or declining standards, and that Wales is in no mood to respond to chronic unemployment with apathy. It pointed out that we are not living in the 1930s and I wish to tell the House that there is a new phenomenon.
I am pleased that the Prime Minister has entered the Chamber at this moment. I was saying that there is a new phenomenon that will guarantee that the men and women of Wales will not regard the mounting unemployment as inevitable, as predetermined, as irrevocable, or as beyond the wit and intelligence of Governments to mitigate. Like the right hon. Member for Sidcup, I am old enough to recall the days when such doctrines were reluctantly
508
accepted. I tell the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister that one of the main reasons for acceptance in those times—it was a tragic acceptance—was the stoicism of our womenfolk.
The survival of community life in the valleys of Wales when I was a lad was largely due to the sacrifice of the mams at home, who heroically battled, made so much personal sacrifice to eke out the miserable, means-tested public assistance of those days. They provided the anchorage that stabilised the community, which otherwise would have totally exploded or would have meant that the whole community sank demoralised into a listless despair.
Today, things are different. Half the people of Wales—that is the womenfolk—are in a different mood. The angry young women who come to our surgeries, because they have suddenly found themselves redundant, are not prepared to allow a woman Prime Minister, boasting of a capacity to be a parliamentarian, mother, wife and housekeeper, to compel them to revert to the roles that they have long since rejected. The swaggering of "I am all right, Margaret" is a provocation to our womenfolk who are jobless, or unable to obtain a post when they first come into the labour market. The opportunities in recent years for the Welsh women were long delayed, and still lag behind those in the rest of Great Britain. As the report stresses, large numbers of women, however, exercise their option to work outside the house in a way that enables them to enrich the lives of their families by bringing back to their homes an elan becoming to modern women, so many of whom feel crimped if they are compelled to be housebound. It cannot be acceptable to them or to those who value the benefits of the contemporary democratic family system, where the wife has the self-esteem of some financial independence, that lack of jobs should compel them to feel demeaned.
But what response have the Government given to the bleak prognosis spelt out in detail by the Select Committee, desperately anxious that an attempt be made to prevent women being forced back and the clock to be put back? The answer of the Thatcherite Government to the unemployed and jobless women in Wales is bleak and brutal. They have made it clear in blunt terms—
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Abse: I shall give Way in a moment. In their report the Government have corroborated what we have said about the position of our womenfolk, but they offer no aid. It is part of the responsibility of Labour Members to give leadership and to increase the production in steelworks, factory and mine, but it is no part of our duty to reconcile our womenfolk and our men to the inevitability of unemployment.
We are a rich country, blessed with oil, gas and coal in such plenitude that we are the envy of all industrialised nations. Our pound, made embarrassingly and unnecessarily stronger by the madness of the puffed-up interest rate, reflects the evaluation of our strength made to the world. To tell our people that this country cannot afford to ease the required structural changes to keep them at work and to bring them back to work is unalterable selfishness. That is what the Government are saying.
Finally, let me say this to the House. [Interruption.] Let me apologise to the Under-Secretary. I am encouraged by the fact that, in future, should I ever be on the Front Bench again, I really must make longer speeches and follow the Secretary of State's example.

509
In the meantine, let me give a warning. The warning is that if the Government are not prepared to respond to the Select Committee's rather small, compromising proposals, and unless they are prepared to change their policies to give the public investment which Wales so desperately needs, so that we can really restructure our industry and do again what we did in 1945, and revive South Wales yet again, in a short while the Tory Party will be swept away like chaff in the wind.
9.40 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Michael Roberts): In a Welsh day debate we are never short of passion, rhetoric and colourful imagery. I think it is part of the Celtic character. I suppose that we were a bit worried today, and so the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) was invited to make sure that we had our proper share of it. But I want to tell him one thing. He cannot lecture me about South Wales and its people. I have lived there all my life. I know South Wales particularly well. I am not prepared to take that sort of nonsense from anyone from the London Welsh or from anywhere else.
Alas, from listening to Opposition Members it would seem that they have a preoccupation with, and almost a dedication to, a picture of gloom and doom. Political hyperbole is, admittedly, part of their stock in trade. Today no one has quite got down to the ludicrous level of the official Opposition spokesman on Welsh affairs, the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Dr. Thomas), who said only a few days ago, when speaking about housing conditions in Wales, that things had not changed very much since Cronin wrote about conditions in Wales 50 years ago. That sort of talk does not help a bit to get jobs into South Wales or into any other part of the Principality.
In the Principality, the sort of speech we have heard about the Welsh women or about Welsh houses does not matter very much, because we know that it is nonsense. Unfortunately, however, outside the Principality, and particularly among overseas investors, this folly may be taken at its face value.
No one went quite that far today, but the general tone of despair and overstatement of difficulties, and the lack of even a reference to the opportunities and hope for the future, characterised the speeches of Opposition Members on both the Front Bench and the Back Benches. They consistently sell Wales short.
I take just one example because some of my time has been taken by the hon. Member for Pontypool, although I am not complaining too much about that. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Hudson Davies), whose speech was referred to as being memorable, said that the Welsh valleys are dying. That is the sort of Celtic death wish that does not get us anywhere. If they are dying, they did not start dying 18 months ago. If the hon. Member wants to do something about it, he should not make rhetorical speeches here but should do something about it in Caerphilly.
I should like to illustrate this point, because I feel it sincerely and it is very important. At the invitation of Swansea city council, I recently saw a film produced to promote its enterprise zone, for which it has shown such commendable enthusiasm to overcome all possible difficulties. I welcome its enterprise in its publicity, but as I watched the film I felt that I was seeing only the first reel. About half was devoted to the past dereliction and pollution—the effects of 100 years of acrid industrial
510
smog—and then there were five minutes showing Swansea council's legitimate magnificent effort over many years to battle against that problem. At the end, there was a brief reference to the advantages of enterprise zones in general. I looked forward to the second reel, but, alas, there was none.
Mr. Alec Jones: Did the hon. Gentleman know?
Mr. Roberts: Yes; I suggested that a second reel should be made. I suggested what should be done. The reel to which I looked forward but that had not then been made should have referred to the traditional excellent work force of Swansea, its magnificent urban amenities, its music and culture and its football and sporting prowess—everything to attract people to live, invest and work in Swansea. The second reel was-not made. That reflects the attitude of Labour Members.
Every Labour Member has been quick to say that there is no silver lining in anything that happened in 1980. Let me give an example. In April 1980 there was a "slimline" process in Llanwern and Port Talbot. There was a massive loss of jobs. I shall give the figures of those job losses in a moment. Labour Members are completely lacking in any vision.
Fortunately, the steel workers—for instance, John Foley of Llanwern—took a different view. Mr. Foley knew about the personal hardships and the problems. He knew about them better than many Labour Members, but he said that out of the troubles, changes and shock of 1980 there had come something good for Llanwern. There had come a reduction in the cost of steel from £186 per ton to £149 per tonne. In 1980 there was a reduction in the labour force from 9,300 to 4,900 that resulted in the reduction from eight man hours per tonne to six man hours per tonne. The situation is similar in Port Talbot.
There are still difficult decisions for the future, but now both those great works can go into 1981 competitive. John Foley said that they could be competitive, and they have become competitive only because of the "slimline" that took place in April 1980.
I wish to refer briefly to one or two of the questions that were posed before I comment directly on the matters that were raised by the hon. Member for Pontypool. He and the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) share a splendid distinction. They illustrate the points that I have been making, in that they cannot see a sign of hope when it is at the bottom of their garden. The hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) can see an elephant only when it is outside his door. It takes him a long time to see anything.
The hon. Members for Pontypool and for Newport made speeches without making a single reference to what the Cwmbran Development Corporation is doing. They did not refer to the job opportunities of Inmos and the high technology that is coming to Gwent. They managed to ignore totally the fact that we are creating in Llantarnam park a great industrial site. Leading to it there is a magnificent road that will end the congestion, and people will now be able to move smoothly from the industrial park to the M4. All that was totally ignored because they do not wish to recognise any good sign. They parade their gloom and doom for partisan reasons and for no other reasons whatever.
Mr. John Morris rose—
Mr. Roberts: The right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon has been in the Chamber for only a very short time, and I have already been deprived of much of my opportunity to reply because the hon. Member for Pontypool spoke for a considerable time. I shall not give way.
I want to reply very briefly to at least one of the points made by the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) about the agriculture department. I shall return very soon to the question of the Select Committee. He must appreciate that this is a management proposal. I give him the guarantee that the transfer of the work to Cardiff will take place in stages, and that there will be the fullest consultation with the trade union side and with individual members of staff affected by the proposals. I must say in support of the proposal that it will shorten lines of communication and facilitate the formulation and presentation of advice to Ministers.
The hon. Member for Cardigan said that at all costs the proposal had to be resisted. That is expressing the matter in quite an extreme way. We have to look fairly not only at what it will cost in terms of finance but also at what it will mean in terms of efficiency. I repeat that the people concerned will be fully consulted.
I have a series of points that I wish to make in reply to various hon. Members. I am afraid, however, that I shall have to write to a large number of Members because I have very little time left.
I want to say something about the Select Committee. Some Labour Members—the hon. Member for Pontypool was one of them—suggested that the debate should have been in its entirety about the Select Committee. Let me tell the right hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) and everyone else—I hope the media will take note—that the Select Committee is not and never was a Tory alternative to the proposed Welsh Assembly. The Tory answer to the Welsh Assembly was the Welsh people's answer. It was an outright rejection in every county in the Principality—an overwhelming "No". Yet the Welsh media have constantly accorded to the Select Committee the status and newsworthiness that they were prepared to give to the proposed Welsh Assembly.
The role of the Select Committee is to investigate, to put forward suggestions, to stimulate debate and discussion, but not to govern, not to legislate, and not to dictate to the Executive. Its 11 Members, however eminent, however unaminious on anything, are not to be regarded as more important or more significant than the other 25 remaining Members for the Principality or the United Kingdom Parliament as a whole
Very great emphasis has been placed on the fact that the members of the Select Committee were unanimous, but I should like to tell the hon. Member for Pontypool that that unanimity had largely disappeared by the end of the first press conference. The Chairman, by his subsequent partisanship, by his irresponsible development of the fears of social disorder expressed by some witnesses, and by his apparent preparedness to take to the streets like the Chartists of old, has divided his Committee, damaged his reputation, and done nothing to improve the economic prospects of Wales.
Viewed from Cardiff the pretensions of militancy often appear bizarre and ludicrous, but they are not entirely a laughing matter. When men in responsible positions irresponsibly predict social disorder, there is always a risk that their forecasts will become self-fulfilling. The raising
512
of the question of violence and social disorder is not new to the political tradition of South Wales, as the hon. Member for Pontypool knows better than anyone. In 1976, his right hon. Friend, the Leader of the Opposition, said of Wales:
"If we do not proceed to set up a Welsh Assembly there might be Ulster-type violence in Wales."
Some of us at the time thought that the right hon. Gentleman was, as usual, hopelessly wrong. We also thought that he was disgracefully irresponsible. The hon. Member for Pontypool is as wrong and as irresponsible today as the right hon. Gentleman was then.
There is only one explanation for the reckless folly of the hon. Member for Pontypool: reselection doth make militants of them all, or at least most of them. Once again, the party games of Labour Members are of little importance. What is said in the Western Mail does not really matter too much. In South Wales, we know how to assess their opinions. It is when an article appears in the Washington Post and international investors begin to shy off Wales that the damage is done.
Not to be outdone in their determination to make party points—albeit to the detriment of the economic and social fabric of Wales—the three Labour Members of the European Parliament tabled a warning of
"serious social disorder in Wales"
which was a direct disincentive to European investors. Whatever the consequences, they were determined to carry any bad news, however false, to Brussels and beyond.
How did the Labour Party get itself hooked on this course? The reason is well known, at least in South Wales. That interesting and in many ways good man, George Wright, who has done so much for the handicapped, for careers, for the young and for those at work, and who is a good trade unionist, is always wrong on the major issues. That is his mistake. He predicted that there would be violence. However militant he may now sound, he dragged the hon. Member for Pontypool by the nose.
I have time for one short and kind word for Plaid Cymru. It has now committed itself to taking to the streets and to direct action. The people of Merioneth have put up with the Marxist views of their representative for long enough. They will not be so charitable when he adopts the classic Fascist tactic of getting the people out on the streets.
Because the Opposition have been purely negative, I call on my right hon. and hon. Friends to support me in the Lobby.
Mr. Alec Jones: We have heard—[Interruption.]
Mr. Michael Roberts rose—
Mr. Coleman rose in his place and claimed to move, That the question be now put.
Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That this House do now adjourn:—
The House divide: Ayes 246, Noes 296.

Division No. 51]

[9.59 pm

AYES

Abse, Leo

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Adams, Allen

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest

Allaun, Frank

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Alton, David

Ashton, Joe

Anderson, Donald

Atkinson, N. (H'gey,)

Bagier, Gordon A.T.

Hardy, Peter

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

Bidwell, Sydney

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Haynes, Frank

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Bottomley, Rt Hon A. (M'b'ro)

Heffer, Eric S.

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Hogg, N. (EDunb't'nshire)

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)

Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)

Home Robertson, John

Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

Homewood, William

Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)

Hooley, Frank

Buchan, Norman

Horam, John

Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P)

Howell, Rt Hon D.

Campbell, Ian

Howells, Geraint

Canavan, Dennis

Huckfield, Les

Cant, R. B.

Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.

Carmichael, Neil

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Cartwright, John

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)

John, Brynmor

Cohen, Stanley

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

Conlan, Bernard

Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)

Cook, Robin F.

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Cowans, Harry

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Craigen, J. M.

Kerr, Russell

Crowther, J. S.

Kilfedder, James A.

Cryer, Bob

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Kinnock, Neil

Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

Lamborn, Harry

Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)

Lamond, James

Davidson, Arthur

Leadbitter, Ted

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

Leighton, Ronald

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Lestor, Miss Joan

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Deakins, Eric

Litherland, Robert

Dewar, Donald

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Dixon, Donald

Lyon, Alexander (York)

Dobson, Frank

Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

Dormand, Jack

McCartney, Hugh

Douglas, Dick

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Dubs, Alfred

McElhone, Frank

Dunn, James A.

McGuire, Michael (Ince)

Dunnett, Jack

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Eadie, Alex

McKelvey, William

Eastham, Ken

Maclennan, Robert

Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)

McNally, Thomas

Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

McNamara, Kevin

English, Michael

McTaggart, Robert

Ennals, Rt Hon David

McWilliam, John

Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

Magee, Bryan

Evans, John (Newton)

Marks, Kenneth

Ewing, Harry

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Field, Frank

Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)

Fitch, Alan

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Fitt, Gerard

Maxton, John

Flannery, Martin

Maynard, Miss Joan

Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

Meacher, Michael

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Mikardo, Ian

Ford, Ben

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Forrester, John

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Foster, Derek

Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

Foulkes, George

Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Morton, George

George, Bruce

Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Ginsburg, David

Newens, Stanley

Golding, John

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Gourlay, Harry

Ogden, Eric

Grant, George (Morpeth)

O'Halloran, Michael

Grant, John (Islington C)

O'Neill, Martin

Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

514

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Stoddart, David

Palmer, Arthur

Stott, Roger

Park, George

Strang, Gavin

Parker, John

Straw, Jack

Parry, Robert

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Pavitt, Laurie

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Pendry, Tom

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Prescott, John

Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

Price, C. (Lewisham W)

Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

Race, Reg

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Radice, Giles

Tilley, John

Richardson, Jo

Tinn, James

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Torney, Tom

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Robertson, George

Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)

Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)

Rooker, J. W.

Watkins, David

Roper, John

Weetch, Ken

Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

Welsh, Michael

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

White, Frank R.

Rowlands, Ted

White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

Ryman, John

Whitehead, Phillip

Sandelson, Neville

Whitlock, William

Sever, John

Wigley, Dafydd

Sheerman, Barry

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

Williams, Rt Hon A. (S'sea W)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Williams, Sir T. (W'ton)

Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H. (H'ton)

Silverman, Julius

Wilson, William (C'try SE)

Skinner, Dennis

Winnick, David

Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

Woodall, Alec

Snape, Peter

Woolmer, Kenneth

Soley, Clive

Young, David (Bolton E)

Spearing, Nigel

Spriggs, Leslie

Tellers for the Ayes:

Stallard, A. W.

Mr. Donald Coleman and

Steel, Rt Hon David

Mr. James Hamilton

NOTES

Adley, Robert

Buck, Antony

Aitken, Jonathan

Budgen, Nick

Alexander, Richard

Bulmer, Esmond

Alison, Michael

Burden, Sir Frederick

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Butcher, John

Ancram, Michael

Carlisle, John (Luton West)

Arnold, Tom

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)

Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

Atkins, Robert (Preston N)

Chapman, Sydney

Atkinson, David (B'm'th, E)

Churchill, W.S.

Baker, Kenneth (St. M'bone)

Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)

Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Bell, Sir Ronald

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Bendall, Vivian

Clegg, Sir Walter

Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)

Cockeram, Eric

Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

Colvin, Michael

Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

Cope, John

Bevan, David Gilroy

Cormack, Patrick

Biggs-Davison, John

Corrie, John

Blackburn, John

Costain, Sir Albert

Blaker, Peter

Cranborne, Viscount

Body, Richard

Critchley, Julian

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Crouch, David

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

Dickens, Geoffrey

Bowden, Andrew

Dorrell, Stephen

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Dover, Denshore

Braine, Sir Bernard

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Bright, Graham

Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

Brinton, Tim

Durant, Tony

Brittan, Leon

Dykes, Hugh

Brooke, Hon Peter

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Brotherton, Michael

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

Brown, M. (Brigg and Scun)

Eggar, Tim

Browne, John (Winchester)

Elliott, Sir William

Bruce-Gardyne, John

Emery, Peter

Bryan, Sir Paul

Fairgrieve, Russell

Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick

Faith, Mrs Sheila

Farr, John

McCrindle, Robert

Fell, Anthony

Macfarlane, Neil

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

MacKay, John (Argyll)

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

Fisher, Sir Nigel

McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)

McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

McQuarrie, Albert

Fookes, Miss Janet

Madel, David

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Major, John

Fox, Marcus

Marland, Paul

Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

Marlow, Tony

Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

Marshall Michael (Arundel)

Fry, Peter

Mates, Michael

Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

Mather, Carol

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Maude, Rt Hon Angus

Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

Mawby, Ray

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Mayhew, Patrick

Glyn, Dr Alan

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Goodhart, Philip

Miller, Hal (B'grove)

Goodlad, Alastair

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Gorst, John

Mills, Peter (West Devon)

Gow, Ian

Miscampbell, Norman

Gower, Sir Raymond

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Greenway, Harry

Moate, Roger

Grieve, Percy

Monro, Hector

Griffiths, E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)

Montgomery, Fergus

Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

Moore, John

Grist, Ian

Morgan, Geraint

Grylls, Michael

Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

Gummer, John Selwyn

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Hamilton, Hon A.

Mudd, David

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Murphy, Christopher

Hampson, Dr Keith

Myles, David

Hannam, John

Neale, Gerrard

Haselhurst, Alan

Needham, Richard

Hastings, Stephen

Nelson, Anthony

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Neubert, Michael

Hawkins, Paul

Newton, Tony

Hawksley, Warren

Nott, Rt Hon John

Hayhoe, Barney

Onslow, Cranley

Heddle, John

Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

Henderson, Barry

Osborn, John

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Hicks, Robert

Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Parkinson, Cecil

Hill, James

Parris, Matthew

Holland, Philip (Carlton)

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Hooson, Tom

Patten, John (Oxford)

Hordern, Peter

Pattie, Geoffrey

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Pawsey, James

Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)

Percival, Sir Ian

Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

Pink, R. Bonner

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Porter, Barry

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Hurd, Hon Douglas

Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Prior, Rt Hon James

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Proctor, K. Harvey

Jessel, Toby

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

Raison, Timothy

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Rathbone, Tim

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Kershaw, Anthony

Renton, Tim

Kimball, Marcus

Rhodes James, Robert

King, Rt Hon Tom

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Knight, Mrs Jill

Ridsdale, Julian

Knox, David

Rifkind, Malcolm

Lamont, Norman

Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

Lang, Ian

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Rossi, Hugh

Latham, Michael

Rost, Peter

Lawson, Nigel

Royle, Sir Anthony

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Lester Jim (Beeston)

Scott, Nicholas

Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

Loveridge, John

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Luce, Richard

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Lyell, Nicholas

Shepherd, Richard

516

Shersby, Michael

Trotter, Neville

Silvester, Fred

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Sims, Roger

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Skeet, T. H. H.

Viggers, Peter

Smith, Dudley

Waddington, David

Speed, Keith

Wakeham, John

Spence, John

Waldegrave, Hon William

Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Walker, B. (Perth)

Sproat, Ian

Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

Squire, Robin

Waller, Gary

Stainton, Keith

Ward, John

Stanbrook, Ivor

Warren, Kenneth

Stanley, John

Watson, John

Steen, Anthony

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Stevens, Martin

Wells, Bowen

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Wheeler, John

Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Stokes, John

Whitney, Raymond

Stradling Thomas, J.

Wickenden, Keith

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Wiggin, Jerry

Tebbit, Norman

Wilkinson, John

Temple-Morris, Peter

Williams, D. (Montgomery)

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

Winterton, Nicholas

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Wolfson, Mark

Thompson, Donald

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

Younger, Rt Hon George

Thornton, Malcolm

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Tellers for the Noes:

Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

Trippier, David

Mr. Anthony Berry.

Question accordingly negatived.

Northern Ireland (Firearms)
10.11 pm
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Alison): I beg to move,
That the draft Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 14 July 1980 in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
This order consolidates the Firearms Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 and enactments amending that Act. This order is one of strict consolidation and does not purport to make any change in the existing law. I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.

Northern Ireland (Firearms)

  NORTHERN IRELAND (CLEAN AIR)
  Resolved,
  That the draft Clean Air (Northern Ireland) Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 28 October 1980 in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Mr. Alison.]

  NORTHERN IRELAND (ROAD TRAFFIC)
  Resolved,
  THAT THE DRAFT ROAD TRAFFIC (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1980, WHICH WAS LAID BEFORE THIS HOUSE ON 11 NOVEMBER 1980 IN THE LAST SESSION OF PARLIAMENT, BE APPROVED.
  That the draft Road Traffic (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 11 November 1980 in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Mr. David Mitchell.]

Northern Ireland (Leaseholds)
10.14 pm
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Alison): I beg to move,
That the draft Leasehold (Enlargement and Extension) Amendment (Northern Ireland) Order 1980, which was laid before this house on 12 November 1980 in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

517
The need for this short but essential piece of legislation arises as a result of a judicial decision in another place in December 1978 in the case of Wentworth Securities Ltd. v. Jones. That case showed that there existed a major loophole in the legislation relating to leasehold enfranchisement. To plug this loophole the Leasehold Reform Act 1979 was enacted, which applies to England and Wales. The order proposes to do the same for Northern Ireland so as to ensure that long leaseholders are not effectively deprived of the rights that Parliament saw fit to give them.
It may help hon. Members if I give a little backguound to the subject of leasehold enfranchisement. The Leasehold (Enlargement and Extension) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971 provides that a long leaseholder of a house who pays a ground rent is entitled to purchase the freehold compulsorily on favourable terms, provided that certain conditions are satisfied. That Act corresponded to the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, which applied to England and Wales. In particular, the formula for ascertaining the purchase price for the freehold, which was crucial in the Wentworth case, is similar in both jurisdictions. This formula is derived from the principle that the land on which the house stands belongs in equity to the landowner who retains the freehold, and the house belongs in equity to the occupying leaseholder.
In the case of Wentworth Securities v. Jones, the landlords were held to have created a conveyancing device which was highly successful in increasing the price to be paid for the freehold. Indeed, the central purpose of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967—that a leaseholder should be able to acquire the freehold at a reasonable price—was successfully evaded. The transaction in question involved the granting by the freeholder of an intermediate lease, on disadvantageous terms to a connected company formed specially for this purpose. The result of the intervention of the intermediate lease was that the price payable under the statutory formula was increased from £300 to £4,000, a thirteen fold increase.
The device was ingenious and was not anticipated by the framers of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 or the Leasehold (Enlargement and Extension) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971. Thus, when the case came for judgment, Lord Salmon commented:
"I have no doubt that if it had ever occurred to the legislature that a transaction such as the present might have been devised and put into operation, clear words would have been introduced into the Act, which would preclude such a transaction from affecting the market price which the tenant would have to pay for the freehold of his home. As it is no such words appear in the Act; and accordingly it contains a gap."
The aim of the order is, therefore, to close that gap and to ensure that the price payable under the Leasehold (Enlargement and Extension) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971 by a leaseholder claiming the freehold cannot be artificially increased by transactions involving the creation, transfer or alteration of the terms of an intermediate lease which have taken place after 15 February 1979. That is the operative date for the corresponding legislation which applies in England and Wales—that is to say, it is the date when the Leasehold Reform Bill was presented to Parliament. On that occasion, the then Government signified their intention to remedy the defect exposed in the legislation by the Wentworth case.
It would be inequitable if, due to the fact that this was a matter for which separate legislation for Northern Ireland
518
was called for, in the interim between the enactment of the Leasehold Reform Act 1979 and tonights' order a hiatus were left during which a swift and clever lawyer could produce a scheme similar to that which the order seeks to frustrate.
The terms of the order will apply where a leaseholder gives notice to acquire the freehold after the commencement of the order or where notice was served before the commencement, provided that the purchase price has not been determined. The order will close the loophole in the law and ensure that leaseholders in Northern Ireland will be free from potential exploitation. I commend it to the House.
10.19 pm
Mr. Tom Pendry: We agree with the Minister and with the order. We are pleased that leaseholders in Northern Ireland will be placed in exactly the same position as those in the rest of the United Kingdom. We think that the order makes sense, and we also commend it to the House.
10.20 pm
Mr. Wm. Ross: The Minister has stated clearly the complexities and the difficulties involved in the intricate subject of land and property law. I do not wish to enter too deeply into the matter. Private property leasehold in Northern Ireland is not as important a feature of the legal landscape as it is in other parts of the kingdom. I suspect that this matter is tied up not only partially with the case that the Minister mentioned but with the continuing extensions and changes that we must expect in land law in Northern Ireland arising out of the Sheridan report. I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm whether that is the case. If so, are we to have a succession of piecemeal pieces of legislation?
This is a large subject. I do not believe that it should be taken piece by piece, as has been done hitherto. One would hope that the committee sitting on this matter would come forward soon with sensible and comprehensive recommendations. There is a problem. I am informed, of a proliferation of leases. A purchaser could find himself in the position of having to purchase one after another. Some involve tiny amounts, sometimes only a few shillings a year.
I am expressing a concern put to me by a local solicitor who points to niggling difficulties and problems. While this legislation may not be of primary or major importance, the niggles annoy and cause all sorts of problems. If left, they can grow to unusual proportions. I should be grateful if the Minister would give an indication that major steps are to be taken to clear up what remains of this difficult field.
10.23 pm
Mr. Alison: I can assure the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) that the order is not the first swallow of a springtime of similar piecemeal attempts to amend the land law of Northern Ireland. It is strictly one off, designed to close a loophole that emerged unexpectedly and which was earlier closed in respect of England and Wales. It would be unfair not to seek to close it in Northern Ireland.
It must be admitted that the state of play, if I may so express it, affecting leasehold tenure in Northern Ireland is very different from that in England and Wales. I am led to understand that the length of leases in the Province is

519
so enormous that there have been few cases even of enfranchisement under the leasehold enfranchisement legislation, let alone attempts to overturn that legislation by devices such as Wentworth v. Jones.
The hon. Gentleman is right in referring to the first discussion document on land work emanating from the land law working group. There may in time need to be some attempts to consolidate or amend the complicated land law of Northern Ireland. That time has not yet come. The discussion document, which attempts a system analysis of land law in Northern Ireland in this dimension, is very much a consultative paper. Views are being sought from all the appropriate professional and other bodies. I see that the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene. I give way to him.
Mr. Ross: Is the Minister telling the House, and through it the people of Northern Ireland, that he cannot foresee a time when it will be possible to bring land law in Northern Ireland into line with that which appertains in England?
Mr. Alison: I am very bad at foreseeing. My powers of prophecy are limited. I can only declare the intention, which is to proceed according to the wise and professional advice that will emerge from the working group. We shall have to see in the context of consultations and so on what is likely to be the consensus among lawyers and others interested. When the time comes, there will be a full-scale reform. The land law working group is preparing discussion documents for circulation to interested parties prior to the preparation of major reforms. However, it is again beyond my capacity to be more specific about when the exchanges required in that area will be consummated.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It is of great interest that the Minister of State is forecasting, even in such general terms, major land law legislation for Northern Ireland. Will he please, at this early stage, take on board the fact that throughout the nineteenth century the land law in Ireland was made by this House and that it is far more satisfactory that basic law of that kind should be made by statute? As the years go by, I hope that that method will be more and more adopted by successive Governments, particularly in this case.
Mr. Alison: I shall take note of what the right hon. Gentleman says.
Mr. Wm. Ross: The hon. Gentleman said that the document was before us as a result of a law case. Is he aware that other law cases have been fought on the basis of faults in title? Is it his intenion that at some stage legislation to cover that loophole will be brought forward?
Mr. Alison: I shall consider what the hon. Gentleman has said. The law case to which I referred in the context of the order concerned England and Wales. The matter has not reared its ugly head in the Province. This is a preventive and protective device.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Leasehold (Enlargement and Extension) Amendment (Northern Ireland) Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 12 November 1980 in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

Northern Ireland (Housing)
10.26 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. David Mitchell): I beg to move,
That the draft Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 5 November 1980 in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
Last July, the proposal for a draft Housing (Northern Ireland) Order was published for consultation purposes. Comments were received up to 22 August and the draft order was laid on 5 November.
Hon. Members will have noted that this draft order provides for the consolidation, with amendments, of more than 30 housing enactments dating back to 1980. Recent enactments have had to adapt many references in earlier Acts to provide for the transfer in 1971 of housing functions to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. The housing code is therefore spread across the statute book. It is somewhat obscure and it is desirable that it be brought together.
Pure consolidation of the law has not, I am afraid, been possible, but the House may find it helpful to know that the wording and arrangement of the original legislation is virtually unchanged in the majority of the 163 articles and 13 schedules in the order. However, in a number of instances it has been necessary to vary the sequence of the original provisions or to create a new provision to encapsulate similar provisions from differing statutes. A table of the main sources of the draft order was issued when it was published for consultation purposes. In addition, a few changes to the law have been included in the draft order, and I shall refer to these specifically.
The draft order now being considered contains a number of changes made as a result of consultation last summer. In article 2, the definition of "owner" has been extended to make it clear that where notices are served under the order they can be served on an agent where it is not possible to trace the owner. This is the first of the substantive changes which have been made since the draft order was published for consultation.
Part II deals with the constitution and financing of the Housing Executive and provides in article 6 for its general functions.
Hon. Members will note in article 15 a further change from the published order. The limit on the executive's borrowing from the Consolidated Fund is being raised to £950 million to provide for the executive's likely borrowing requirements up to midsummer 1982. The current limit is £850 million.
Part III covers the building functions of the Housing Executive, and also enables it to carry out an imaginative scheme known as homesteading. This enables first-time buyers to move into a dilapidated house on the basis of do-it-yourself improvements.
Article 29 is new but is drawn from a provision in Great Britain law. It empowers the executive to produce and supply heat to its tenants and others. The executive's existing power to supply heat to its tenants is clear, but doubt has arisen about whether the power extends to providing heat for, say, a school on an estate. This provision puts the matter beyond doubt. Article 31 sets out the executive's powers to provide houses for sale—a matter in which I have already expressed considerable interest and which I have encouraged.

521
The executive presently has no power to revoke declarations of proposed redevelopment or clearance areas and clearance, demolition or closing orders, and hardship to some individuals has resulted. Such powers are available in Great Britain, and the draft order provides similarly. In addition, article 49 provides for the executive to amend a redevelopment scheme in a significant way if that proves necessary.
The published order proposed that the executive's powers to take action to secure the demolition or improvement of unfit houses should become discretionary. That proposal has proved unacceptable to a considerable body of opinion in the Province. We have, therefore, decided that the law should remain unchanged.
Part IV provides for a system of grants payable by the executive for the improvement, repair or conversion of houses. Under article 85, the executive may carry out improvements or repairs with the agreement of house owners. Another substantive change has been made in part IV to take account of changes in the grants structure provided for in the Housing (Improvement, Intermediate and Repairs Grants) Order (Northern Ireland) 1980, which came into operation on 1 August 1980.
Part VII provides a code for the formation, administration and financing of housing associations. It contains general provisions relating to housing associations, including the encouragement of the voluntary housing movement, which can do so much for special groups. I am especially interested in the Northern Ireland co-ownership housing association, which enables first-time buyers to part-buy and part-rent.
I come now to the final change that has been made to the order since publication. Article 117 of the published order provided for the transfer of authority from the Department of Finance to the Department of the Environment to make loans to registered housing associations. In order to give effect to that change, which clears the way for a more effective method of financing associations, certain consequential provisions are necessary in the form of the Department's powers to enter into loan agreements and to secure loans on the revenues of an association. In addition, article 123 places a restriction on an association's power to mortgage its property and makes that restriction a charge to be registered in the statutory charges register. All penalties in the order have been brought into line with the equivalent penalties in Great Britain.
I am sure that hon. Members will welcome the order, at least as a comprehensive and clear statement of the law on housing in Northern Ireland. As such, I commend the order to the House.
10.33 pm
Mr. Robert J. Bradford: The draft Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 is such a lengthy and important document that it would take almost an hour and a half—the total time at our disposal this evening—to read and digest it, let alone debate it intelligently. However, there are a number of points that we must touch on during the course of the debate. I wish to begin by addressing myself to article 5 of the order, which deals with the staff of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive.
During a public accounts debate some months ago, I drew attention to the fact that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive was grossly overmanned in comparison with housing authorities in England and Wales.
522
Without going into all the details touched on at that time, I believe that we still suffer from that problem in the Province—and it is a costly problem in these days of financial stringency. We have about 500 employed in the Northern Ireland Housing Executive who are not providing good value for money. I shall take a short time to alert the new Minister to the arguments that I advanced in the public accounts debate.
In the Housing Executive there is a staff of more than 2,500. That staff administers about 200,000 houses. In a comparable area—Birmingham—there is a staff of about 1,600. That staff does not administer as many homes, but on a pro rata basis we find that the Housing Executive has about 500 more employees than a comparable housing area in England and Wales. If the average wage for each of those persons is about £5,000 per annum, the total wage bill each year is about £2½ million. That sum could build a substantial estate. We would be producing one such estate each year if we saved the yearly £2½ million.
I contend that staffing in the Housing Executive is much too great for the amount of work that lies at its hands. I ask the Minister to examine staffing levels. What increases in staffing have occurred since the moratorium in the autumn of last year? Has the executive increased its staff since the end of June 1980?
Article 6 deals with the general functions of the executive. Article 6(1)(b) states that the executive shall
"submit to the Department for approval its programme for such years and in such form as the Department may determine for meeting housing need".
It is the belief of my colleagues and myself that the executive and if I may say so, the Department have been somewhat remiss in this respect. We are coming towards the end of the first month in 1981, getting quite close to a new fiscal year, and yet no definite programme is emerging from the Housing Executive and there are no appropriate approvals from the Department.
We do not yet know how much the Department will spend on Housing Executive operations in the fiscal year 1981–82. As recently as Thursday last, the Minister said that he did not know. We feel that it is not very expeditious for the Housing Executive and the Department to come so close to a new fiscal year without being able to say "Here is the programme which we envisage undertaking from the beginning of April. Here is the money which will be available." In the absence of this, we have to say to our constituents "We do not know whether scheme A in Donacloney, Scheme B in South Belfast or scheme C in East Belfast is going ahead in this fiscal year."
I ask the Minister to ascertain whether there is an early date by which both the executive and the Department will know their minds, will know the programmes that they envisage in the following fiscal year and will give the details to us at the earliest moment.
Article 6(3) deals with the carrying out of inspections and surveys by the executive. The Minister will probably know that from 1974 to 1979 the executive spent about £220,000 on four reports—namely, in 1974, 1975, 1978 and 1979. Another £10,000 was spent on household surveys. We appreciate that, these matters must be undertaken if the executive is to ascertain the priorities and the real needs. However, we wonder whether £220,000 represents the best value for money. This figure does not include the annual report costs which crop up under article 12.

523
I wonder whether the executive can save money by producing reports which are less sophisticated, less glossy and less elaborate yet which will give us the factual information which the Government need and which representatives would like to know. We believe that £230,000 is far too much for these surveys and undertakings.
I move on quickly to article 22, which deals with housing management. We have not time tonight to look at the weaknesses and strengths of the present selection scheme, but there is one aspect of it which gives me great concern. I should be interested to know whether other hon. Members have also found this an area of difficulty. There is a great disparity from area to area in assessing the medical documentation which goes to distract officers for the purposes of obtaining, it is hoped, A2 medical priority status. For instance, one finds that in the city of Belfast a person may be very chronically ill, but because he is still breathing, not quite dead, he will probably get as many as 15 points. In another area of Northern Ireland, one could have a case of mild bronchitis and get A2 medical priority status.
Northern Ireland is a very small place. The information does not take very long to spread—"Mrs. So-and-so got special priority status". So either the person who is sick unto death is carried to us on a stretcher or we are exhorted to visit him to explain why he cannot get this priority status. I ask the Minister to look at the great disparity which exists in this area of medical priority status.
Article 26 deals with Housing Executive rents. The Minister's predecessor recently announced in Northern Ireland that our rents were to be increased by, I think, an average of £2·75 per dwelling. This was a great shock to those of us who feel that already Northern Ireland tenants in Housing Executive property do not get good value for money. The executive's repair programme leaves a great deal to be desired. It is a bit much to increase rents to that extent when the state of disrepair is so grave in very many houses.
I am particularly disturbed about the increases in relation to the vested areas, the redevelopment areas. The people who tend to live in those areas are by definition the older people. They are not able to take out a mortgage or to purchase a house. They are usually the last to move from a derelict or blighted area. These old people are now being levied with an increase in rent for properties which are little more than hovels—not through their fault but because the area has simply deteriorated over the years. One has to ask whether the property is worth it and how one can justify saying to people "You must pay this increase which the executive is levying".
The executive decided that the increase should be not £2·75 but, I think, about £2·50. The difference there is negligible and quite irrelevant. I draw the Minister's attention to an inescapable fact. The average rental for a home in Scotland is about £2 less than it is in Northern Ireland. Some people may say "Ah, but Scotland's housing programme is being axed for the entire financial year". It is no answer to the question, because we are dealing with what has happened in the past and the state of the property which has emerged because of the lack of attention given by the executive in the past.
The Northern Ireland Housing Executive has rental arrears of approximately £11 million. If I am right in my
524
mathematics, an increase of £2·50 per week for the 200,000 dwellings amounts to only £500,000. So, if we got on with the business of collecting the £11 million in rent arrears we would not have to levy any increase on Housing Executive tenants in Northern Ireland. We are standing by, letting the £11 million go to pot, and yet we are levying many elderly folk with another £2·50 or £2·75 per week, which they can ill afford. I find that incredible, and I ask the Minister to address himself and make the executive address itself to the recovery of the outstanding £11 million. If it obtained even a fraction of the money—even £500,000—it would not have to increase the rents by one penny in the coming year.
I turn now to article 27 of the order dealing with the provision of housing accommodation. There has been a gross neglect in terms of house provision and rehabilitation of property in South and East Belfast since direct rule was applied in the Province. Unfortunately, past Administrations concentrated their attention on West Belfast and parts of North Belfast. Unfortunately, many of the decisions were based not purely on need considerations but on political considerations. We do not care about a man's creed. It is need before creed where housing is concerned. But decisions were patently taken on the basis of creed rather than need at the beginning of direct rule in the Province. The consequence of that was and is that South and East Belfast are grossly under-provided for with regard to new and rehabilitated homes.
In 1975, I asked the then Minister, who is now the Front Bench Opposition spokesman, how many blocked houses there were in Belfast. He said that there were 9,000 blocked houses, 3,000 of which were in my constituency of South Belfast, and there were approximately the same number in East Belfast. We had the biggest degree of dereliction and blocked dwellings. Now, it has been ascertained by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson)—in fairness, though we are on opposite sides, it must be said that he would probably have been here tonight but for the serious physical condition of his father, who is very ill—that half the people on the waiting list for housing in Belfasst were in East Belfat or the surrounding Castlereagh area. I think he was including a little of my constituency east of the river.
In spite of those clear facts about deprivation in South and East Belfast, we find little emphasis being placed by the Department on those areas. Surprise, surprise—it was the Housing Executive that took it upon itself to tell the Department that it did not agree with its projects for next year and the coming years on house provision. The Ramsey report has been released today. It deals with the need in East Belfast, Castlereagh and part of South Belfast, and it will bear out everything that I have been trying to say tonight.
I ask the Minister to ensure that there is a fair distribution of resources in Belfast and that the money is applied where the need exisits. This nonsensical policy of trying to buy allegiance from those who are opposed to the State of Northern Ireland should cease forthwith in terms of housing provision and money.
Article 29 of the order deals with the production and supply of heat. I am grateful for the Minister's explanation in his opening remarks, but I have one concern about the wording. It states:
"The executive may … establish and operate, or cause to be operated, for the production of heat such plant as it thinks fit".

525
The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to tell us that one of the major reasons for including the article was to facilitate buildings other than homes in areas which are under the control of the Housing Executive. That is perfectly, acceptable but I ask the Minister at least to entertain the possibility that the article might allow the executive not just to establish but to devise schemes and to create its own schemes.
The word "establish" does not confine the Housing Executive to the business of acquiring a heating system; it could be interpreted as meaning to devise a scheme of its own. I am not grinding an axe on behalf of the coal industry, the gas industry or the electricity industry, but the substitution of "acquire" for "establish" would suit the purpose of the article very well. I therefore suggest that the wording of the article should be that "The Executive may acquire" rather than "The Executive may establish".
With regard to heating, I wonder whether the figure for the debt which has amassed in respect of the Housing Executive includes the heating arrears in areas where the executive has control over community heating systems.
Article 52 deals with housing action areas. I have some worries about housing action areas because of the on-off-on-off attitude adopted by the Housing Executive over the past months, the Housing Executive areas generally involve the older members of the community; they are always the last to go from blighted areas. When the executive goes into one of these housing action areas, the preponderant number of the people involved are elderly; they are pensioners. The executive tells them "Your area is to be declared a housing action area. If those of you who are home owners sell your homes to us, we shall pay the legal costs involved in the purchase of your homes and you will of course, obtain priority status when we come to rehabilitate homes in the area."
Many people in the proposed housing action areas were encouraged by the executive to begin negotiation for the sale of their property to the housing Executive. Now, the Housing Executive tell them that their area is not after all to be a housing action area and that the area will have to wait. But the people concerned have already employed a solicitor; they have already come to the point where they are prepared to sign over the deeds to the Housing Executive.
When the Housing Executive says that it is not going ahead with the housing action area, what are the consequences for he old people? First, the old people are faced with the possibility o having to pay rent for their own property for a long period of time. That is bad value of money because these are run-down dwellings, and yet the people are paying high rents.
Secondly, when these old people decide not to pay the high rents or not to go through with the negotiations, the Housing Executive tells them that in that event they will have to foot the solicitor's bills—bills that the executive encouraged the people to incur in the first place because they were in a proposed housing action area. I am pleading for some continuity, clarity and decision making—rather than indecision—on all the processes involved in a housing action area.
Article 60 of the order deals with blocked-up houses. The provision deals with the power to take possession of unoccupied properties. How many blocked-up houses are there in Belfast? About five years ago there were 9,000. How many are there now? How many owners are being pressurised by the Housing Executive to put their homes
526
in order? How many face the threat that the executive will do it for them? Is enough pressure being exerted on owners who have been lackadaisical and complacent about making those houses available to the general housing stock?
Article 73 deals with improvement grants. Most people will share my concern that there is no increase in the level of improvement or repair grants. The grant level was established some time ago, but building and labour costs have escalated greatly since then. Nevertheless, landlords who repair their properties under the Northern Ireland rent order 1978 and tenants who apply for grants under the housing order are expected to complete a certain amount of work for the same amount of money as was being offered many months ago before the executive will release grants. That is not realistic. We must increase the grant levels, particularly in relation to rent order repairs.
This order touches on repairs done under the rent order. It is generous because it offers 90 per cent. grants for work done under that order. However, we are talking about 90 per cent. of the wrong amount. We should be talking about 90 per cent. of considerably more than £5,000 in terms of an improvement and 90 per cent. of considerably more than £2,000 in terms of repairs. I am told by conservative estate agents that the repair grant would have to be doubled if it was to come within striking distance. Instead of affording £1,500, we should think in terms of £3,000. As regards improvement grants, we should be thinking in terms not of 75 per cent. of £5,000 but of 75 per cent. of about £8,000. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind.
In article 68 there is no special provision for housing action areas. I may be mistaken, but I understood that housing action areas used to qualify for 90 per cent. grant assistance. It may be argued by the Department that as most of those who live in housing action areas live in property of less than £60 net annual valuation they will qualify for 100 per cent. grant assistance. However, that will not be so in every instance. Some people in a housing action area live in homes that have a net annual valuation of £61 or £62. Although their neighbours might receive 100 per cent. repair grants, they will not. They will receive only 75 per cent. repair grants. I ask that housing action areas be categorised separately and given at least the 90 per cent. grant available to rent order tenants.
A difficulty might exist for grant superintendents in the Housing Executive. The 1978 rent order has a repair criterion which differs from that demanded under the housing order. The 1978 rent order does not demand as high a standard of repair as the housing order. Some superintendents in the grants division have told me that they are making grants under the housing order and breaking their own law. I hope that the Minister will remove the disparity.
I warned the House that it would take a long time to read the order, let alone debate and discuss it. However, I come now to the final page of notes.
Part VII of the order deals with housing associations. The Minister has been exposed to my views on housing associations during Question Time. The housing associations are on course for making a marvellous contribution to the housing scene. They had a slow and troubled start but they are on course towards making a real contribution. Housing association undertakings are cost effective. They have the added beauty of keeping communities together. They do not dissipate communities.

527
They hold them together. They help to retain a friendly ethos. They should be assisted in every possible way. Alas, the Government's cuts last year did not assist. They caused staffing problems in some of the smaller housing associations. About £3 million was withrawn from housing associations in mid-stream. As a result, some associations with small programmes had to relinquish some staff.
Another problem is that the power to purchase, particularly in housing action areas, has been removed. For example, the Belfast approved houses association was geared to invest in about 200 homes in a dilapidated area but the axe was swung and it was not allowed to acquire those homes. That was a great blow to the people living in the area. Housing associations should be allowed forthwith to acquire property in housing action areas.
Under article 31 of the order, the Housing Executive can rehabilitate property and sell it. That facility is not afforded to the housing associations. I ask for parity. Housing associations should have the power to rehabilitate and sell. That power might be implicit in the order. Perhaps the Minister will say that the power exists. If it does not, perhaps he can explain how and when it will.
I turn to the Housing Executive's advantage of being able, prior to vesting, to pay the legal fees of people from whom it has purchased property. Housing associations cannot do that. The Housing Executive has an unfair advantage. It can snap up homes which the housing associations should be able to buy and which at times it would make great sense for them to buy. It would enable them to undertake a programme in an entire street. Because the Housing Executive gets in first, buying a home here and a home there, that is often not possible.
How much will the housing associations get for this fiscal year? They need at the very least, including the co-ownership scheme, £20 million. If they do not get that amount, housing, particularly for the elderly, will not emerge in the coming year.
I wonder how much the option mortgage scheme has been used and whether there is now such a proliferation of special schemes that particularly young people are becoming confused. There is the option mortgage and there are homesteading and co-ownership. Which seems to be attracting the most attention and use? Should not the Minister concentrate on the one which appears to be of most value to the young people looking for housing in Northern Ireland?
I thank the House for its indulgence. I hope that some of the questions which have arisen tonight will be answered by the Minister.
11.6 pm
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: This is, I think, the first debate on the Floor of the House in which the new Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has taken part, although he has survived a baptism in Committee. Perhaps the order will be some introduction for him to the jungle territory which is subtended by the Department of the Environment. Whatever differences of opinion there may have been in other parts of the Northern Ireland Office about the desirability and the urgency of a return of real powers to the district councils, it has been our experience that no such doubts are shared by those who occupy the office of the hon. Gentleman.
528
I must confess to the hon. Gentleman that there was a time when we thought that we could make progress in securing the restoration of real powers to the district councils by actually driving the Under-Secretary of State into a nervous breakdown. Both of his predecessors have escaped that fate, but I nevertheless feel that their experiences have clearly registered with them the fact that so much of what they have to attend to would be more expeditiously, cheaply and effectively attended to by the directly elected representatives in the district councils and by their excellent officials.
There is one other personal remark that I should like to make. One notices that there has been a changing of the guard of Parliamentary Private Secretaries on the second Bench on the Government side. I should like to say—I think that I am speaking for my hon. Friends as well—that the more we see, not only of hon. Members representing Great Britain constituencies but of those more directly linked with the Northern Ireland Office, the better pleased we shall be.
If I might offer a suggestion, and even an invitation, I feel that a day spent by one of those hon. Members in the company of one of us representing constituencies in Northern Ireland, just seeing what are our experiences and our work in 12 or 16 hours, might be valuable to us, to them and to the working of the Northern Ireland Office.
There is one substantial point—it was alluded to by the Minister in introducing the order—to which I should like to refer. It is the matter of closing and demolition orders. I can quite understand that in the gestation of this order debate arose on the question whether these orders should be mandatory or flexible and open to the discretion of the authorities making them.
In either case, there is a difficulty in Northern Ireland that I believe does not exist in the rest of the United Kingdom. It is that the Housing Executive is effectively both the authority that identifies and initiates the legal procedures for closing and demolishing unfit property and the authority that has the duty to rehouse persons who are displaced as a result of such orders. With that duality, a real problem which causes hardship both to tenants and to landlords can arise.
It can, for example, be the case that a tenant is in an unfit house that is incapable of being rendered again fit for occupation. The owner of that house would therefore like to be able to make a different use altogether of the site, and that would be in the public interest. But if the tenant does not agree voluntarily to the making of a closing or demolition order, I understand that it is the practice of the Housing Executive to secure that that order is not made and thus create a deadlock. The Minister will find that he has correspondence coming to him shortly which was initiated between his predecessor and myself on just such a case.
It can also happen that a demolition or closing order that ought to be made is not made because the Housing Executive foresees that it would not be able readily to provide reaccommodation for those who would be displaced.
That situation ought not to be allowed to continue. A house either is or is not unfit for continued occupation. If the public health housing inspectors find that a house is unfit, it seems to me that that becomes, first, a priority duty which cannot be ducked by the Housing Executive

529
and, secondly, a decision that ought not to rest with the convenience or wishes of the tenant, however long standing the tenancy might be.
I therefore hope that the new provision in this order, as I gather it to be in some respects, will mark the beginning of a regime in Northern Ireland in this respect similar to that in the rest of the United Kingdom, where the decision that a house is unfit to be occupied and ought to be closed or demolished is put into effect irrespective of the difficulties which that might cause for rehousing, and that those who are living in that accommodation—accommodation which has been adjudged to be unacceptable—are rehoused, that the order is made and that the landlord is put in the position of his property ceasing to be a menace to health and becoming again capable of being put to beneficial use.
I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind and that perhaps he will link it up, or ask his office to link it up, with the cases that I have brought to his attention.
11.13 pm
Mr. Gerard Fitt: It is in a debate such as this that I bitterly mourn the passing of the Northern Ireland Parliament. I was a Member there for many years. I think that it would be accepted in this Chamber that two of the greatest problems that face any elected representatives are the provision of jobs and the provision of homes for his constituents.
If that is so, as I believe it to be, it is an absolute insult—this was referred to by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford)—that when we have an order containing more than 160 articles, and 13 schedules, we are limited to a period of an hour and a half to debate the whole problem of housing in Northern Ireland. That is an absolute disgrace. Moreover, the order comes to us from another place. It was debated in the House of Lords on 2 December. Lo and behold, we had all the great interest and enthusiasm focused on this order in another place. There were three speakers—Lord Elton, Lord Blease from Northern Ireland, and Lord Hampton, who is a friend of Lord Blease and no doubt felt that he had to give him some little support, who spoke for about 16 seconds. That was the interest shown in the House of Lords. Here tonight many hon. Members are present, and I am certain that each of them could spend a great deal of the time talking about the problems of housing in their constituencies. Yet we are restricted to one and a half hours for this debate.
If we had time, we could go through every article of the order, but article 6 is the major one. It concerns the responsibility of the Housing Executive. It says that it "shall"—there is no "may" about it—
"regularly examine housing conditions and need".
We do not need to go any further into the order than that, because the Housing Executive has regularly examined the need for the provision of housing in Northern Ireland and it has come to the conclusion, which has been reinforced by all sorts of independent observers, that Northern Ireland, particularly in certain areas, has the worst housing problem within the borders of the United Kingdom.
That assessment and conclusion have been arrived at not only by the Housing Executive but by independent observers all over the United Kingdom and, indeed, further afield. Once having arrived at this position—that the Housing Executive has fulfilled its function to look into the whole question of the need for housing in Northern
530
Ireland—it surely then becomes obligatory on the Government to answer questions which have been posed by the Housing Executive.
But how do the Government answer? Lord Elton, in the debate in another place, said:
"To help meet the needs on the economic front, it has been necessary to claw back some resources from services which have improved their relative position in recent years"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 December 1980; Vol. 415, c. 351]
He referred to the Housing Executive. In the context of those remarks, he was referring to the reallocation of funds announced last August. That reallocation was announced by way of a written answer to a Conservative Member, and we had no opportunity to debate the reallocation of these funds—and tonight, when we are able to debate it, we are restricted to one and a half hours.
The reallocation of funds included £10 million from education, £10 million from health and social services, £27 million from the Department of the Environment and £15 million from housing. This is the only opportunity we have had since August to debate these cuts. Of course, we have had the debate on the Gracious Speech, but when a Northern Ireland Member tries to make an intrusion into that debate to talk about housing in Northern Ireland all the other Members look at him and regard his intrusion as gross impertinence. He is now allowed to do it—but he is allowed to do so tonight for only one and a half hours. The great majority of Members from Northern Ireland regard this as an insult.
In that reallocation, £27 million was taken off the Department of the Environment and £15 million off housing. What does it mean? Lord Elton said that these services had done relatively well in the past, so the Government had to take something hack. I shall tell the House what it means. I have a letter here from Mr. Thomas Brown, chairman of the Eastern health and social services board. I had written to him on behalf of one of my constituents in Donegal Road. This lady's husband has been seriously afflicted with multiple sclerosis. She wanted the house to be adapted to make it easier for her husband to negotiate.
The letter I received back at the end of last year stated:
"You wrote to the Minister of State in the Department of Health and Social Services on behalf of Mrs. Elizabeth Taylor"—
it is unnecessary for me to give the address—
"whose husband Roy suffers from multiple sclerosis and requires adaptations to his home to facilitate him. While it is appreciated that Mrs. Taylor's application has taken a considerable length of time to process, there does not appear to have been any undue delay on the part of the Board's staff. I am told that there is no question of these adapations not being approved but due to the current financial constraints it will not be possible to proceed with these adaptations within the current financial year. The case will however be reviewed when the Board's financial allocation is known for the year commencing 1 April 1981."
That is what the reallocation of funds meant to one family. I received another letter, again from Donegal Road, this morning. I telephoned the district manager about the matter. This lady writes that her husband is dying of cancer. She cannot afford to do any repairs. Her mother and father, who is 82, live in the same area. The mother has had a double amputation of her legs. The lady says she has been waiting for 18 years for a house. She has been in constant touch with the Housing Executive but feels that there does not seem to be any hope for her.
The district manager told me that the lady is right. He told me that there are Al and A2 categories, decamping

531
cases and redevelopment cases and that the woman was seventh or eighth in the list of priorities. I am prepared to give these cases to the Minister.
Every day, at the advice centre and constituency surgery run by my wife and I, we are told by district managers of every area in Belfast that they have not got to the people who have their names down and have been allocated a certain number of points. They are too busy clearing redevelopment areas and dealing with decamping cases. Ordinary, young married people in Belfast, whatever number of points they possess, are not being given any consideration because of the rehabilitation programme, the need to shift people, the decamping of people, and the clearance of areas.
A responsibility is placed on the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to see where the need arises. It is the Government's duty, however, to try to cope with the problem, which, I repeat, is the worst in Europe. The Government have failed to do so. I was standing at the Bar of the House today while the Prime Minister was answering questions. I heard her saying that the Government had given people the opportunity to buy their own council houses. Her exact words we shall have to read in the Official Report tomorrow.
There are 100,000 unemployed in Northern Ireland. It is predicted that the figure will be 125,000 by the end of the year. Many of those people living in council houses will not have the money or anything else to help them buy their council houses. Whatever the Housing Executive does about building houses, it does not remain behind the scenes when sending out circulars saying how many people have applied to buy their council houses. However, I have no hesitation in predicting that, given the economy of Northern Ireland, the social deprivation and the unemployment, the opportunity to buy council houses has not added to the sum total of people's happiness.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South and I agree on many matters, but I object when he says that the need for housing has been exaggerated in West Belfast. I have represented the area for years. The vast majority of people in West Belfast are not against the State. They are against para militaries, whether Loyalist or IRA. They are ordinary, decent people, who are trying to live an ordinary, decent life in difficult circumstances. There is a crying need for more houses in West Belfast. It is bulging at the seams. Family upon family is living with in-laws.
Against an awful lot of opposition, the Housing Executive tried to grapple with the problem by providing a housing estate in Polglass. Purely for political reasons, there was total and unremitting opposition from the Official Unionist Party and particularly the Democratic Unionist Party in the Lisburn area. They did their damndest to prevent a housing estate being set up there. Even in past days, people on the Lisburn council have shown their incessant opposition. They are putting about stories that the people occupying those 60 houses are in rent arrears.
There is a crying need for more houses in West Belfast. There does not appear to be a need for houses in North Belfast, which we pass through every day on our way to the airport. Flats are being pulled down there that should never have been built in the first place. The news on the radio last night, today, and last week—and it will probably be the same next week—emphasises that there is,
532
unfortunately, still a serious division between the communities in Northern Ireland. Some people will live only in West Belfast, because it is the only place in which they feel safe. Others feel safe only in other parts of Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South is, however, right when he says that the order is of major importance. The restriction placed on us makes it impossible to go into every aspect in an academic manner, as in the order. Last August, September, October and November there was chaos in Belfast because of the effect of the cuts on the provision of repair and maintenance grants. Every public representative was driven berserk by the immensity of the problem and the suddenness with which the grants were cut.
Great responsibility lies with the Government. Public representatives in Northern Ireland are conscious that there are financial restrictions and that the needs of the economy must be geared also to other measures. We are prepared to accept that at a time of economic stringency we must do our best to cope with whatever funds are available. However, the Housing Executive has been treated shabbily over the past years.
I can do no better than remind the House of the words quoted in the debate in another place. They were certainly not said out of any political bias. There was reference to what was said by the chairman of the Housing Executive, the vice-chairman, and by Mr. Ferguson, who, I understand, is an Official Unionist. This was their message to the Minister responsible for housing at that time, the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart):
"Essentially what we wish to say to you, and through you to the Prime Minister and her Cabinet, is that present funds for housing in Northern Ireland are insufficient to meet the need."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 December 1980; Vol. 415, c. 349.]
There is nothing political or biased about that. It was said by the chairman of the executive, by his deputy, and by a prominent Unionist concerned in housing matters.
Those sentiments could be reiterated across the length and breadth of Northern Ireland. So I say to the Minister—I agree here with what was said by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)—that he has taken on a Herculean task in trying to grapple with the problem of housing in Northern Ireland. The answer to that appalling problem is more funds from the Government. This is a challenge that the Government must accept and take up on behalf of all those in Northern Ireland who are so in need of public housing.
11.31 pm
Mr. Tom Pendry: Because of the lateness of the hour and the need to give the Minister time to reply, I shall be brief, but I wish first to echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), when he says that this debate does not provide enough time to discuss the great problems of housing within the Province. I hope that the Government will find an opportunity for a longer debate on these important issues. Whether it be in the Northern Ireland Committee or on the Floor of the House, I hope that it will take place.
We on the Labour Benches support the housing order and the building societies order that is to follow. We give that support because the order now before us is the fruit of the effort initiated by the Labour Administration, and both that Administration and the present Government

533
ought to be congratulated on making sense of the numerous and at times complex and bewildering pieces of housing legislation in the Province.
There is not much point in discussing the measures of consolidation, which are not in dispute, so I shall confine my comments to the substantive changes from the draft order and to the need for further clarification from the Government of the role of the Housing Executive and the housing associations in Northern Ireland.
I had intended to make some comments about the interesting speeches that we have heard, especially that of the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford), but I shall do no more than take up one point that the hon. Gentleman made on the question of rents. Not many weeks ago, the Minister's predecessor announced some swingeing rent increases, and I hope that the new Minister will look at that again. It is not good enough for him to argue, as his predecessor did, that the increases fall short of the average increase in the rest of the United Kingdom. I do not think that we are comparing like with like. As the hon. Gentleman is coming fresh to the scene, I hope that he will recognise that and argue accordingly.
On the same subject, I refer also to what was said by Lord Blease in the debate in the other place, to which reference has been made. There is also the question of rent and rate rebates. As the Minister will know by now, there is a great disparity between the take-up of those rebates in the United Kingdom and those in Northern Ireland. I hope that he will find some way of bridging the gap, and I ask for his comments on that.
I note with pleasure—the Minister mentioned it—that the original proposal to change to a discretionary power the mandatory duty on the Housing Executive to deal with unfit houses has been removed. I know that it is often argued that the Executive could not physically execute that duty, but I consider that any change from a duty to a discretionary power would do nothing to reduce the number of unfit homes in Northern. Ireland, of which there are many, as my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West has already pointed out.
The interim report of the housing condition survey, 1979, reveals that 14·1 per cent. of houses in Northern Ireland are statutorily unfit. In England and Wales the percentage is 4·6—only one-third of that of Northern Ireland. The problem is clearly at its most severe in Northern Ireland. In England and Wales, where the problem is somewhat lighter, local authorities have a statutory duty to deal with unfit homes, and I consider it expedient that such a duty should remain in Northern Ireland. We therefore welcome the recognition by the Government of this matter. I am sure that it was after a great deal of pressure on the part of organisations on the Government that they decided to leave it where it is.
I now come to the matter of disrepair and article 41 of the order. I understand—perhaps the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that the Northern Ireland Association of Environmental Health Officers recommended that this article should be extended to include provision for dwellings which, although not unfit, require some repair work to prevent their deterioration. From my knowledge of the age of the housing stock in the Province and from the plain common sense angle, I would say that it is cheaper and less troublesome to repair a house that has not reached the stage of being unfit. I regarded that as a sensible proposal, but perhaps the Minister can tell us why it has not been included in the article.
534
I have spoken of the high level of unfitness of the Northern Ireland housing stock, and I know that the Housing Executive has made considerable headway in repairing dilapidated housing and providing new stock. However, at the time of this debate on the operational framework of the Housing Executive and housing associations, I consider it appropriate to ask the Minister whether he envisages that the publicly financed housing sector in Northern Ireland will have the opportunity to operate freely within this framework.
The crux of the problem, surely, is that we now have a Housing Executive and associations with clearly defined functions and a level of housing need in the Province far in excess of that in any other part of the United Kingdom, but we do not as yet have any idea of the Government's intention on housing policy for the Procince. Nor do we have the prospect of sustained and adquate finance to meet the level of need.
Is it not a little ironic that the Government should seek to define the function of the housing authorities in Northern Ireland at the very time when their willingness to provide the resources for those authorities is in question? In fact ever since the present Administration came to power the housing situation in Northern Ireland has faced a gloomy future. This is evident in the downward slide of new building. The anticipated starts for 1980–81 were 1,083 houses. That compares with 5,136 in the last financial year under the previous Administration. Almost 14,000 construction workers are now unemployed, and that is at least 60 per cent. more were than unemployed last July. That is the picture.
As a result of Government cutbacks, there is a great deal of uncertainty in the Province about the future of housing provision. At the same time as the number of new houses is declining rapidly, the chairman of the Housing Executive tells us in his annual report that, at the very minimum, the Province needs a rolling programme of at least 5,000 new dwellings over the next 10 years so that the waiting lists can be kept down and so that
"the Housing Executive can fulfil its statutory obligation to meet housing need."
Will the Minister tell us tonight whether the Housing Executive will have the financial resources to meet this programme and thereby fulfil that statutory obligation to the people of Northern Ireland? Certainly, the level of housing need in the Province demands that, at the very least, the Housing Executive and associations should have the money they require to alleviate the problems that bedevil the housing sector.
In Belfast, 24·5 per cent. of houses have no internal water closet, and 26·2 per cent. are without wash-hand basins. As the hon. Member for Belfast, West suggested, those figures come from independent reprts. Clearly, the Province constitutes an area of dire need. The Government, especially the new Minister, must meet the challenge before them. It is a daunting task, but the Minister must find the will to stand up and fight for that social problem which bedevils so many people in Northern Ireland. I hope that when he replies he will SSgive us some hope. We shall certainly wish him well if he tackles the job in the way that we believe he should.
11.41 pm
Mr. Davd Mitchell: The House has had a valuable debate on the important problems of housing in Northern Ireland as well as on the exact details contained in the

535
order. The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) asked me a substantial string of questions, which I shall endeavour to answer. If I miss the twenty-fifth and twenty-sixth questions, I hope that he will forgive me. I shall certainly write to him about any that I miss.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the staff of the Housing Executive, which, he claimed, was overmanned. He drew comparisons with what he claimed were equivalent places on the mainland. New as I am to the position of responsibility for the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland, I know that nothing on the mainland is comparable with the responsibility of the Housing Executive in Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman cited as an example Birmingham, a single contiguous area. That is totally different from having the whole of Northern Ireland under the responsibility of one Housing Execuive. Although I shall consider his point, I do not think that the hon. Member has drawn a fair comparison upon which to raise it.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about the housing programme and the finance for 1981–82. I accept his point about the desirability of the Housing Executive knowing ahead where it stands. The executive has been given a broad indication of the probable level of its capital and revenue budget for 1981–82, but a detailed budget has yet to be agreed. I hope to notify the executive of its detailed allocation within a few weeks.
The hon. Gentleman asked about four glossy reports produced by the Housing Executive at a cost of £220,000. He asked whether it could get by with something less glossy. The reports are necessary for the formulation of policy. I think he will agree that it is necessary to research carefully what one is doing before one spends public money. Now that the hon. Gentleman has raised the matter, I shall examine it and write to him. He also raised the question of medical points for housing and mentioned the variations in arrangements between one place and another. I shall discuss that matter with the Housing Executive, because it has not previously been drawn to my attention.
The hon. Gentleman was disturbed about rent increases in certain areas where houses were in a state of disrepair. There are no rent increases for unfit houses in redeveloment areas. Areas that are due for redevelopment also do not face increases. He said that the rents in Scotland were lower. Yes, that may be so, but that is compensated for by substantial increases in the level of rates, which have had disastrous consequences both on businesses in the area and on job opportunities. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to transplant to Northern Ireland the worst effects of that misfortune.
The hon. Gentleman drew my attention to rent arrears. He said that if they had been paid we would have avoided the need for the rent increases that are now about to be put into effect. With respect, that is not so. The rent charges are not affected by rent arrears as they are a matter of Government policy.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about housing in East Belfast, which, he says, is inadequate. He referred to the major report, which I have only recently received. It was published this morning. It is known as the Ramsey report. It will provide a useful information base on both the demand and the supply factors in housing over the next five years.
536
The report identifies considerable housing need, which will have to be considered alongside the housing needs of other areas in Northern Ireland when priorities are being established within the resources that are available in the public housing sector in any one year. I am anxious that the private sector should make its maximum possible contribution towards dealing with the problem.
The hon. Gentleman referred to acquisition. I accept what he said. Any action to establish heating plants will require the approval of my Department. I hope that that will at least allay the hon. Gentleman's fears. If it does not, I hope that he will write to me to set out the matter more fully.
The hon. Gentleman asked me how many blocked-up houses there are in Belfast. I shall investigate and write to him. He asked whether sufficient was being done to bring them back into use. He made a valuable and constructive suggestion, and I shall look into it. It is part of the value of debates of this sort that practical suggestions are put forward that can be taken up.
The hon. Gentleman referred to properties with a rateable value of less than £60 and went on to talk about housing action areas. He wants the limitation lifted. He will not expect me to answer that technicality off the cuff. I shall look into it.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman took up the relative importance, which I acknowledge, of housing associations. He expressed anxiety that they should be encouraged. I join him in that wish. He can be assured that within the available resources I shall seek to forward the work of the housing associations.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said that there was a time when it was thought that my predecessors might be driven into a state of nervous breakdown by the prospect of having to deal with the problems of local government in Northern Ireland. The previous two Ministers with that responsibility survived without any signs of a nervous breakdown, as the right Gentleman rightly said. I hope that it will be a case of third time lucky. I shall do my best to serve the interests of those concerned.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the important topic of demolition closing orders and whether they should be mandatory or discretionary. He identified—I appreciate his argument—the difficult position in which the Housing Executive is put when it has to identify, demolish and have responsibility for rehousing. He was saying that that might impair the executive's judgment as it will be aware of the consequences of having to deal with the rehousing of those whose houses have been demolished. He linked that with some correspondence that is on its way to me. I shall read it with great interest and care, especially in the light of his remarks this evening.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), who, unfortunately, is not now present, raised a number of important issues. I should like to have more time to deal with them, as he would like to have had more time to deal here with housing problems. But constitutional changes are matters for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
I recognise that there is a problem in the lack of the middle tier of local representation and local government to deal with many of the activities which on the mainland are carried out by elected councils. That lays an additional responsibility upon me to get out into the Province to meet people and to listen to what is being said by elected local

537
representatives, both at Westminster and on the councils. I shall be ready to accept invitations to visit the hon. Member's constituency and other constituencies and councils around the Province.
The hon. Member drew attention to a particular case of someone with disseminated sclerosis who had been waiting for house adaptations, and he mentioned someone who had been waiting for rehousing for 18 years. As I have held my present post for 18 days, I am sure that the hon. Member would not expect me to have resolved those problems in that time. If he will write to me about those cases, I shall look into them very carefully.
The hon. Member said that there was no early prospect of resolving the housing need in the Province. That is true. Having accepted that, however, I think that it should be said that the 1979 house condition survey revealed that there had been a significant improvement in the condition of the housing stock between 1974 and 1979. There was a 16 per cent. increase in sound houses and a 17 per cent. decrease in the number of houses requiring remedial action. The number of unfit houses fell by a quarter and the number of dwellings lacking one or more basic amenities fell by almost 30 per cent.
Housing has always enjoyed a significant share of the resources available to the Province, and public expenditure on housing per head of population, even after the recent reallocations, is still one and a half times that in Great Britain as a whole.
The hon. Member went on to complain about what he called a cut of some £15 million in the Housing Executive's Vote. It was £12·5 million, not £15 million. It was not a cut. It was a reallocation of money towards industry and job saving and to assist with energy costs. During the sitting of the Northern Ireland Committee yesterday, that was one of the things to which I was frequently asked to give high priority. It was raised on a number of occasions by several hon. Members in the debate. I do not think that it is helping the cause if the hon. Member requests that we reallocate money towards job creation and job preservation and at the same time complains at our doing so.
Mr. Bradford: The fact is that the £15 million came about through £12¼ million for the executive and £3 million for the housing association, totalling £15¼ million for both housing agencies. That money was used not to create new jobs but to pay old debts—namely, electricity debts and Harland and Wolff's debts.
Mr. Mitchell: Unfortunately, the clock is running against us.
What I ought to say to the House is that the hon. Member for Belfast, West complained that the house sales programme added nothing to the sum of human happiness in the Province, but on that I take issue with him, for two reasons. It adds to the sense of human satisfaction when people own the house in which they live instead of spending their lifetime paying rent and never owning a brick of it. That gives immense personal satisfaction to those people. Moreover, when houses are sold and the money conies from the building society movement, it adds to the resources of the Housing Executive in the Province and enables it to increase the amount that it is able to spend on house building and house renovation.
That brings me to the point made by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) when he
538
complained about the rent increases. Again, such increases enable the resources to come into the Housing Executive, to be spent on improving the stock of housing in Northern Ireland, thus dealing with this very serious problem, which all hon. Members are united in believing is something to which the Government should give attention. We are seeking to do that. I urge hon. Members not to attack the method by which we are able to help those who are in great housing need.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 5 November 1980 in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

Northern Ireland (Housing)

  Northern Ireland (Building Societies)
  Resolved,
  That the draft Building Societies and Tax (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 5 November 1980 in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Mr. David Mitchell.]

Railway Preservation
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mather.]
11.56 pm
Mr. Robert Adley: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a less controversial problern—I hope—than the problems of housing in Northern Ireland. But, if one seeks it, there is always a link between one debate and the next. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, notwithstanding his important position in the Government, is one of a number of railway enthusiasts in the House. He assures me that from his point of view the LMS "Duchesses" were the finest engines ever built. I do not wish to take issue with him. My hon. Friend the member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) already wishes to take issue with him, and I hope that he will take part briefly in the debate.
I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport for being present this evening. He is another member of what is loosely called the "brotherhood of steam." Last time I had the opportunity to raise an Adjournment debate, it was on the future—or lack of future, as it turned out—of the MG car. Tonight, I am discussing the preservation of another aspect of some of the better things in Britain. I hope that the future for preserved steam will be happier than it appears to have been for the MG car.
I am glad that my hon. and learned Friend has been selected—or has selected himself—to be present tonight. One of the problems that I touch on briefly is that railway preservation and the national heritage covers a multitude of ministerial responsibilities. The heritage is a matter for the Arts Department, The National Railway Museum's budget comes under the Department of Education and Science, the sport and leisure aspects are the responsibility of the Department of The Environment, tourism is the responsibility of the Department of Trade and the youth opportunities programme, which I shall touch on later, is the responsibility of the Department of Employment.
The object of the debate is to highlight the activities of railway preservationists and to discuss some of the problems. Perhaps one of the greatest problems is that of the unglamorous activities of maintenance of some railway

539
steam engines that have been preserved. In the last few weeks, one of the most famous of those engines "Clan Line", which was purchased by the Merchant Navy Locomotive Preservation Society in July 1967, has been painfully restored to a suberb condition and has been working all over the country since 1974. In 1980 it had to be taken out of service for re-tubing and major overhaul, the estimated cost of which will be £30,000, using what the chairman of the MNLPS describes as slave labour.
Railway preservation is one of the most remarkable manifestations of voluntary effort that has ever been seen in this country, and the huge tasks and daunting projects that have been undertaken are a tribute to tens of thousands of people who have voluntarily contributed millions of man hours in the last 20 years to work on the preserved engines and railway lines and in fund raising for that.
I pay tribute to the Association of Railway Preservation Societies and to Captain Peter Manisty for the part that he has played. But help is needed, not in terms of Government handouts of cash but with the provision of facilities, which is within the remit of various Government Departments to provide. If we are to continue to maintain the impetus of railway preservation, we must generate new interest amongst the many millions of people in this country who are barely aware of railway preservation.
For that reason, I have been working with a number of people in the railway preservation movement on a project that we have called, in shorthand, "Barry Rescue". I will explain what it is all about. There is a scrapyard at Barry, in South Wales, where, by a quirk of fate, there remains the only stock of ex-British Rail steam engines—unpreserved—still in existence.
There are, on the one hand, those who would say that we must try to restore and preserve all those locomotives. There are, on the other hand, those who say that the Barry engines are a distraction and that the sooner they are all cut up the better, because their very existence distracts attention from the problems of raising funds for maintenance projects such as the Clan Line project that I have just mentioned.
With the considerable help of a number of people—including my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), who was until very recently Minister for the Arts—I have brought together the Association of Railway Preservation Societies, British Rail, the National Railway Museum and various groups within the railway preservation movement. We have now an agreed objective—to rescue and restore some of the engines, to rescue others for use as providers of spare parts for engines which have already been preserved, but mainly to create awareness of the railway preservation movement in this country by drawing people's attention to the existence of these sad relics at Woodham's scrap yard at Barry, in South Wales.
The astonishing fact is that 120 of these engines have already been rescued from the scrap yard by the enormous efforts of individuals, groups of individuals and societies. Of these 120, 28 have been restored to full steamable working order, but there are still about 100 engines at Barry. They are, as I said, the unique source of material for the present, and for future preservation movements. The engines at Barry are a totem, and I should like to look,
540
if I may, not only at what they could do for railway preservation but at what railway preservation does for the national heritage and, indeed, for this country.
Tourism is one of the factors in this saga. This is recognised now not only by the British Tourist Authority but by the English, Scottish and Wales tourist boards, which are all, in their way, doing their best to help the railway preservation movement.
One and a half million rail journeys were completed by paying customers on the preserved railways of Britain in 1980. The British Tourist Authority now publishes a guide to the steam railways of Britain in five languages, and tickets are issued by British Tourist Authority offices overseas. Help is available from the boards and, indeed, the English Tourist Board has contributed over £185,000 to various projects since 1971, which is an indication of their value to the nation.
I turn now to an unlikely aspect—that of jobs. The Festiniog railway, in North Wales, provides work for 55 full-time employees in a part of the country with one of the highest rates of unemployment. It is estimated that there are 2,000 people in full-time employment on the preserved raiways of Britain.
I pay tribute to the assistance that I have received from the Department of Employment in proposals that I put to it, the objective of which, as far as I am concerned, is to utilise the youth opportunities programme and to harness people who could be encompassed within the YOP to form teams of people who can go to work on some of our preserved railways. The Manpower Services Commission in Cardiff will shortly be receiving a deputation, which I hope to lead, in order to discuss the establishment of what I might lightheartedly call a latter-day team of navvies—navvies motivated by enthusiasm rather than the earlier motivation of such gangs when the railways were being built in the nineteenth century.
There is a lot of work to be done on the preserved lines. There are tunnels to dig, bridges and stations to restore, and permanent way to lay, as well as the restoration of many of the locomotives.
This morning I had the privelege of listening to Sir Peter Parker, who introduced a film that had been produced, amongst others, by the British Tourist Authority and British Rail. It concerns the West Highland railway to Mallaig and is called "A line For All Seasons." I can strongly recommend it. The essence of Sir Peter's remarks in his brief address was that British Rail need friends.
I turn to one aspect of the railway preservation movement. Although Sir Peter's heart is undoubtedly in the right place in his attitude towards the preservation movement, there is some evidence that his good will does not always permeate down to the lower levels. Some of the railway preservation projects do not receive as much co-operation as they might, for a variety of reasons. I shall touch at random on some of those projects.
The West Somerset railway, which is well-known to my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) is unable to complete the running of trains from Minehead to Taunton, because over the years members of the National Union of Railwaymen at Taunton have persistently obstructed the group's efforts to run trains on the last part of the journey from Bishops Lydeard to Taunton. They have done so for a spurious reason. They say that it will compete with the Western National Bus

541
Company. My hon. and learned Friend should press British Rail to persuade the NUR to give up this thoroughly unhelpful attitude.
On the North Staffordshire railway, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Knox), a platform at Cheddleton station—one side of which is used by the North Staffordshire preserved railway and the other side of which faces the still-operational BR goods line—could have been a useful platform to the North Staffordshire railway if it had not been fenced and wired down the middle at the insistence of British Rail.
At Paignton, where the Torbay Steam Railway _operates, BR refused to allow the Torbay Steam Railway to operate into Paignton station. The company went ahead and built its own station adjacent to the BR station. It shares the signal box with BR in order to maintain access from BR's tracks to its tracks, but BR charges £20,000 for this privilege. My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Sir F. Bennett) joins me in hoping that 13R can be persuaded to be a little less harsh in its financial demands on the Torbay Steam Railway.
At Cranmore, on the East Somerset railway—which, as many people know, is David Shepherd's railway—a freight-only line is operated by British Rail. The connection with the East Somerset railway could be made easily, but it is made extremely difficult—well-nigh impossible—for the East Somerset railway. At Totnes, on the Dart Valley railway, BR has refused to give any access to the BR station for DVR trains. It is not a matter of payment. BR will not allow another railway to run on its lines or into its station.
If my hon. and learned Friend's Department grants light railway orders to preserved railways, it is a recognition that those preserved railways are responsible bodies. If that is good enough for the Department of Transport it should be good enough for BR, and BR should treat them as if they were responsible bodies. I should like BR to regard a light railway order as a certificate of respectability. It should not continue to imply as it sometimes does, that these people are just playing trains. If that is all they were doing I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend would not grant them a light railway order. Notwithstanding these comments, however, BR provides overall considerable support and encouragement for railway preservation and relations are pretty good.
Railway preservation has come full circle. Steam engines were sold for scrap by BR. The preservationists got to work and restored many of the engines. We then worked to persuade BR to allow the engines to run on BR tracks. At length, we were successful. BR then saw that preserved railways made quite a lot of money out of their projects and ended up by chartering some of the engines that it had sold as scrap to run on its own tracks! It is an extraordinary saga and a remarkable tribute to the voluntary efforts of tens and thousands of people.
My final tribute to the railway preservation movement is a quotation not of my words but of a National Savings poster that has just been produced. About 10,000 copies are being distributed to schools. The poster reads:
"When British Rail abandoned steam in the 1960s, in favour of diesel and electric traction, it seemed that the steam engine was destined to become a relic of the past, to be displayed in museums … However, railway enthusiasts were determined that the excitement of travel by steam train should not be lost for ever, and small societies sprang up throughout the country. Their
542
aim was to preserve in working order sections of railway, locomotives and rolling stock that were no longer required by BR.
Thanks to the voluntary efforts of these enthusiasts, a magnificent collection of items from the Age of Steam can be enjoyed by today's generation. There are more than 100 centres now open to the public including passenger-carrying railways, working museums and depots, at many of which locomotives are 'steamed' on special occasions.
It was once every schoolboy's ambition to drive a steam engine, and that dream is again a possibility. But the apprenticeship is long and exacting, and only a few people can be engine drivers.
Much more is involved in preserving a steam railway—the restoration and maintenance of locomotives and rolling stock, the relaying and upkeep of track, the renovation of buildings and other structures, and the many day-to-day operating duties.
Anyone who has the interest and is prepared to devote some spare time to these important tasks is very welcome. Though much hard work is done out of the limelight, the reward is a share in the preservation of a vital part of our heritage."
My final words to my hon. and learned Friend are: if it is true that God helps those who help themselves, let my hon. and learned Friend be his minister in this important task.
12.12 am
Mr. Robert Rhodes James: I intervene briefly. I support my hon. Friend. When I first met him he was working on preserving the S.S. "Great Britain" and bringing it from the Falkland Islands to this country. His argument tonight is comparable. I am glad that he put his argument in the context of preserving not only our national heritage but the engineering skills that made this country great and which should be preserved.
I urge my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State to support the case. We are not talking nostalgically about the past but about the future and the lessons in engineering and skills which have a great relevance to the nation's future. We are also talking about the excellence of our railways and the skills of our engineers, which are of great importance to my children and future generations. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend, with his customary sensitivity, will realise that we are not speaking only as historians and of preservation; we are speaking about the future. The history of our railways has a great relevance to the future. As Burke, who was a Member for Bristol said:
"A nation that looks not to its past has no idea for its future."
12.13 am
The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) on raising this interesting, unusual and important subject. I have been, and still am, an enthusiast in this area. I do not know whether I belong to anything known as the "brotherhood of steam", but 20 years ago I spent much of my life looking at steam locomotives in various parts of the British Isles and abroad. I am afraid that my subscriptions to bodies such as the Railway Correspondents and Travel Society and the Birmingham Locomotive Society have long since lapsed. I did not have the sense to take photographs of the Standard which would have enabled me to publish books my hon. Friend now does.
However, I am still interested. The sight of the Great Western "Castle' still excites me more than most other

543
locomotives, but I shall visit others. I have made private visits to most of the preserved railway lines and steam centres in the last few years.
My present duties are more concerned with British Rail, but my hon. Friend is right to say that my department and the Government are involved with the railway preservation movement. We have to play our part in supporting the many enthusiasts who have achieved a great deal in putting together a substantial number of preserved lines and steam centres. The Government should back the dedicated effort that so many volunteers have made in the last few years.
I am astonished that since the early days when the first few enthusiasts saved the Talyllyn and Ffestiniog so much has happened. It was believed when the preservation of lines first began that such effort would be spread thinly and that many schemes were ill founded.
Throughout the country, there are 28 preserved old railway lines operating under light railway orders covering 195¼ miles of railway line. That continues to be added to. My right hon. Friend approved on Tuesday of this week the making of the Blaenaa Ffestiniog (Central Station) Light Railway Order, which will enable the railway to make another advance by building a northward extension to a new station in the middle of the town, where there will be a direct interchange with British Railways, as services on the Llandudno Junction branch line will terminate there.
As a result, when the extension has been completed, as I am sure it will be, passengers will be able to travel by train from Port Madoc via Blaenau Festiniog to the North Wales coastal towns and Llandudno Junction.
My hon. Friend is right to say that the efforts of that railway concern alone are providing a worthwhile contribution now to tourism in that area and full-time paid employment to a number of people. I am, therefore, glad to say that we continue to make orders for the extension of successful railways such as that and to new enthusiasts when they present well-founded ideas.
The main way in which the Department of Transport can help is in giving guidance through the various procedures under the Light Railways Acts of 1896 and thereafter in order to obtain the necessary light railway order under which most preserved railways find it is best to operate.
I can assure my hon. Friend that my Department will always be co-operative and helpful in every way we can to people who present well-founded projects. We will always advise sensible applicants about the statutory requirements which are involved under the Light Railways Acts and the procedures that must be followed before an order can be obtained. The Department's railway inspecting officers will also give technical advice about safety and operational matters. Our approach to projects that are brought to us is to see how we can facilitate an idea and progress it so that it can be put into serious practical effect, while safeguarding the safety of the public and other legitimate public interests.
The Secretary of State has a quasi-judicial role in finally making the light railway order, so it is not always possible for Ministers to give particular views for or against applications as they come along. In fact, as I say, the officials of my Department, particularly those with expertise in this field, will always give helpful advice in order to lead applicants through the various technical and
544
legal requirements that have to be fulfilled before an order can be made. I hope, therefore, that we are continuing to facilitate such sensible ideas as continue to come along.
The story of the Woodham Brothers scrap yard at Barry is a remarkable one, which has led to a substantial number of steam engines surviving in the scrap yard for so many years and continuing to be drawn upon as a stock for enthusiasts to transform them into working locomotives again. I admire the efforts of the Barry Steam Locomotive Action Group to save the remaining steam locomotives which are still at Barry.
I am afraid that there is no financial way in which I can help, because my Department is not responsible for giving financial help to projects of this kind and at present we could not find funds for such a purpose. But my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who is now responsible for the arts and museums, can give some help and advice. I understand that the action group has been in contact with the Science Museum through the agency of the Department of Education and Science and that it has been possible to give the action group advice about types of projects on which grants may be available. I am also told that some grants have been made to other societies and museums, apart from the action group, which have led to the preservation of locomotives from Barry.
My right hon. Friend the member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), who until recently was Minister for the Arts, told the House on 10 November last year that a working party had been set up at the National Railway Museum to advise whether any of the remaining steam locomotives at Barry could be preserved or provided with spare parts through the agency of the museum.
I am told that the working party visited Barry on 21 November last year and that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington accompanied it. My hon. Friend raised a number of specific problems that some preserved railway lines face in their operations up and down the country.
Mr. Adley: I know that my hon. and learned Friend's speech will be read most carefully. He rightly paid tribute to the Barry Steam Locomotive Action Group. It must, however, be emphasised that a large number of the railways which actually operate the engines and trains have themselves done a great deal to save engines from Barry over the past 20 years. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) is one who played a part in this. I therefore would not like it to be read into anything that my hon. and learned Friend has said that the BSLAG group is the only one to have done anything. Many people have done a great deal over many years.
Mr. Clarke: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. I am sorry if I did not make it clear. My understanding—perhaps if I use my off-the-cuff under-standing I shall get it wrong again—is that this stock of locomotives has been drawn on over the years by all kinds of groups from Barry who have bought particular locomotives or acquired stock for railway lines and that many have been brought back into use. I understand that the action group is now trying to rescue what is left of the stock and is probably the most active group going through what remains to see what can still be rescued and whether more can be put back to useful future life on preserved

545
railways in various places. But I realise that a wide range of groups have been working on the locomotives from Barry over the past 20 years.
Perhaps I may touch briefly on one or two of the problems faced by preserved railway lines. Very few of them can be dealt with directly by the Government. Certainly, it is unfortunate to find that occasionally technical problems arise.
The history of the West Somerset Railway, which was touched upon by my hon. Friend, is a sad one. That company has faced difficulties in extending its services to Taunton. One of the problems which I hope can be resolved is that the Taunton board of the National Union of Railwaymen has apparently not been very helpful, to say the least, about the extension of the service to Taunton, on the basis that its members operate services of the Western National bus company in the area. So they have placed themselves in the somewhat undesirable position of being railwaymen opposing the reopening of a railway line in order to defend a bus service.
I am also told, however, that there is a problem in meeting the cost of retaining the connecting railway track between Norton Fitzwarren and Taunton. That track has a recovery value of a fair order to British Rail, which, not unreasonably, is therefore asking the company to pay an annual rental to retain it. The railway company will therefore have to negotiate with British Rail to see whether it can afford the retention charge and come to some financial arrangement.
With regard to the Dart Valley railway, I am told that both lines operated by the Dart Valley Light Railway between Paignton and Kingswear and between Totnes and Buckfastleigh are connected to the British Rail network, at Paignton and Totnes respectively. But my hon. Friend plainly challenged that. I therefore hesitate to pit the advice of my Department against his very close knowledge of these matters.
This leads me to say that most of the problems that my hon. Friend touched upon, in Staffordshire and elsewhere, are really matters for British Rail. They will have to be resolved by negotiation between British Rail and the companies concerned. I assure my hon. Friend that my understanding of the policy of Sir Peter Parker and the British Railways Board is that they attempt to be helpful and are anxious to encourage these lines. As my hon. Friend has said, most of the people active in the railway
546
preservation movement are also good friends of the present-day railway network. It would be foolish for ill-feeling to develop between the railway enthusiasts and British Rail. I am sure that that view is shared by the board and its chairman.
I will make sure that each of the complaints drawn to the attention of the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington is put to the board so that it can write to him and explain its understanding of the present position in each case. I shall also make sure that I see a copy of the reply myself, so that I may understand the situation better. I hope that, as a result, it will be possible for the board to look at some of the problems and see whether it can sort out the difficulties that have arisen between some preserved railway companies and its own local management.
British Rail, of course, must behave commercially and look after the interests of the taxpayer and recover the legitimate costs of keeping the facilities installed which preserved railways need. But I am sure that it will try to come to a sensible and fair solution.
Mr. Bob Cryer: May I say, as first chairman of the Keighley and Worth Valley railway for 10 years and as shareholder of five £10 shares in that railway, that I think that the Minister will acknowledge that many railway enthusiasts who are supporting the railways and providing great knowledge and advice are practical railway men, and that although there may be individual problems, NUR and ASLEF members are in fact among the keenest enthusiasts.
Mr. Clarke: I agree entirely. As a shareholder myself in the Great Central Preservation Society at Loughborough, I can confirm that many railwaymen are actively engaged on these preserved railway lines. I think that these are local difficulties. Perhaps particular individuals or particular local managements have taken a rather unnecessarily difficult view towards these railways. I cannot judge any of these cases. I shall draw them to the attention of the British Railways Board, and I am sure that the board will do its best to sort out and minimise some of the problems.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Twelve o'clock.

Overseas Development
  Development Education
  Development Education
  Pakistan (Afghan Refugees)
  Pakistan (Afghan Refugees)
  Queen's Counsel
  Queen's Counsel
Trade
  Aerial Crop Spraying
  Aerial Crop Spraying
  Credit Terms
  Credit Terms
  Godfrey Davis Limited (Merger)
  Godfrey Davis Limited (Merger)
  Garages (Repair Work)
  Garages (Repair Work)
  Local Authority Associations
  Local Authority Associations
  Prime Minister (Engagements)
  Prime Minister (Engagements)
  European Community (Agricultural Surpluses)
  European Community (Agricultural Surpluses)
  Luton
  Luton
  International Year of Disabled People
  International Year of Disabled People
  Northern Region
  Northern Region
  Havana
  Havana
  Civil Servants (Salaries)
  Civil Servants (Salaries)
  Research Expenditure
  Research Expenditure
Wales
  District and Community Hospitals
  District and Community Hospitals
  Singleton Hospital, Swansea
  Singleton Hospital, Swansea
Social Services
  Child Guidance Facilities
  Child Guidance Facilities
  Analgesics
  Analgesics
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
  Childbirth (Disability Insurance)
  Childbirth (Disability Insurance)
  Children (Footwear and Clothing Provision)
  Children (Footwear and Clothing Provision)
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Area Health Authorities (Expenditure)
  Area Health Authorities (Expenditure)
  Earnings Rule
  Earnings Rule
  National Insurance Contributions
  National Insurance Contributions
  Blood Plasma
  Blood Plasma
  Foreign Visitors
  Foreign Visitors
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Strokes and Heart Disease
  Strokes and Heart Disease
  Brain Trauma
  Brain Trauma
House of Commons
  Redundancy Allowances
  Redundancy Allowances
  Refreshment Department (Bacon Prices)
  Refreshment Department (Bacon Prices)
Energy
  Oil Consumption
  Oil Consumption
  Oil Production
  Oil Production
  Oil Exports
  Oil Exports
  Energy Consumption
  Energy Consumption
  Energy Statistics
  Energy Statistics
  Oil Refining
  Oil Refining
  Severn Barrage
  Severn Barrage
  North Sea Marginal Fields
  North Sea Marginal Fields
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
  Common Fisheries Policy
  Common Fisheries Policy
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
  Marginal Land
  Marginal Land
  Butter (Import Levies)
  Butter (Import Levies)
  Cane Sugar Refineries
  Cane Sugar Refineries
  Sheepmeat
  Sheepmeat
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Tenant Farmers
  Tenant Farmers
  Glasshouse Industry
  Glasshouse Industry
  Co-operative Enterprises
  Co-operative Enterprises
  Agricultural Rents
  Agricultural Rents
  Agricultural Land (Classification and Grading)
  Agricultural Land (Classification and Grading)
  Forestry
  Forestry
  Milk Industry Costings
  Milk Industry Costings
  Fishing Industry (Hull)
  Fishing Industry (Hull)
  European Community (Council of Agriculture Ministers)
  European Community (Council of Agriculture Ministers)
  Sugar
  Sugar
  Sheep Harassment (Compensation)
  Sheep Harassment (Compensation)
  Sheep Flock
  Sheep Flock
  Bread-making Wheat
  Bread-making Wheat
  Food Imports
  Food Imports
  Farm Incomes
  Farm Incomes
  Chemicals (Aerial Application)
  Chemicals (Aerial Application)
Home Department
  West London Magistrates' Court
  West London Magistrates' Court
  Open Channel Radio
  Open Channel Radio
  Welsh Broadcasting Authority
  Welsh Broadcasting Authority
  Members of Parliament (Offices of Profit)
  Members of Parliament (Offices of Profit)
  International Year of Disabled People
  International Year of Disabled People
  School Closures
  School Closures
Education and Science
  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  School Population
  School Population
Scotland
  Social Services Expenditure
  Social Services Expenditure
  Horse, Kangaroo and Antelope Meat
  Horse, Kangaroo and Antelope Meat
  Independent and Grant-aided Schools
  Independent and Grant-aided Schools
  Forestry Commission
  Forestry Commission
Industry
  BL Limited
  BL Limited
  Consultants (Payments)
  Consultants (Payments)
  Manufacturing Industry (Robot Control)
  Manufacturing Industry (Robot Control)
Transport
  A38 (Clay Mills-Branston Interchange)
  A38 (Clay Mills-Branston Interchange)
Environment
  Control of Pollution
  Control of Pollution
  Rate Rebates
  Rate Rebates
  Perinatal Mortality
  Perinatal Mortality
  Condensation
  Condensation
Defence
  Voluntary Premature Retirement
  Voluntary Premature Retirement
  Departmental Police
  Departmental Police
  Senior Officers (Education)
  Senior Officers (Education)
National Finance
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
  Bank Profits (Taxation)
  Bank Profits (Taxation)
  Tax Allowances
  Tax Allowances
  Imports (Customs Examination)
  Imports (Customs Examination)
  Rates
  Rates
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Taxation (Corporate Sector)
  Taxation (Corporate Sector)
  Iran (Hostage Negotiations)
  Iran (Hostage Negotiations)
  North Sea Oil
  North Sea Oil
  Independent and Grant-aided Schools
  Independent and Grant-aided Schools
  North Sea Oil (Supplementary Tax)
  North Sea Oil (Supplementary Tax)
  Growth (International Comparisons)
  Growth (International Comparisons)
Civil Service
  "Transport Statistics, Great Britain"
  "Transport Statistics, Great Britain"
  Members of Parliament (Offices of Profit)
  Members of Parliament (Offices of Profit)
  Statistical Services
  Statistical Services
  Members of Parliament (Transport)
  Members of Parliament (Transport)
Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  St. Helena
  St. Helena
  Iran
  Iran
  Passports
  Passports
Northern Ireland
  Prisoners
  Prisoners
  Road Accidents
  Road Accidents
  Traffic Wardens
  Traffic Wardens
  Unemployed Teachers
  Unemployed Teachers
  Firearms Certificates
  Firearms Certificates
  Game Licences
  Game Licences
  Car Parks, Lurgan
  Car Parks, Lurgan
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Maze Prisoners
  Maze Prisoners
  Youth Work
  Youth Work
  Twinbrook Estate (Squatters)
  Twinbrook Estate (Squatters)
  Rent Appeals
  Rent Appeals
  Ormeau Park Recreation Centre
  Ormeau Park Recreation Centre
  Fuel Allowance
  Fuel Allowance
  Galwally House, Ormeau Road
  Galwally House, Ormeau Road
  Prisoners (Political Status)
  Prisoners (Political Status)

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Derby):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Privatisation of Nationalised Industries
Lord Orr-Ewing: 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 what steps they envisage to encourage the return of public sector industries to the private sector.
The Minister of State, Department of Employment (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, during 1980 Royal Assent was given to Bills enabling the Government to dispose of shares in British Aerospace, British Airways and the National Freight Company. Legislation is now before Parliament to enable the British Transport Docks Board, Cable and Wireless and major British Rail subsidiaries to be privatised. The Government have also announced that the forthcoming legislation on the future of the British National Oil Corporation will propose powers to enable the public to have a direct equity stake in BNOC's North Sea business. Currently plans for the return of British Aerospace to the private sector are well advanced. The timing of this sale and other disposals is dependent on a number of factors including market conditions, but the Government's intention is to press ahead at the earliest opportunity.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that very satisfactory Answer and for the assurance that he has given. Is he aware that Britain has the largest trading public sector in the free world, and that in the current year this public sector is borrowing £3·1 billion from the taxpayers of this country? Is it not, therefore, in our interests to reduce the size of the public sector and increase the size of the private sector which is carrying it? Also, can he assure the House that we have no intention of dropping any of the proposals for privatisation which were included in our manifesto and which he has re-announced this afternoon?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I agree that this is a very large and disproportionate share, due to previous nationalisation policies. We have, as I said, made good ground, because in 1979–80 receipts totalled just under £1 billion as against a target of £1 billion. They were £997 million as against a target of £1,000 million. Given the deepening recession, I think that that was a good earnest of our intentions.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, despite the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, I hope the noble Earl will be able to assure the House that
488
no precipitate steps will be taken to dispose of industries which might be disposed of too early, and therefore not at a proper value. Perhaps the noble Earl can give the House some indication of any steps the Government have in mind for disposing of the shares of British Airways which, if disposed of in the near future, would be sold at very much less than their true value?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, on the specific point of British Airways, the Statement of my noble friend Lord Trefgarne in your Lordships' House on 13th October explained that, in view of the present difficulties in the international civil aviation market, it was clear that it would not be possible to launch a successful flotation in 1981. Privatisation, like nationalisation, must take place against a proper background of the right market conditions. But, on the noble Lord's general point, the vast majority of privatised shares in this arena go into the British capital markets; so I do not think that the national question is very widely affected.
Lord Harvey of Prestbury: My Lords, would my noble friend give some indication to the House about the compensation which was promised in the Conservative election manifesto to the shipbuilding companies, which were confiscated by the previous Government?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I sympathise with the direction of my noble friend's question, but I would need notice of it. If he cares to put down a Question for Written Answer I will, of course, answer it.
Lord Pargiter: My Lords, has not much of the so-called nationalisation of industry, which was referred to in the Question, been very largely due to the failure of private enterprise itself?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I really think it is time that we perhaps broke away from the concepts of nationalisation on the one side, and private enterprise on the other. Our objection is that it is totally grotesque for such a large proportion of British activity—including very significant and satisfactory activity—to show up on the public borrowing requirements and obligations of central Government. That is not the way most of our successful competitor economies work. We see no reason why it should continue and its record has not been good.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, can my noble friend comment on the apparent anomaly that when demand is down in the private sector prices normally tend to reduce, whereas in the public sector—certainly, in the nationalised or monopoly public sector—prices almost invariably increase? Is this not some encouragement to him to continue with the private sector taking over these roles?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, with all his experience, my noble friend has put the matter much more succinctly than I did. The difficulty of having

489
so large a proportion of one's activity, economically, in the public sector is that it is very unresponsive to fluctuating conditions and that has been a very great problem for successive Governments.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, from the Tory Party's point of view, is not this de-nationalisation an admirable way of distracting attention from the fact that the Government have dismembered and mutilated most of private industry?
The Earl of Gowrie: No, my Lords.
Lord Kaldor: Would the noble Earl not agree, in contrast to what was asserted by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, that Britain has by no means the largest public sector in Western European countries? I can think of two countries—Austria and Italy—whose public sectors are a considerably larger proportion of the total; and that may be true, also, of France. Secondly, would he not agree that the advantages or otherwise of having publicly-owned basic industries cannot be decided on such absolutely facile, or almost facetious, aspects as whether or not their investment is part of the public sector borrowing requirement?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Kaldor, has ever suggested that the current high rates of interest, which we all regret, are in any way facetious. These current high rates of interest are largely due to the necessity of Governments going on to the money markets to borrow, not least because of some of their obligations in this field, thereby crowding out the capacity of private sector industries to borrow at more reasonable rates. It is this kind of imbalance that we wish to redress, not for any doctrinaire reason. I am certainly one who thinks that there should be close co-operation between central Government and the large industries of this country. But I see no reason why central Government should be, as it were, the principal banker of such industries.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, has not the noble Earl been a little disappointed by the Government's failure to reduce the number of private enterprises which have had to be rescued by public money? Is it not a little ungraceful that they should be still complaining about their lifebelts?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, the obligations or necessities on central Government to see many industries through this recession were dictated well before this Government came into office. I do not think there is anything novel about that. But while I am thoroughly in favour of people in difficulties, where possible, being nannied through a recession, once they are through that is all the more reason to privatise them once more.
Lord Somers: My Lords, could I ask the noble Earl whether, when talking in sums of billions, he is using the English billion or the American billion? The American billion is only £1,000 million.
The Earl of Gowrie: No, my Lords. I am afraid
490
we have given in to the transatlantic custom. When we say £1 billion we mean £1,000 million.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that his statement that we ought to escape from the conception of the public sector on the one hand and the private sector on the other is the most intelligent statement that I have heard in this House for a long time? Is he further aware that the worst thing that could happen to this country would be to be too dogmatic about the future organisation of industry?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, a bouquet from the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, makes my day.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, what is to be the fate of the thousands of companies which have gone into liquidation within the last two years? Is there to be any rescue operation? Many of them employed a great deal of labour and were an important part of the economy of the country. Is not this a more profitable field of discussion than a purely ideological discussion of the kind we have had up to now on this question?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I contest the noble and learned Lord's view that I have been conducting an ideological discussion. Quite apart from the relevance or irrelevance of my own ideology, I do not think that Question Time is the appropriate place for that. All of us very much regret that companies are forced into liquidation, either as a result of recession, or as a result of petro-currency, or as a result of the inevitably tight money squeezes which come upon all Governments after a long inflationary period.

Defence: Force Improvement Programme
3.12 p.m.
Lord Beswick: 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 repeat the assurance given on 15th July 1980 that the purchase of the Trident missile system will not prejudice major force improvements previously agreed.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Trenchard): My Lords, the Government remain determined to improve both conventional and nuclear forces.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, while recognising the extreme care which the noble Viscount's present and former colleagues in the Ministry of Defence exercised when announcing their recent cuts, is it not a fact that but for the Trident programme they could have had that £200 million saving, the RAF their communication aircraft, and the Hawk trainer? Although the noble Viscount's colleague, the Secretary of State, was extremely sophisticated in his presentation of the Statement earlier this week, he was much less than clear on two items upon which I should like clarifica-

491
tion. The first of these is the Sea Eagle. Could the noble Viscount say what his colleague, the Secretary of State, meant when he said:
"I cannot say at present that Sea Eagle will necessarily continue for all time"?—[Official Report, Commons; 20/1/81; col. 157.]
No one imagines that the Sea Eagle would go on for all time. But does that Statement mean that this project will go on to the production phase? Secondly, when the Secretary of State said that large sums will be spent on various aircraft, including improvement of our Harrier, does this mean that the Mark 5 Harrier will be bought?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, let me first say to the noble Lord that as both my right honourable friend and I tried to explain on Tuesday, when making the Statement in both Houses, these so-called cuts are not cuts but a trim of what was going to be clearly more than planned expenditure. I do not think that is so particularly funny. If you find, as I said on Tuesday, that the prices of sophisticated weapons systems have escalated to a major degree and that you are keeping up your increase of expenditure in real terms, in terms of constant prices, then you are not cutting. What you are doing is ensuring that you do not overspend your plans by an amount which you cannot afford. That was the purport of my right honourable friend's Statement on Tuesday. But I do not want to dwell on Tuesday.
In relation to the £200 million trim of the budget which my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in November of last year, the degree to which Trident has any bearing on this is very small indeed. As the noble Lord knows probably better than I do, Trident comes on stream, following the decision, pretty slowly, and the build-up will be gradual. So the main reasons for the overspend and for the necessary trimming of the budget have nothing whatever to do with Trident. The reasons for the planned budget looking as though it was likely to be overspent were clearly stated on Tuesday, and I do not propose to repeat them today.
My right honourable friend's Statement, which I repeated on Tuesday, covered the Sea Eagle and I cannot add to the words used. The Sea Eagle, at present in the research and development phase, will continue. All aspects of the defence budget—this huge budget involving £5 billion per annum—have to be reviewed every year against their technical progress and against the latest estimates of cost. There is nothing new about that. More, therefore, cannot be said on Sea Eagle.
Turning to the Harrier, the excellent British development which the Americans have taken up, again the noble Lord knows better than I do that the choice between the American AF8B and the GR5 is still under review.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, what do the Government imagine will be the likely reaction of President Reagan if, as hinted in the Statement on Tuesday, under pressure of economic circumstances we fail to achieve all or some of the improvements mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, at the same time devoting £500 million annually to a project which adds nothing
492
substantial to a general scheme for Western defence led by America, in the absence of which we shall obviously all be at the mercy of the Soviet Union?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, the estimated £4½ billion to £5 billion over the 15-year period of the capital costs of Trident approximates to 3 per cent. of our defence budget. That is approximately in line with the cost of Polaris during the capital cost period. The operating costs are also comparable. We see the Trident and the nuclear deterrent part of our defence programme as being part of a total programme which has been well explained on many occasions. If your potential enemies in the Alliance have a vast preponderance of conventional forces which are increasing, in my view the importance of the nuclear deterrent is self-evident.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that we are not untouched by the day-to-day questions of defence? The noble Viscount mentioned the word "trim". Where this hurts most is in the day-to-day running of our defence forces. Because of the cutback, or the trim, or whatever the noble Viscount likes to call it, the petrol allowance for the Territorial Army, or ships being unable to go to sea, is worrying us more than any of these highfaluting questions of major equipment. Surely the noble Viscount must be aware that even a sausage-making machine needs to be used from time to time so that its operators can be trained.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, if the noble Lord will study the Statement issued by my right honourable friend yesterday, I think he will find that there is a balance of stress on the importance of the vital new weapon systems and of the men of the Army and the Territorial Army, which I also referred to yesterday.
The Lord President of the Council (Lord Soames): My Lords, I suggest that, as we have been 18 minutes on two Questions, we might move on.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I do not think that 18 minutes have been devoted to this particular Question, which is a very important one.
Lord Soames: My Lords, I said that we had spent 18 minutes on two Questions. There are two more Questions to come and there is a lot of business to come afterwards. I think we should move on, if the House would agree.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, with respect, may I press this matter? There are many skilled people in this country engaged on projects who want to know what their future is, and I am inviting the noble Viscount to give some assurance that in two particulars—the Harrier development programme and the Sea Eagle—it will be a question of longer-term development. Can he give some assurance of that kind?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I cannot go further in reply to the Question that the noble Lord has tabled today. If he wishes to table a particular

493
Question in relation to those two particular and very important systems on another occasion, I will do my best to answer, within the limitations that I have already made clear to him.

British Rail Subsidiaries: Restrictions
3.22 p.m.
Lord Monk Bretton: 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 what further plans they have for removing restrictions on British Rail subsidiaries so as to allow them more freedom to operate commercially.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the Transport Bill, which received its Second Reading in another place on 13th January, contains proposals that the Railways Board support, to remove four of British Rail's non-rail subsidiaries from the public sector—Sealink, hotels, hovercraft and non-operational. Although there are at present no firm plans to introduce private capital into the board's other subsidiaries, the Government believe that there may be a role for private investment here, especially in British Rail Engineering Limited, and this is an issue which we shall be considering with the board at a later stage.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, while welcoming these proposals to allow British Rail to raise cash by the sale of some of its non-rail subsidiaries, may I ask my noble friend what assurances he has that every effort will be made to ensure that the sum so raised will not be wasted upon such things as over-manning or excessive wage settlements, but that these sums so raised will be spent upon maintaining the maximum railway network efficiency possible and also, incidentally, maintaining the jobs that will go with that?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the proceeds of disposals will go to the Railways Board as owners of the businesses. These will, however, form one element of a financing forecast which the board will submit to the Government. It is not possible to say at this stage what effect this will have on the board's external finance limit in future years, but I think the board's continuing effort towards increased productivity is itself the answer to my noble friend on the question of over-manning.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, although I appreciate that the whole question of the subsidiaries will be debated when we have the Transport Bill in this House, does the criticism about operating commercially apply to Sealink, which according to the last published report in 1979 had a surplus which was 13·5 per cent. on capital, and the Rail Property Board, which according to the last report of 1979 had an operating surplus of 79 per cent. on capital? Is this the reason for the transfer to privatisation (shocking word!) and would it not be advisable to leave the Property Board with British Rail so that they could take the advantage of income from appreciating land values?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, it is true that taken together these businesses have been profitable in recent years, but before we go into a full debate on it on this occasion I think we might leave it until the Transport Bill comes to this House. In so saying, I feel that we may have different figures from Sealink for the current year.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, may I—
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: I think it is our turn! My Lords, while agreeing in principle with the sale of subsidiaries which will bring useful capital to the Government, may I ask whether the noble Earl is aware that the British Transport Hotels in particular have a very high standard of service to the public, in which tourism plays a great part? When the Government are negotiating the sale of such hotels, will he do something to ensure that the standards are maintained and the assets are not stripped?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am delighted with the intervention of my predecessor. I join with him in saying how good we think British Transport Hotels are. However, as he is well aware, they are in need of quite a lot of capital expenditure and perhaps this is the moment to think of getting rid of them.
Lord Somers: My Lords, would the subsidiaries include the private operation of branch lines which are no longer used by British Rail?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, these are not included in the present Transport Bill.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, arising from what the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, said, to whom I was very glad to defer, may I ask the noble Earl what is to be the future of the hotel at Gleneagles which, although it is owned by nationalised industry, is without doubt one of the best hotels—possibly the best—in the whole of the British Isles?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord on part of his remarks. At the moment I do not know the ultimate conclusion because it has not been arrived at.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, can the noble Earl say that, while it is possible for the British Railways Board to sell capital assets to the private sector, it is also going to be possible for the British Railways Board to borrow capital from the private sector?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, that is rather wide of the Question and I should like it to be tabled as a separate Question.

British Rail: Scottish Services
3.27 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: 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 ensure that the main line railways to Dundee, Aberdeen and Inverness and on the West Coast to Oban and Mallaig will not be closed.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am not aware that the British Railways Board have any intention of proposing the closure of these lines. But if they do propose closure, and there are objections from users, then the final decision will rest with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport. My right honourable friend has made it clear on many occasions that he is not prepared to see substantial cuts in the passenger railway network.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very much for his reply, which has reassured me considerably. I tabled the Question because I saw an article in the Sunday Times about three weeks ago predicting that this might happen. As I think it would be absolutely disastrous for Scotland and for anybody who travels in Scotland, I was determined to put down the Question in order to make quite sure that the noble Earl was going to say what in fact he has said, and I am very pleased.
Lord Boothby: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether we can take it from his reply that Her Majesty's Government realise that the closure of any one of these lines would do irreparable damage to the economy of Scotland as a whole?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord's remarks will be taken into account in any decision.
Lord Gray: My Lords, while joining in the welcome for the reassuring nature of my noble friend's reply, may I question him in particular about the West Coast lines, which are my local lines? I should like to ask him whether he is aware that there has been considerable rumour and public speculation lately that the Oban line may be scheduled for closure, and even the Mallaig. Would he not agree that it is vital that an early decision should be reached by British Rail, and if the Government are to intervene, will he take that point on board?
Secondly, may I ask the noble Earl this question: if there is an approach from British Rail signalling that they wish to close this particular line, will Her Majesty's Government have particular regard to the inadequacy of the A.82 and the A.85 main roads to cope with the extra road traffic generated? Finally, if the closure is proposed, would my noble friend ensure that particular regard is had to the effect upon tourist revenue in the area, bearing in mind that British Rail's Golden Rail holidaymakers alone probably accounted for something like the occupation of 10,000 bed nights in the Oban area in 1980?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I think I cannot but repeat the first sentence of my original Answer; that the Government are not aware that the British Railways Board have any intention of proposing the closure of
496
these lines. I do not think I can be asked to comment further on a newspaper report. I should like just to say that in the excellent transport debate that we had in this House yesterday my noble friend Lord Bellwin said in the course of his speech that it is the Government's policy that a passenger network will, for the foreseeable future, remain broadly the same size as at present, with no substantial closures.

Animal Health Bill [H.L.]
3.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is a strict consolidation, bringing together in one Act legislation primarily concerned with the entry and movement of animals in circumstances which might result in the introduction or spread of animal diseases. There have previously been consolidations of such legislation in 1869 (with amendments), 1894 and 1950. If your Lordships give this Bill a Second Reading, it will be referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills in the usual way. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

English Industrial Estates Corporation Bill [H.E.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Like the last, it is a strict consolidation measure, dealing this time with the law relating to the English Industrial Estates Corporation. Again, if it is given a Second Reading, it will be referred to the Joint Committee. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Bill [H.L.]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. Ever since 1947, mineral working has, in the main, been subject to the same planning controls as other forms of development. It is perhaps somewhat surprising that a system which was designed to control the spread of urban development has worked so well for so long in its application to mining and quarrying, for these differ from other forms of development in two important respects.
First, mining operations are not like the erection of a building, in that they can go on on the same site for a very long time indeed—there are some mines and quarries in operation today which were worked in Roman times. The consequence of this is that, although everyone may have been content with the

497
way these operated when they were first opened, the greater concern with environmental matters today means that such quarries may be being worked in an unsatisfactory manner. There is therefore a need for regular review to see that modern standards are met.
And yet, secondly, although workings can go on for a long time, they are essentially a temporary use of land, and what is more, they are of a destructive nature. Therefore, the effects on the land need to be repaired, and preparations need to be made for an acceptable after-use. Much current dereliction has arisen from inadequate or non-existent restoration after mineral working has finished, and we need to ensure that present workings do not contribute to dereliction in the future.
In the early 1970s, both local planning authorities and the mining industry were expressing increasing concern about the adequacy of the current system to cope with a rising demand for indigenous materials, particularly the supply of aggregates for the construction industry. Local authorities were worried in particular that conditions attached to planning permissions granted in the early years of planning legislation were not sufficiently stringent, and also that they did not have enough powers to apply and enforce modern conditions. On the other hand, mining and quarrying companies were concerned that planning authorities did not understand their problems, and, in particular, that the authorities did not give sufficient weight to the importance of long-term planning, or to speed in handling planning applications.
In order to study these problems, the Government appointed, in August 1972, the Committee on Planning Control over Mineral Working. I should like to pay tribute to the chairman of the committee, the late Sir Roger Stevens, and his three colleagues, for their extremely valuable work, and their thorough and comprehensive report.
The report of the committee was published in February 1976. It contains some one hundred recommendations, which have been discussed in some detail with the local authority associations, the mining industry, amenity bodies and others with an interest in the extraction of minerals. Government Circulars were issued in 1978 by the Departments of the Environment, Industry and Scottish Development and by the Welsh Office, setting out which recommendations it was intended to implement.
The changes which the Government propose to make fall into four categories. First, there are a number which require primary legislation, and these are of course the subject of this Bill. Before I describe these in more detail, I should like briefly to mention the other three kinds of action we are proposing to take, because I believe the implementation of the Stevens Committee recommendations should be looked at as a total package. Some of the parts of the package—in particular the primary legislation—will be of particular assistance to the local planning authorities, while others will be of greater benefit to the industry; but overall the complete package will lead to an improved legislative framework, in which planning control can operate over mineral workings, and to a streamlined and more efficient system, which will pay due regard to the long-term planning needs of the mining industry.
The second part of the package consists of amend-
498
ments to the General Development Order. For reasons which I shall explain later, it is not sensible to proceed with these until the Bill has received Royal Assent.
Thirdly, the Government propose to issue a new edition of the memorandum which is colloquially known as the "Green Book", but which is more correctly entitled, The Control of Mineral Working. The last edition was produced as long ago as 1960, and a new edition has been universally requested—indeed, it is one matter on which the Stevens Committee, industry, local authorities and environmentalists, are united. Good progress is being made with the preparation of this text, and I hope that draft chapters will be available for consultation very soon now. A printed version will be produced after the legislative changes have been enacted.
Finally, the Stevens Committee recommended that every effort should be made to formulate and refine national policies for individual minerals, and to reconcile these policies with each other, and with national policies for other land uses. Following the report entitled Aggregates: The Way Ahead, of the committee chaired by Sir Ralph Verney, the Government has been working with county councils in England and Wales, and representatives of the quarrying industry, to develop regional guidelines for aggregate minerals production, and to ensure that the national demand is met and that inter-regional flow arrangements are adequate to cater for shortfalls in certain regions. Again, good progress is being made, and I very much welcome the co-operative spirit in which these discussions have taken place. In Scotland, an alternative form of aggregate guidelines has already been prepared in consultation with the industry, and subsequently issued. Although the Government feel that certain changes in the law arc necessary, it is equally important that local authorities and the industry work together in developing long-term planning policies which pay due regard to the environment, and in setting these out in development plans.
I turn now to the provisions in this Bill. If some of the clauses seem familiar to your Lordships, this would be unsurprising—similar ones were included in the first version of the Local Government, Planning and Land Bill, which was introduced in your Lordships' House in December 1979. The No. 2 Bill introduced in the other place omitted these clauses for reasons of parliamentary time, but the Government announced their intention to proceed with them as soon as an opportunity could be found. This Bill has therefore been introduced at the start of this Session, and I hope we can make rapid progress with it. The clauses it contains are similar to those in the earlier Bill, with the differences that Scottish provisions have been included, and the proposal to modify enforcement notice procedures in respect of mineral workings has been dropped, at least for the present.
Clauses 1 to 17 of the Bill apply to England and Wales only, and, with one exception, relate solely to planning control over mineral working. Clause 1 of the Bill brings under planning control the removal of material from mineral waste tips. At present there is an anomaly, in that extraction from a small grassed-over tip is subject to planning control, since the tip has once again become land, while planning permission

499
is not required to remove material from large bare tips of mining waste, such as are found in areas of the country like Cornwall, West Yorkshire and South Wales, since legally such tips are not land but chattels. In many cases, it is uncertain whether planning permission is needed to remove material from such tips, because of the degree of revegetation. Clearly, the working of these tips after a long period of inactivity can be very environmentally disadvantageous to the local communities, and this clause will allow the local planning authority to decide whether such working should take place, and, if so, what conditions should be attached to the planning permission.
As presently drafted, the clause goes further than necessary, since it would mean that planning permission would be required, for example, to move minerals or mineral waste within the quarry or mine site, even if this was required as part of processing the mineral, or to remove material from temporary waste heaps. It has been drafted in this way because it has been found impossible to draft a clause suitable for primary legislation which would distinguish between uses which should be brought under planning control and those which should not.
It is the Government's intention to introduce a new clause in the General Development Order which will in certain specified circumstances permit the removal of material from a mineral working deposit. The GDO permission will include all movements from mineral stockpiles as part of storage, processing or removal, and also the removal of material from mineral waste tips, provided such material has only been deposited within the last few years. There may be other cases that will be permitted by the GDO.
Clause 3 is one of the most important in the Bill. It places a duty on mineral planning authorities to review current mineral workings in their areas and also those at which operations have finished within the last five years, or such other time as the Secretary of State may, by order, prescribe. It also requires them to make certain orders, which I shall be describing later, if they consider it appropriate.
Because of the reasons I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, the Government consider it is most important that local authorities should keep mineral workings in their area under review and should have the power to take appropriate action. However, because of the pressing need to reduce local authority manpower, we do not feel it would be right to insist upon mineral planning authorities reviewing all sites in their area within any fixed period. Such a time constraint would inevitably lead to pressure for more staff in at least some counties and, as the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum of the Bill makes clear, we regard it as essential that the requirements of this legislation must be undertaken within existing resources. I believe that mineral planning authorities can and will set out their own sensible priorities for reviewing sites in their area within the resources available to them, and I am fully confident that the implementation of such reviews and the subsequent orders will make substantial improvements to the environment both while mining operations are taking place and afterwards.
Clause 5 is a major attempt to achieve better restoration of old mineral workings for agriculture or forestry
500
so that the land achieves a higher quality and greater potential for future productive use. At present, planning authorities can put conditions on a minerals planning permission requiring topsoil and subsoil to be stripped from a site before mineral working commences, and such materials to be stored separately. Replacement of these can be required, either as part of a scheme of progressive restoration, or when mineral working has finished. But that is about all. After having been disturbed and stored in this way, soil is unlikely to be in very good condition for growing either agricultural crops or trees, and what is probably required is a period of intensive care, under the guidance of agricultural or forestry experts, which will gradually improve the land quality.
This clause will therefore allow authorities to impose conditions on a minerals permission in certain circumstances, requiring the operator to carry out a programme of agricultural or silvicultural management for a certain period after the soil has been replaced. The clause provides a maximum period of five years, but there is provision for the Secretary of State to alter this by order if it proves inadequate or to set different maximum periods for agriculture and forestry. Because of the need for specialist expertise in after-care, mineral planning authorities will be required to consult the appropriate Government departments or agencies both before imposing such conditions and while monitoring the operator's compliance with them.
Clause 6 is concerned with the length of time for which mineral working is permitted to continue. At present many minerals permissions have an undefined life, and therefore there is great uncertainty as to whether working has permanently finished, and thus whether the land should be restored ready for another use. On new permissions, the Government are encouraging mineral planning authorities to consider carefully just what the life of the working should be and then to specify this in the permission. In doing this they should take full account of the operator's long-term needs for security of supply, if he is to undertake adequate capital investment, but also all other planning considerations in the area. However, in the hopefully few cases where they do not do so, this clause provides that such permissions will automatically have a life of 60 years. There is also a power for this period to be changed by Parliament. As far as existing minerals permissions are concerned, those without a definite life will automatically end 60 years from the coming into effect of this provision.
Clauses 7 to 9 deal with the order-making powers being made available to mineral planning authorities. The equivalent compensation provisions are in Clauses 11 to 16. Clauses 7 and 8 are extensions to existing powers, while Clause 9 introduces two new types of order. Clause 7 is consequential upon Clause 5 and permits authorities to impose an aftercare condition when modifying a minerals permission.
However, if no planning permission exists then it is not possible to make a modification order using Section 45 of the 1971 Act. There are a number of circumstances in which mining operations may be going on without an express permission—for example, the quarrying may have begun before 1947 and no planning application was made at that time, or one was made but never determined under the provisions

501
of the General Development Order. Where there is no permission there are no conditions on operating the quarry or on its restoration. Clause 8 seeks to remedy this by extending Section 51 of the 1971 Act so that mineral working becomes a use of land. Conditions, including restoration and after-care ones, can then he put on continuing to use the land for mineral working.
Clause 9 introduces two new types of order for use where mineral working has already ceased either permanently or temporarily. The first, which I shall call a Section 51A order, after its new position in the 1971 Act, will allow mineral planning authorities to prohibit the resumption of mineral working. At the same time they will be able to require compliance with any existing restoration and after-care conditions, and to impose certain new requirements. The order is only available to authorities if mineral working appears to them to have stopped for at least two years. Once an order takes effect a new planning permission is required before mineral working can restart.
The order which I have just described is for use when mineral working appears to have come to an end permanently and where it is then desirable to turn the land to some new beneficial use. But there may be occasions on which mineral working has stopped—either because of a temporary lack of demand for the product or for other reasons—but is likely to resume at some time in the future. In these circumstances, the mineral planning authority may wish to have the site tidied-up while working is in abeyance, and also may wish to see certain steps taken to avoid the area deteriorating. Another new type of order, termed a suspension order, is therefore being introduced to provide powers to do this. The procedural steps and compensation arrangements are similar to Section 51A orders except that only one year of no working is necessary before the order can be made.
Clauses 11 to 16 deal with the complicated subject of compensation. At present, if a local planning authority makes an order modifying a planning permission for mineral working, then the operator is entitled to compensation for any abortive expenditure, loss or damage incurred. The Stevens Committee recommended that operators should not be automatically entitled to claim compensation for loss resulting from modifications made as a result of a review, and in discussions with the industry on this recommendation there was a measure of agreement that the operator should bear a reasonable amount of the loss or damage in each case. The difficulty is, of course, in deciding what is reasonable. The basic principle we have in mind is that for each mine or quarry a threshold should be set in relation to its annual output and expected life. If the loss or damage arising out of the modification is less than this threshold, then the operator should bear it all and no compensation will be payable. If, however, the loss or damage exceeds the threshold, then the operator should receive, in compensation, the excess over the threshold.
The setting of such a threshold is a difficult exercise, and indeed different thresholds may be needed for mining and quarrying and for different types of order. My department issued a consultation paper on this in
502
September last year, and responses are still being considered. Because of the complexity of the issue, we do not believe it would be right to include the details of the threshold in this Bill, but instead we are proposing a power in Clause 15 to make regulations which will provide when compensation is to be payable—that is, what should be the threshold, and the basis on which compensation is to be assessed when the threshold is passed. In addition, by making this the subject of regulations, a measure of flexibility will be provided, so that the formulae can be updated from time to time. However, the Government recognise the vital importance of the compensation provisions to both the industry and local authorities, and therefore it is proposed that the regulations should not come into operation until they have been approved by your Lordship's House and in the other place.
Clauses 18 to 30 contain provisions equivalent to those in Clauses 1 to 16, but applied to Scotland, with certain small differences. First, mineral planning applications north of the Border are treated in the same way as applications for other forms of development; that is, they are handled by the district authorities in the first instance. Regional authorities have powers of call-in when a planning application raises issues of regional significance, and, therefore, depending on the circumstances, a minerals planning application may be determined by either tier of planning authority. The new powers contained in the Bill are therefore being given to all planning authorities in Scotland, rather than to just one tier.
Secondly, under existing administrative arrangements not directly paralleled in England and Wales, planning authorities in Scotland already consult the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland on planning cases affecting agricultural land, including restoration following mineral working. It is considered unnecessary, therefore, to put planning authorities in Scotland under a statutory requirement to consult on after-care conditions.
Finally, certain other changes are necessary, because of the differences between Scottish land law and that in the rest of Great Britain. My noble friend Lord Mansfield will be replying to the debate, and will be happy to expand upon any of these points.
The only point I should perhaps mention about the remaining provisions of the Bill and its two schedules is that none of the provisions will take effect on Royal Assent. Many require subordinate legislation to be passed before being brought in, and the commencement order provision will allow different provisions to be brought in at different times.
My Lords, I hope I have not bored you with too long an exposition of what is, by all accounts, a technically complex Bill. We shall no doubt need to examine carefully in Committee many of the details of these provisions, but today I commend the Bill to you, on account of the fundamental principles it is striving to attain—the operation of mines and quarries in a way environmentally satisfactory to this day and age, and the achievement, through adequate restoration performance, of a satisfactory use of the land when mineral working has come to an end. It is perhaps a truism, but one which I believe is worth repeating, that minerals can only be worked where they are found. The Government's aim in this Bill is to

503
provide an enhanced legislative framework within which planning control over mineral working can operate. We look to mineral planning authorities, and the industry, to work together responsibly to meet the nation's continuing requirement for minerals at the least environmental cost, and I feel sure that this Bill and the other measures I have mentioned will be beneficial to that process. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Bellwin.)
3.55 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I think that this is the first time that I have been in a position of welcoming a Bill moved by the noble Lord the Minister. I very much welcome this Bill and consider that it is environmentally probably the most important piece of legislation or work concerned with minerals that we have seen since the 1947 Planning Acts. It certainly does a great deal more for the environment than the Control of Pollution (Special Waste) Regulations that we debated the other night. I should also like to thank the Minister for his very clear exposition on the content of what really is a very complicated and technical Bill.
When these provisions were withdrawn from the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 1) Bill we on this side of the House expressed great dissatisfaction that such useful and non-controversial proposals as these should be withdrawn, and we were only persuaded not to seek their reinstatement in the Local Government Bill by assurances from the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, that the provisions would come before this House in the next Session of Parliament. With hindsight, it should certainly turn out to be positively beneficial to have had these proposals withdrawn from the original Local Government Bill, because it is ironic that, had the Local Government Bill remained in its original form—in which case it would have been even more massive than it was when it appeared as the No. 2 Bill—the minerals clauses would, despite their importance, have received scant attention, for they were a relatively minor part of a highly complex and controversial Bill.
If we are to have the enormous amount of legislation which we get from all Governments now, it seems that it is better for us to break it up and have a series of small Bills rather than these large, unwieldy Bills which, when they become Acts, are certainly never satisfactory. I speak not solely from the political point of view when I say that.
I hope that the proposals will receive proper consideration. The passage of time has also meant that drafting and printing errors, which were so frequent and distracting in the Local Government Bill, have largely been eliminated from this Bill. Therefore, I hope that that will make the task of all of us easier in the next stages.
In welcoming the reappearance of these proposals before your Lordships' House, I must add that I hope the equally non-controversial planning enforcement clauses, which were also dropped from the No. 1 Bill, will soon be enshrined in a further Bill. I hope that at some stage the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, will be able to give me an assurance about that, even if it is by way of a letter or even in the Prince's Chamber.
504
I should like to know about that.
While welcoming the general principles of the Bill, we on this side of the House are very concerned that little is being done to deal with the historical dereliction which still scars the landscape of many areas. How much longer must people continue to live with the derelict sand and gravel workings around Heathrow or with the derelict slate quarries in North Wales? Many of these operations, not only there but in different parts of the country, were often started before the 1947 Planning Acts and, therefore, no planning permission was needed for them at the time. We should like to see some statutory reference to this in the Bill. Although the Minister may argue that with resources as restricted as they are at the moment it would not be possible within a short period to bring any such provisions into operation, nevertheless the fact that provisions are on the statute book means that we do not need further legislation or more of these wretched regulations, with which we seem to be snowed under, in order to set the wheels in motion. In other Acts we have seen provisions brought into operation when it is possible to do so by reason of time and resources.
I also appreciate that ultimately the resolution of these problems is a matter of finance; and local authorities, who have the prime responsibility in this field, have, as we know, been faced with massive cutbacks in resources and are also subject to the arbitrary financial controls introduced in the Local Government Act. At present local authorities, whose overall capital expenditure is tightly controlled, are having to make extremely difficult and unenviable choices between capital spending on derelict land and other equally or more important capital projects.
Until by their actions as well as by their often written intentions central Government both understand and accept the financial needs and problems of local government and recognise the positive contribution they make to the economic wellbeing of the country, then the environmental improvements—and they are important ones—which this Bill seeks to encourage will be introduced only gradually and piecemeal. It would be a great pity if the very good intentions that run right through this Bill were in fact delayed in execution because of lack of motivation on the part of central Government.
I am also very concerned that many of the proposals in the Bill can be implemented only upon the issuing of detailed regulations. I really have to say that this is becoming a far too common, and a very worrying, feature of this Government's legislative programme. It is all very well to say in a statute that the Secretary of State will make regulations referring to this, that and the other, but we all know that with the pressure of business on both the Secretary of State and on Ministers what in fact happens in the end—and this is no discourtesy to the Civil Service, the officials who work very hard on these matters—is that we are having government by regulation rather than by statute which can be examined by both Houses of Parliament.
I ask the Minister to ensure that the House is clearly informed of the Government's detailed intentions while the Bill is going through this House; and I hope that that was what he meant when he talked about the consultation paper which would be available on the compensation clauses and the regulations, and that

505
this means that we shall in fact know what is going to be in the regulations, because they are as important as the different clauses which are now before us in the Bill. I should like an assurance on that today. Noble Lords will remember the problems we had in considering the Government's proposals to introduce charges for planning applications when no detailed information was available about either how such charges would be levied or upon whom. Indeed, even now that information is not publicly available. Let us make sure that in this Bill, which really is not highly controversial, we all have that information.
The basic principle of the Bill, which we strongly support, is to make sure that there is effective long-term control over mineral workings, so that in future there will be, first, sufficient minerals for the needs of this country; secondly, orderly development of mineral reserves; thirdly, a minimum environmental impact at any one time—this is extremely important, and I am sure we shall come back to it in Committee; and, fourthly, rapid restoration once extraction has ceased, which is of equal importance.
The Government have recognised that the way to ensure that these different goals are met is through the planning system. We would therefore resist-and I hope that the Government would do so as well-any move to take mineral workings outside the mainstream of planning control, or to dilute them in any way. The basic principles of planning are accepted, I believe, on all sides of this House. One of the most important features of the system for encouraging and controlling development is the provision whereby, once granted, planning permission lasts for only five years unless the local authority renews it.
The operation of this rule ensures that mineral deposits are worked in an orderly fashion as part of an overall scheme and not according to the whims of many different operators with their obviously conflicting interests. There will, I fear, be moves to lift the five-year rule for minerals. I very much hope that the Government will join with us in resisting those moves if in fact they come forward. If they are not resisted then, as the number of planning permissions for mineral extraction build up, any hope of orderly development and everything that goes with it will disappear. The basis of long-term mineral planning will be totally undermined—if your Lordships will excuse that pun—and we shall be left with an increasingly random set of permissions to extract minerals, which may be valuable capital assets for the operators but which will become a series of time bombs in the environment which could explode at any time and with devastating effect.
I realise that the relaxation of the five-year rule was advocated by the Stevens Committee, which I believe was set up by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, who is to speak later in this debate, but after careful consideration the Labour Government came to the conclusion set out in Circular 58/78 that this was not right. Anyway, local authorities already have the discretion to vary the five-year period if they see fit.
There are three key areas of this Bill which I particularly welcome. Clause 3, as the Minister pointed out, is extremely important, since it places a duty on every mineral planning authority to undertake, at such intervals as they think fit, reviews of all mineral
506
workings in their area which are, or have been, carried out in the previous five years. Secondly, the Bill allows mineral planning authorities, when granting or reviewing planning permissions where restoration is a condition of the permission, to impose in addition an extremely important after-care condition. This will require that land be specially treated for a period not exceeding five years to make it suitable for use for agriculture or for forestry. The placing of such a duty on operators would help to ensure that reclaimed land does not rapidly deteriorate once mineral operators have left the site. I think there is even an argument, which certainly many environmental groups have and will be putting forward, for in fact increasing that period.
Thirdly, one of the major problems in derelict land reclamation is the problem of inactive sites where operators either will not admit to having finished working or intend to delay resumption of working for several years. if this Bill is enacted, local authorities will be able to require that sites which will be inactive for a long time must be tidied up, and therefore will be able to remove the right permanently to extract any further minerals; and they will be able to have the land restored to the standard set out in the original planning permission. So long as the procedures are not too long, too complex, too drawn out or too expensive, then these proposals will have a substantial and beneficial impact on the environment.
There are detailed matters in the Bill which we will wish to take up at Committee stage, including the definition of "minerals", but I shall not pursue them now on Second Reading. However, we are concerned about the proposals for compensation when planning conditions are varied. At present the proposal is that the mineral operator should make a contribution towards improved restoration up to a maximum financial ceiling. With inflation, such ceilings are always in danger of being overtaken. It might, I suggest, be preferable for operators to be required to pay for an agreed national list of minimum improvements which should naturally be part of good quarry practice. Once such a procedure is agreed in principle—and I understand that talks are taking place between local authorities and the mineral operators on this—then the scheme should be administratively simple and effective. But I believe it is essential for local authorities not to be inhibited from implementing it by heavy compensation implications, otherwise the whole thing will fall down.
I am also aware that unnecessary burdens should not be placed on industry, particularly in the present economic climate. In fact, all this Bill does is to extend the practices adopted by the best operators to all existing mineral workings. In assessing any financial implications for industry, it should also be remembered that when land has planning permission for mineral extraction or is currently being worked for minerals or lies derelict after operations have ceased, it is land which is removed from other productive uses.
The present Secretary of State always appears much concerned to ensure that our land resources are used to maximum effect. I therefore understand why he wishes to make sure that land is not taken out of use for longer than is absolutely necessary. He will also be aware that where land lies derelict after mineral

507
working, it can blight the surrounding area and substantially reduce the likelihood of economic regeneration. In addition, it is essential of course that we should be creating an agreeable environment in areas where mining and quarrying has stopped. By the greater use of derelict land grants, which I understand even now are not used as much as they might be, much could be done, along with allocating, even in the present economic straits, enough money to create a balance between industry and the care of the environment.
I am worried that some existing sites are likely to be worked indefinitely. I appreciate the clause in the Bill, to which the Minister referred, putting on a limit of 60 years, but 60 years for many people might as well be indefinitely. If one takes the case of a working which has been in operation for, say, 30 years, working perhaps on and off, and then adds 60 years, that is bringing the time up to very nearly a century before anything can be done about the situation. An area can be so completely blighted that it must be possible to take action, not necessarily to stop operators taking out the minerals but to make those operators take out the minerals as quickly as possible, and in my view that is essential.
In one important respect the provisions of aftercare have been improved since the No. 1 Bill, as the requirement in this Bill is that land he brought
"to the required standard when it is as nearly as possible restored to the condition in which it was when it was last used for agriculture".
This improvement will go some way to making sure that when agricultural land is reinstated, it is not markedly inferior to the land that was there previously. Unfortunately, these provisions, in Clause 5, extend only to land for agriculture and land owned by the Forestry Commission. I should like to see them extended—I am sure many noble Lords share this view—to cover land for recreation and land for visual enjoyment, in fact land involving the protection of our environment. In doing this we must protect the great scenic beauty we have in this country, remembering that it is not only for the enjoyment and welfare of our own people but for the many tourists who visit areas where there are quarries and mines.
While I welcome the proposals on suspension and prohibition orders, I am worried lest the completion of the procedures will take too long. Moreover, once a suspension order is confirmed, an operator can give 28 days' notice and then resume work on the site, and the local authority will be unable to do anything about it. However, these are some of the points we can go into further in Committee.
This is a Bill which at present has some teeth; they could be sharpened but they are there. It would be catastrophic if attempts to blunt, cap or draw the teeth were successful. Obviously those operators who have implemented the high standards which are publicly encouraged by the various mineral industries will not seek to do that. I am sure that all operators must come to recognise that the Bill is indisputably in the national interest and that to the good operators it poses no threat whatever.
I shall be particularly concerned if bogus administrative justifications are put forward to lengthen the
508
time necessary for the implementation of the procedures in the Bill. The various times specified, particularly on suspension and prohibition orders, are reasonable compromises. Indeed, if anything, they are rather too long and are certainly longer than the times put forward by the Stevens Committee or in the Government Bill of 1979. Any further extension would only undermine a Bill which all responsible organisations concerned with minerals and the environment must support.
The Bill shows that central Government trust local authorities to do a job and to do it efficiently and effectively. It will not be of any service to local democracy in this country if suggestions are made that local authorities, in close consultation with industry and central Government, are incapable of preparing long-term plans which balance the need for minerals with the protection of the environment and the quality of life of those who live close to extraction sites or the transport routes from them. There will, as I say, be many detailed points we shall wish to make in Committee, but in principle we on this side congratulate the Government on bringing the Bill to the House and recommend giving it a Second Reading.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, the two comprehensive speeches we have just heard have covered a great deal of the scene, so I shall do my best to be brief. I too welcome the Bill on behalf of noble Lords on these Benches. The Government have done a good job, particularly because they have had pressures on them from two sides—from the mining companies and from the preservationists—and they have managed to secure a number of really intelligent compromises. It seems to me that, on the whole, our job here, and indeed in another place, must be to see that those compromises are not upset on either side, whichever way our sympathies lie, be they more with one or the other.
It is a balance between the interests of the mining companies and the preservationists, but of course that is to say it is a balance between two different parts of each one of us, between us as consumers who rely on the health of the mining companies for the prosperity of this country to a large extent and for valuable raw materials, and our wanting to see an unspoilt countryside but a countryside also which can produce the maximum amount of food. As I say, the Government have done a good job with the Bill. They had a good report to work on, and for that we are extremely grateful to the people concerned. As we know, we have over the years in this House seen a lot of bad legislation come out as a result of rather good reports, but this appears to be an exception and in many respects an improvement.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said, we can be particularly thankful for the power which remains in the hands of local authorities. It has not been a marked facet of this Government that they have been content to leave power in the hands of local authorities, so we must be thankful that this measure is an exception, and my party thoroughly approves of that. It means that there will not be a uniform application of the various principles across the country, and that

509
is quite a good thing. There will be a uniform framework—that is what the Bill is in favour of setting up—but much of it will be in the hands of the local authority, which will make its own judgment. Quite obviously there will be a very great difference between what local government may do in areas of great natural beauty, where there is very little mining, and an area such as St. Austell, with its concentrated clay mining. It is quite right that there should be a difference between the two.
There are notable problems in the St. Austell area, as everyone who knows about that part of the world is aware. There are the enormous slag heaps as well as the fine dust which, in high winds, can penetrate absolutely everywhere. There is the problem of how to dispose of the enormous amount of waste. However the clay pits provide work, they provide prosperity, and on the whole the local community is happy with the situation, and the county council, which is the local mining authority, can be relied upon to see that a proper balance is kept between trying to get rid of the worst of the damage to the environment while at the same time doing nothing that would harm the prosperity of a vital industry.
I believe that local councils can deal with that kind of situation and make decisions along those lines in a way which a Whitehall department, no matter how good it is, is not able to do. I believe that the situation I have just mentioned relates to a notable part of the Bill and that is one reason why it is a good piece of legislation.
Noble Lords who are taking part in the debate, and who have been known to be due to take part, might have received differing submissions from various bodies on both the conservationist side and the mining companies' side about some of the problems in the Bill. In particular I would draw the attention of the House (as the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, did) to the question of timings in the whole procedure for clearing up dereliction at the end of operations. As the noble Baroness said, this has already been a matter for compromise within the Government and the various Ministries concerned. The report said one thing, the Government have listened to other people and have come up with a compromise. As has been suggested, there may be attempts from both sides of the House to try to change the timing. We take the view that far the happiest and safest course would be to keep the compromise which has been arrived at after such difficulty in the Government departments, and certainly we should resist any move to alter that in either direction.
Having said that, I should like to turn to one or two detailed questions, and I apologise to the noble Earl for the fact that I have been unable to give him notice of these points. I did not know until yesterday afternoon that I was to make this speech, and so I have not myself had much notice of the questions. I have looked as hard as I could at the Bill and the various problems, and have come up with one or two points that I do not quite understand. The first has already been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. Why is the five-year after-care condition restricted to restoring land for agricultural and forestry use? What about leisure pursuits? What about alternative uses? Surely this definition should be widened.
510
Secondly, it seems that a mining company will be able to delay the winding up of a site by not applying for a certificate of completion. Is there not a case for the mining authority to have power to direct the company to apply for a certificate of completion if it seems that the company is dragging its feet?
My next question relates to Clause 3, page 2, line 40. I must confess that, having looked at the clause and having referred to the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, to which it makes reference, I am not entirely clear about what is meant by the words "relevant period". It seems to me that this might be a matter of some importance where disagreement might arise.
I turn to another phrase which seems to me to be very ambiguous, and I should like to learn more about the Government's thinking on its interpretation. It appears in Clause 9, on page 9, at line 24, as well as on page 11, at line 38. There is the question of development having been carried out,
"in, on or under the land to any substantial extent".
"Any substantial extent" is a very vague phrase, and it seems to me that this, too, could give way to considerable argument, and perhaps we could make an effort to tighten it up.
The last of my detailed questions concerns Clause 15, on page 21, and relates to imposing changes in the rate at which minerals are extracted. This is part of the entire question of when compensation can or cannot be paid. According to this part of the Bill, if the local mining authority gives instructions that minerals should be produced at a rate less than they have been in the recent past—a lessening of the rate of extraction—the mining authority would be responsible for paying compensation at the full rate. Is not this provision open to manipulation? Indeed, I understand that in the past something of that kind has happened. If there is a hint that the mining authority is to take action, might not irresponsible mining companies—and there must be one or two; do not let us pretend that there will be none—considerably raise the rate of extraction so as to obtain maximum compensation? Is there any safeguard against that and, if not, can we not include one?
Those are detailed points, but I think that it may be as well to ask questions now on these matters of uncertainty, rather than wait until the Committee stage, when we could try to put them right if the answers we have received prove unsatisfactory. I shall quite understand if, because of such short notice, the noble Earl prefers to correspond with me rather than answer the points directly at the end of the debate today.
I wish to close with another plea, which duplicates one made by the noble Baroness. I refer to the regulations regarding payment of compensation when restoring land. I think it is now common ground that everyone would wish to see the regulations published before the Bill has its Third Reading—and preferably before its Third Reading in this House. I have had indications that on both the mining side and the amenity side people are anxious that that should happen. We on these Benches, as well as noble Lords on the Opposition Front Bench, are keen to see that happen. When appealed to, the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, sat there looking sphinx-like, which did not appear too

511
hopeful, but I hope the Government will consider this. It is quite clearly very important.
It may be embarrassing to publish them, because in a sense I suspect that that is when the real argument will happen; but it is right that if there is going to be a real argument between two sides in this matter it should be an argument conducted rather on the Floor of Parliament than in an unseemly wrangle when not much can be done about it afterwards. I think we really would not be doing our duty if we passed this Bill, as good as it is, without seeing those regulations and having some debate about them, so I hope, indeed, we shall have them by Third Reading.
4.31 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I must start by saying that in preparing my contribution to this debate I have been advised by the Confederation of British Industry, and many of my remarks will therefore take the opportunity to put to the House the points which industry has to make on this Bill. I should like to join with those who have congratulated my noble friend Lord Beltwin on the very skilful way in which he introduced this Bill, and the clear way in which he explained it to us. Perhaps I might also congratulate my noble friend Lord Sandford for having set up the Stevens Committee, from which it all stems.
As I understand it, the principal aims of the Bill are to introduce after-care of land after mineral working has taken place. I would digress at that point to say that I think the use of the expression "after-care is most unfortunate". It rather reminds one of maternity cases, or perhaps probation. If only my noble friend could find another name without having to make too much amendment of the Bill, I am sure it would be helpful in the long run, so that it was not a joke—because I do not think this is a joke. The other point, as I see it, the other main aim, is to impose a duty on planning authorities to undertake reviews of mineral working sites.
There is no objection from industry in principle to those aims, but we are much concerned at the provisions within the Bill to allow both the Secretary of State and local planning authorities the opportunity to implement certain powers in a way which could, probably unwittingly, have serious economic consequences for mineral operators. It is in those two areas that we are particularly concerned. An example of such provisions relating to the Secretary of State is giving him power to make mineral compensation modifications by Statutory Instrument without providing for any limitation of such powers within the Bill itself. I would have thought—and I shall be proposing amendments later on—that one could spell out rather more tightly just how far the Secretary of State could go in this respect within the main Bill. Here I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, that all these tendencies to legislate by regulation are to be deplored if they can possibly be avoided, but it comes as somewhat a matter of amusement to me that the noble Baroness should make these remarks because in my recollection the Government of which she was such a notable and important member legislated by regulations far more than anybody else. However,
512
we agree, and it is nice to think that I am agreed with the noble Baroness because that is a very rare event, as your Lordships will know.
Another example (and I am only giving examples at this point) of the excess powers within the Bill relates to the local planning authority and concerns the time limits relating to starting work. The Stevens Committee, in its paragraph 19.7, recommended that with certain specified provisos, which are accepted by industry, there should be no limit on the time within which mineral working must be started. As your Lordships will be aware—and the noble Baroness referred to this—the Stevens Committee report was commented upon by the Secretaries of State in 1978 in comments which were not quite as welcome as was the original report itself. In commenting on the report the Secretaries of State, without saying why, stated that they did not see sufficient cause for leaving the time of starting entirely open, subject only to the maximum life of the permission.
This opinion is reflected in the relevant parts of the Bill and in the current practices of local planning authorities. There are good reasons why, in this respect, and in most of their other recommendations, the Stevens Committee were right and the advice given to the Secretaries of State was questionable. So from what the noble Baroness has said it seems that perhaps Ministers put in some of the provisos rather than relying on the advice given them. Very briefly, an application for mineral working is never made unless the operator is certain the minerals exist and can, at an appropriate time economically, be worked. In this respect the situation is very different from other sorts of planning application, because the authority can be certain that at some suitable time the working applied for will be carried out.
Industry is happy to accept control on the order in which deposits are worked, but feel very strongly that planning approvals for minerals operations, once given, should not be withdrawn after some arbitrary time limit. In addition to this reasonable certainty that working will at an appropriate time take place, an important business factor is that suitable land for mineral working comes on the market only relatively rarely and has to be purchased when it is available. After that, the operator will work the land as soon as it is economically most suitable for him to do so. As stated in the Department of the Environment's own guidance to local planning authorities, which is quoted in paragraph 7.12 of the Stevens Report, mineral undertakers often need to make their plans a long way ahead, and local planning authorities should adopt a similar time-scale.
The guidance also said that sometimes it may be necessary to take account of mineral reserves even though they are unlikely to be wanted for periods even longer than the accepted normal 60 years. These references indicate that in 1971, when they wrote the guidance to which I have just referred, the department saw clearly the need to allow up to 60 years' maximum life of permission, or even longer, before work starts. Under a different Government, in 1978, the department seems to have changed its mind, and indeed the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, made it clear why this was so. I would suggest to your Lordships once again that Stevens was right and Lady Birk was wrong.

513
To sum up, mineral extraction is a very long-term exercise. Indigenous minerals are part of the wealth of the nation and should be husbanded with as much care as other aspects of the environment. Full cognisance must be taken by central and local government of the need for productive industry, especially private enterprise, to conduct its affairs in as economically advantageous a fashion as practicable. That is the key point, and that is the point that I rather suspect the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, tend, not to overlook but not to give full weight to—the need for economic operation of commercial operations.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I do not have my notes with me; I have sent them to Hansard. But I remember distinctly that I felt strongly about it and emphasised it. I said clearly that I thought that the needs of industry and productivity and being able to work—and I used the phrase, "in a difficult economic climate"—were important; and that one had to find a balance between industrial needs and the environment. I do not think that one could have said it, even in a much longer speech, more clearly and emphatically than that.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I hope the noble Baroness will forgive me but of course she said that. I agree that she said that; but, taken in the round, she said a lot of other things which negated the value of that particular contribution in her speech. When she reads it she will find that out.
There is one other point which has been drawn to my attention by my noble friend Lady Elliot, and that is the use of minerals by farmers for their own purposes, not exploited commercially, which has hitherto been exempt from planning control. It seemed to us when we were looking at the Bill before my noble friend Lord Bellwin made his speech that in Clauses 1 and 18 of the Bill this exemption might be overridden. However, my noble friend Lord Bellwin said that Clauses 1 and 18 relate particularly to tips and, clearly, from the tenor of his remarks, he was not thinking of farms using minerals on their own land for their own purposes. He went on to say that the general development order was in some way going to give guidance on that; so perhaps this is not something which in the end will be a matter of importance.
But it is, I think, reasonable for farmers who have, say, sand and gravel deposits on their land to be able to use such deposits, particularly if they are not selling them or explointing them commercially, for example, for building roads. It would seem reasonable in that sort of situation that they should not be subject to planning control in the same sense as other types of mining—although it is hardly mining in the way that I have described it—require to be within the terms of the Bill and of the Stevens recommendation. We therefore may find ourselves putting down amendments if only to elucidate more clearly from my noble friend Lord Bellwin that he has no intention of subjecting farmers unnecessarily to new forms of planning control. Finally, the points that I have made, and others of a similar nature will be the subject of amendments which we shall bring forward at the Committee stage.
4.42 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I should like to say a word of welcome to this Bill and to congratulate my noble friend on his very lucid exposition of it. I have to declare an interest as chairman of the regional planning authority for London and the south-eastern region, which is particularly interested in the getting of aggregates.
I should like to congratulate my noble friend and the Government on finding time for this small, technical Bill. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, that it is a very useful Bill. It does not seem a glamorous one but it has far-reaching public implications, and the Government are to be congratulated. Also to be congratulated, certainly in the field of aggregates, is the entirely new look in the DoE on aggregates generally where the policy of the past was, if I may call it so, one of masterly inactivity—just leaving the local authorities and operative industry to fight it out on the ground while the DoE kept as clear of the matter as they could. There is now a much better look there and a realisation that all must work together as partners to get these essential minerals.
I pay tribute to the Stevens Report and also to the Verney Report, which is particularly valuable in the field of aggregates. I use the words "great public interest" because the fact is that my remarks are directed primarily to aggregates. No building work can take place without aggregates, no road and no building can be built without aggregates, principally sand and gravel but also clay and chalk. But all extraction—that is to say, digging—of any of these aggregates inevitably destroys the local land amenity and therefore arouses strong public opposition in the localities concerned. The south-eastern region of the country with, I suppose, something like one-quarter to one-third of the total population of the nation living in it, experiences this problem in the most acute form.
In 1976, our maximum year, we used some 58 million tons of aggregates. It is rather less now. The supply from the region was only some 49 million tons, and that included eight million tons of marine dredged, which is limited. We had to import from the south-west and the East Midlands the additional nine million tons. This basic imbalance is bad enough, but it is greatly intensified by the fact that the few remaining gravel- and sand-bearing sites in the south-east are invariably lands of high agricultural value and high amenity value, much of its alongside the rivers. Therefore, the degree of public opposition to the extraction of what remains is very great.
The main purpose of the Bill, as my noble friend has rightly said, is really to ensure better restoration. My word, that is a proper purpose! I warmly support him in it. And the thought here is that the powers of the county planning authorities should be strengthened to enable them so to specify the conditions of extraction and restoration that land is speedily and fully restored to its original condition. I would add—and I am sure that my noble friend knows this; and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, must remember it, too—that public opinion in these localities is extremely hostile to further mineral extraction, for the obvious reason that people must put up with noise, mud, dust and traffic for years while all this is going on. But

515
if full restoration can be assured then they may become reconciled to it at the end of the day by the local authorities or, perhaps, on appeal.
Technically, as my noble friend has indicated, full restoration is possible. The standard of restoration can be reached by careful advance planning. It is possible to arrange for extraction to take place in phases, in strips, on a particular area so that, after the first strip has been worked, while the next strip is being extracted the first can be restored so that the area which is open is reduced to a minimum and restoration goes forward as quickly as possible.
There is no great difficulty in preserving topsoil, subsoil and overburden—no problem. But one of our major problems in the South-East—and, I dare say, in other parts—is to find acceptable fill, especially in water-bearing areas near rivers where lies most of the sand and gravel. Town waste is organic and is unsuitable. It causes pollution. Therefore, we must have sterile waste. I can foresee the time coming when the DoE will have to accept that it is not possible for the industry or the local authorities to bear the very heavy transport costs of bringing in surplus sterile fill from other parts of the country. Cornwall has been mentioned—china clay. There is masses of sterile fill there and it would be ideal to put in the pits that we have around London, but the cost of getting it there is so great that it cannot be done. But one of these days this problem will have to be faced. We cannot go on forever having more and more artificial lakes; nobody likes them.
Restoration and after-care is possible provided that there is careful planning and a sufficient period of after-care. That involves expert supervision and I was a little sorry that it was not possible for the Ministry of Agriculture to provide for that; and that the local authorities and the industry together must do it. That is possible, but it would have been helpful to have the Ministry taking part in it. They will give supervision to it of course, but they cannot take a part; they cannot stand the manpower drain. What is needed during this period is to build up the humus value. I see my noble friend Lord Woolley alongside me who well understands all these things.
One also has to cater for the patchy subsidence, which is inevitable in these areas, by readjusting the levels of the land drainage pipes which have been put in the ground so that eventually there is a sound piece of ground. All this can be done; it is expensive but it is essential. Even then we must remember that the Ministery of Agriculture doubt whether Class I and Class II quality land could be fully restored and therefore they are still opposed to that being opened.
So this is a formidable prospect. I am glad to be able to report that in the South-East we have the kind of partnership that my noble friend was asking for between industry and the local authorities. In the past couple of years I have been able to initiate a system of joint seminars with the industry and local authorities so that we can discuss it together. At the end of the day we are both dependent on each other and must work out a solution together. This is a much better arrangement than the running warfare of the past. I am hopeful that we shall be able to cope, but the heavy cost of this restoration is going to increase building costs
516
because aggregates will be more expensive. The industry must get more for its aggregates. They understand that; we understand it. But of course what the industry also understands —and the seminars have been particularly valuable for this—is the intensity of public opposition, and we must be able to give the assurance that restoration is really going to be first class. There are some really very good examples indeed coming through just now where the industry has done some very good jobs. But there are far too many which look terrible.
There are two weak spots in the Bill. Some of what I am about to say is going to follow what the noble Baroness has said. The first one is Clause 3, a very important clause, which gives the local authority the power to review past consents in order to see whether conditions were adequate. In many cases they were not adequate; we all know that. There were not sufficiently strict conditions of restoration and the result is that adequate restoration will not be made. We are talking about land in process of operation in the South-East now of 10½ square miles—a big area—so we want to make sure that it is going to be right when it is finished. So I welcome the clause, but the aspect of it that worries me here is the compensation arrangements.
I listened with great interest to my noble friend explaining this concept of a threshold up to which the industry will pay. I wonder whether the industry are 100 per cent. with this. I suppose that it depends where the threshold is put. But the local authorities are expected to pay after that. The local authorities simply have not the money now for them to make this contribution, and it is no good pretending that they have. My noble friend must give a substantial grant if this review is to be effective. It is most important that it should be effective. Apart from anything else, a good many of the decisions for planning consent were given on appeal with the conditions attached laid down in the past by the DoE or their predecessors, so they have a specific responsibility. I hope that my noble friend will be willing to look at this particular point again.
The other point which is weak is a further matter to which the noble Baroness referred, about past dereliction. We in England have in the South-East no fewer than 26 square miles of derelict past workings. They are appalling. They are absolutely useless for anything. A lot of them have old machinery hanging about in them: sodden, useless land. They really are an eyesore. They hang like millstones around the necks of the local authorities and the industry, because local people will not believe that new extractions will be properly restored when they see these appalling areas of devastation all round. This problem must be tackled. I have made strong representations to my noble friend and his colleagues in the DoE. They accept that it must be tackled but they explain that there is not the money now. I accept that, as the noble Baroness does.
I think that this Bill—which is so good in every other wa—yshould contain the principle that the Government should be committed to a survey of past dereliction with a view to a start being made on a 10-year programme which will eventually restore these areas when the funds are available. If that were done

517
it would give people confidence that something is eventually going to happen. Unless a provision of this kind is made we are seriously handicapping the consents which we must have to open up the remaining areas where sand and gravel can be found. I hope that my noble friend will be willing to look at that again. I shall be very tempted to put an amendment down on the Committee stage to ask my noble friend to do this. With those two criticisms, I warmly welcome this Bill, which is a most valuable step forward.
4.56 p.m.
Viscount Rochdale: My Lords, like other noble Lords who have spoken, I also welcome this Bill. I should like to congratulate my noble friend on the very concise and clear way in which he has introduced it. I intervene in this important debate with some hesitation, particularly when I follow my noble friend Lord Nugent who speaks with such a great number of years of experience in this matter. Quite rightly, as I see it, in our small country with very considerable mineral resources we need to watch very carefully, review how we handle extraction and what steps we should take to ensure within the reasonable capabilities of present techniques the practical restoration and after-care—and I use that word despite my noble friend's comment on the term—of the land affected, without putting too heavy a burden on the extractive industries, and without also its resulting in a situation where some important minerals may actually become sterilised.
That no doubt is to over-simplify what is a very complex matter. I recognise the immense amount of effort that the Government and the department have taken to work on it. As I see it—and I think that this is borne out by other speakers who have also contributed this afternoon—there are three main areas of interest affected. If I may I will call them three potential lobbies. They can prove antagonistic and therefore a balance is so important. There is the interest of the extractive industry itself; but that interest carries with it a very considerable responsibility to a far wider range of other industries and therefore it is not merely the interest of a small industry. It is much more important than that. There is the interest of agriculture and forestry, and there is the environmental and amenity interest. In some respects I find that I can wear all three hats at different times, which makes it rather difficult. I can see therefore very clearly the force of the arguments that any of these three can put forward. But it is the first, the interest of the industry, that I shall perhaps come to emphasise more at the end of what I want to say.
So far as amenity is concerned, no one is more sensitive than I am to the importance of keeping the beauty of our countryside as unspoiled as possible. It is a treasured part of our national heritage which attracts visitors from all over the world. It is enough for me to prove my sincerity in this by saying that I live in the centre of what I like to regard as the premier national park, the Lake District. I hope I am not being provocative by saying that. Also, I am vice-president of the Friends of the Lake District, which acts in Cumbria on behalf of the Council for the Protection of Rural England. I am therefore very fully aware of the force of their amenity arguments.
518
As regards the agricultural and forestry lobby, my family owns a very modest property in the Lake District which is very close to old copper and lead mine workings, where I understand deposits underground still exist and which, given the right economic climate—that is, a suitable climate of demand and world prices—could well be attractive to new operators to develop or to seek to re-open. Indeed it is only a very few years ago that a Canadian company came there and was interested in opening a copper mine very close to where I live but, for one reason or another which I need not go into, that project was not proceeded with. On the other hand, another mine which is equally close did start work and is working now, extracting zinc and copper concentrates and barytes. That little mine does no harm to anyone and in fact I am pleased to feel that I may have given them a little assistance in one way. I say "Good luck" to them. However, these very small parochial examples do indicate how agriculture and forestry interests can have legitimate fears as to mineral development, and I think they emphasise the importance of adequate planning control, restoration and after-care, which is what this Bill is all about, as I understand it.
That leads me to say something about the third lobby: the mineral industry itself. I have no interest to declare in this. I have never personally had anything to do with the industry except very indirectly when, before nationalisation of the steel industry, I happened to be a director of that ill-fated company which we all know of, Consett, where we mined the ganister used for the flux we required in the furnaces.
On the other hand, I have been intimately associated with manufacturing industry for most of my working life—a very wide range of industries too—and I have become well aware of the vital need that industry as a whole has for all sorts of mineral projects, ferrous and non-ferrous, as well as all sorts of building materials, which must be regularly available to industry, hopefully at consistent prices.
The first question, therefore, I must ask is, are these three lobbies, all of them with ostensibly justifiable claims, being fairly treated? I recognise from what my noble friend and others have said that at any rate the Government have done their best to keep a fair balance, but I suspect that over the years—going further back than this Bill—the agricultural and, more recently, the forestry and amenity lobbies, have been heard longer and louder than the less glamorous extractive industry lobby; so that the bias has, perhaps unnoticed, gone against that industry and therefore against and to the disadvantage of its far wider areas of responsibility. After all, it is manufacturing industry which relies to no small extent on our indigenous minerals, whether for processing work or for our buildings to work in, and it is industry which is surely the main wealth-creating activity and which has to pay for so much of everything else we need in our complex way of life.
That leads me to my second question. I must ask: Does this Bill add to or diminish the many obstacles—not merely planning obstacles—that a would-be applicant for planning permission to win and work minerals has to contend with already today? I should be surprised if my noble friend was not aware of would-be developers perhaps from overseas—and I have already mentioned a Canadian company—having

519
been, as it were, driven away because of these obstacles. The great question seems to me to be whether the Bill helps to remove uncertainty of availability, and uncertainty of availability of permission to operate where it is economically appropriate.
Like other noble Lords, I accept in Clause 6 the 60 years' duration. That may be fair and practicable; but it appears towards the end of that same clause that the 60 years can be varied to a shorter period. That, my Lords, disturbs me. I hope that my noble friend Lord Mansfield, when he replies, will refer to Clause 6 where it says that 60 years can be varied for a longer or shorter period.
The mineral extractive industry can be very capital-intensive. It is obviously a very speculative industry. On the one hand, it needs to be able to plan ahead but, on the other, it must be able to retain a degree of flexibility in its plans to meet changing circumstances, changing demands and changing price levels. There may well be occasions when it would be prudent for an operator to close a mine or to defer opening or re-opening a mine, so long as he can feel free from any doubt that when the right time comes he can look on that mine as a reserve and use it again and be quite certain that it will be available to him. Certainty in this context is immensely important and, without it, it may well be better for an operator never to embark upon an acquisition when the opportunity arises, as my noble friend Lord Mottistone said, rather rarely in the market.
For the same reason I am a bit apprehensive about the time limit of two years in Clause 9—a time limit that comes into operation if no development appears to have taken place within that time. It may have been the operator's deliberate policy to take the opportunity of acquiring a mine, realising that he cannot use it but also realising that the time will come, perhaps after two years or five years, when it will become a very important reserve in his planning. In some respects I have been encouraged by my noble friend Lord Bellwin on this point in the way he presented it, but I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, will perhaps say a little more later about this question of certainty for the operator as to where he stands for the future. Having said that, I welcome the Bill and I hope it goes through speedily.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I should like to welcome this Bill, which will make a great contribution to the future of the British landscape. In the mid-1970s, there were some 121,000 acres in England which were affected by mineral workings, and only three-quarters of that area was subject to restoration conditions. It is the principle of after-care conditions that is particularly welcome, and the first question must be to ask whether the remaining quarter—that is, some 32,000 acres which escape the conditions at the moment—can be brought into this legislation.
There are only one or two points which I should like briefly to mention and they relate mainly to Clause 5. Probably, the most important interest involved in any restoration is the surface owner, who will have the problems of subsequent management after the land is restored, and the greatest interest in the appearance of
520
the site along with the adjacent owners and farmers. Yet there is no provision in the Bill for the planning authority or the Ministry of Agriculture to consult the surface or adjacent owners regarding after-care. There is, indeed, inadequate provision for the planning authority even to consult the Ministry of Agriculture and this itself is surely a serious omission.
A surface owner can of course impose a condition of restoration in a mineral lease, and failure to implement may give rise to a claim for damages. But were planning law to admit, as it does not at present, consultation with owners as to the terms of restoration conditions, the power to ensure performance of agreed after-care treatment by both the planning authority and the owner would be strengthened, duplicating the planning requirement with the conditions in the mineral lease. For all the reputable mineral working companies, there are always the "fly boys" who will work an area and either just fail to comply with the spirit of restoration conditions, or even go bankrupt and leave the job in a mess.
One way to deal with this is to secure a performance bond, but this will be heavy on the mineral lessor and reduces his ability to trade profitably. I should like to see a provision in the Bill to require progressive compliance with after-care. This would simply mean that the mineral developer would have to work in phases and restore phase 1 while developing phase 2, and he would not be allowed to start phase 3 till phase 1 was totally restored. Perhaps the Government would consider the advisability of writing something like that into the Bill.
Under the Bill, restoration has to be to agriculture or forestry. This point has already been made by other speakers. Yet there may well be occasions when both the surface owner and the authority would prefer restoration to, perhaps, a golf course, rough terrain for a motor-cycle scramble, an aquatic playground or some other non-agricultural use. Again, the agreement, co-operation and consent of the owner are paramount. But would the Government agree that uses for amenity and leisure should be included along with agriculture and forestry?
With regard to the working of old and exi sting mineral waste tips, there is considerable scope for gradual removal of slag heaps for in-fill or for building farm roads. Over a period, tips could be greatly decreased and tidied up. These partial removals should not require planning permission. The removal is desirable, there is even a grant to do so and any heap, or part of a heap, that can be removed as opportunity occurs can only be beneficial and should not require the expensive process of planning. What would be the position where a small proportion of a large tip was required for fill? It would be both economically and practically impossible for a developer to give after-care treatment to the whole area. This Bill will be likely to sterilise tip heaps from gradual and beneficial removal. There should be relaxation from planning for partial removal of old and bare tips.
Finally, with regard to restoration for forestry, this is the first occasion on which "forestry" has been defined and the definition is given as,
"the growing of a utilisable crop of timber".
Particularly in these days of conservation lobbies, it might well be that the restored land could be better

521
used for shelter belts, amenity or other forestry use. It is, therefore, necessary that the term "forestry" in Clause 5 should be able to be widely used and not confined to pure timber production.
5.15 p.m.
Viscount Falmouth: My Lords, perhaps I should say that I am a creature, a trident, like my noble friend Lord Rochdale, with land, agriculture, mining and industry in his blood in equal parts. My noble friend gave us an extremely balanced view on this issue and made some important points with regard to the great importance of our extractive industries. I must declare an interest, as the chairman of a small, privately owned china clay company, working and owning minerals and quarries in Cornwall. I also have leases out to well-known mining companies and, at the same time, I obviously have a great love of the landscape, like all in this Chamber. Therefore, it may be that what I say will perhaps be more on the mineral operatives' side than on the side of the others.
First, may I say how much I welcome the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, on the Liberal Benches, who said such complimentary things about our china clay industry in Cornwall? That is an example of close co-operation in the restoration of tips which should be copied with great care by other bodies in the country. If our little industry—and it is not really a little industry, because it is the leading industry of its kind in the whole wide world—closes down, the potteries will have to close down and the paper industry will be most seriously affected, as will our exports, because until quite recently, with the coming of North Sea oil, we were the leading exporters of raw material from England.
With those general remarks, I should just like to say that I have been closely counselled by our China Clay Council, which plays an important part in our industry in guiding us through the maelstrom of legislation which affects us at all times with ever-increasing magnitude. I am, of course, delighted that this Bill has been separated, as the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said at the start of her address, from all the other mammoth Bills from which we so often have to suffer in this House.
May I briefly discuss a point which worries us in our china clay industry? It may be thought to be a Committee point rather than a Second Reading one, but I do not think it is, because it carries implications which affect the whole Bill. As my noble friend said, this Bill is mainly a restoration Bill, but it is not that entirely. Sir Roger Stevens's report, to which tribute was rightly paid this afternoon, and the consultation paper from the department in June 1979, have led to this Bill which is in front of us. There is much good in it, but some of it is worrying. As has been mentioned, it is most important—I cannot overstress this—for mineral undertakings to be certain as to their rights and permissions over the whole of their future life. In our little industry our reserves will go on for 100, 150 or perhaps 200 years before they are worked out. No company in its senses would dream of taking up a mining licence for only five years when heavy capital expenditure is planned. Modern mining expenditure is enormous. You only have to find out how much it costs to sink a yard, a foot, or a fathom,
522
as we call it in Cornwall, of shaft for that point to be made good.
The re-enactment of Section 41 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971—that section has not been repealed by the Bill—requires that the development of an undertaking must begin within five years from the date of the granting of planning permission, unless otherwise agreed with the planning permission authorities. The Stevens Committee advised against this legal limitation being placed on the time within which working must start, on the ground that if permission for mineral working covers a definite area which has a definite place in the operator's programme and the programme has been made available to what they call the consultative minerals committee—in this case the planning authority—there is no need for this five year legal limit. Noble Lords will see that in Clause 3 there is the safeguard of a review at intervals of undertakings. Despite this, the Bill reaffirms the principle that development must begin within five years or planning permission may lapse.
The effect of this clause is that the working of mineral reserves is put at jeopardy through uncertainty. Certainty in mineral undertakings is most important. Consent to the working of reserves will have been given in the original permission but the working may well have to be re-assessed by the company in the light of a possible, or even probable, trade recession, or a change in the market. The five year period, therefore, will have to be breached. Mineral reserves have to be proved, often in detail, by hard rock drilling. This is a most expensive process. Companies will have to do this far ahead of the mine or quarry development that is envisaged, whenever cash is available for the purpose. Such development could be put at risk by unreasonable planning authorities. I am glad to say that in Cornwall our planning authorities are extremely knowledgeable and cooperate well with the mining industry. The old saying is: "Scratch a Cornishman and you'll find tin in his veins". In other parts of the country, however, there may be difficulties when unreasonable planning authorities insist on the five year period and the provisional permission then lapses.
Despite all his other commitments, I hope my noble friend will find time to look again at this point and that it will be possible for him to remove this five year limitation. Because of all the other safeguards in the Bill, it is hardly necessary.
5.26 p.m.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, we are greatly in the debt of the Stevens Committee and the Verney Committee for the advance that is represented by the Bill. I should like to express my particular thanks to them. It was nine years ago when I was Minister in the Department of the Environment and responsible for these matters that it seemed to me that two things needed to be done. The first was a review of the procedures by which mineral working was controlled. I appointed the Stevens Committee to carry out that review. The second was to take steps to look a little further ahead and see what kind of resources the construction industry would need in the 1980s, the 1990s and at the end of the century, where they were going to be found and how they were going to be taken to where they were wanted.

523
That was the job I set the Verney Committee to do.
I congratulate the department for now harvesting the fruits of the labours of those two committees, for applying very considerable drive and skill to these matters and for bringing forward this legislation with the agreement of the local authority associations and the planning departments in particular, with the industries very close to almost complete accord as to how matters are to be handled in the future. I congratulate my noble friend on bringing forward the Bill now, having secured further improvements to that version of it which was incorporated in the Local Government Bill, Mark I.
The issues are these. My noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford has made the first point: that we are an island too densely packed, with too many demands on the limited land that we have, for any amount to be lying about, in a mess, under-used, under-productive and unenjoyed. On the other hand, as my noble friend Lord Mottistone has said, we cannot afford to overlook or neglect the very considerable variety of indigenous mineral resources which lie underneath that land. To make sure that we are doing as well as we possibly can, the reviews provided for in Clause 3 are a very welcome innovation.
When my noble friend replies I wonder whether he could indicate if there will be a requirement—I hope there will—that before embarking on any review in the area of any particular mineral planning authorities there will be consultation with the district councils. The primary responsibility lies with the counties, and it is right that it should. But one would not want them to embark upon a review without consulting the district councils who are responsible for the control of most of the rest of the development in the area.
I am concerned and worried, as is my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, as to whether the Government are being realistic about the capacity of the staffs of the mineral planning authorities and the resources of those authorities to make a proper job of these reviews and to face up to the costs which will be involved and the compensation which will have to be paid. Perhaps my noble friend could say whether the county councils were consulted about their ability to start this operation and, if they were consulted, what they said in reply and whether the Ministry of Agriculture are satisfied about the capability of their staff to do what is required of them.
This is important because, although at the moment it is up to the local authorities to decide how often to carry out these reviews, so that they need do no more work than they think themselves capable of doing, it will not be long before the EEC directive on environmental impact assessment is in force and that is very likely to lay down mandatory conditions for the review of industries and operations which have the massive impact on the environment that mineral working does. Therefore, by that time it will not be an optional matter for the mineral planning authorities to be properly staffed; it will be a duty under EEC legislation.
I welcome very much Clauses 11 to 16 of the Bill which provide for a progressive tightening up of the conditions under which mineral working is operated, as procedures and technology permit that to be done. My noble friend Lord Bellwin started by pointing out
524
to the House—and he was right to stress this—that most of the development control which is done under the planning system is the control of projects: one-off building operations in which a house or a factory is put up according to a plan which is produced to a planning authority. They give their approval for that and there it is—a static item in the environment. Obviously, it it is appropriate that if the local authority changes the conditions after giving permission for something of that sort, then compensation should be payable to the applicant. What we are concerned with in mineral working is permission for a project—the establishment of a quarry, the setting up of the equipment, the building of this and that; but we are also giving approval to a process, and a process which goes on to the detriment of the environment and inconvenience to a lot of people living round for many years.
Most industrial processes are controlled by a general establishment of conditions which are progressively tightened without compensation. That is the way in which the Alkali Inspectorate used to work and the Clean Air Inspectorate now works; the way in which the Health and Safety Executive works, and the way in which the regional water authorities work. They progressively tighten the environmental conditions and industry is not entitled to compensation for having to comply with them. So it is appropriate in this Bill that we should have a mixture of some things which will attract compensation and other things which will not.
It is generally assumed that the imposition of conditions on industry incurs costs. With the permission of the House, I should like to quote extensively (but not too extensively, I hope) from a speech which I heard made yesterday in the presence of my right honourable friend Mr. Tom King, the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment. I am one of a panel of judges which makes awards to business and industry for particularly enlightened attitudes towards the environment. These awards were being made yesterday at the Royal Society of Arts and this is a quotation from a representative of a firm which has a quarry of silica sand in Cheshire who won one of the awards. The speaker started by explaining the long confrontation and battles between themselves and the Cheshire County Council, going on for many years and then he said—and I am now quoting verbatim:
"In 1969 Cheshire County Council published their 'Draft Policy for Sand Workings in Cheshire'. This coincided with our own timing for planning the new works on the Eaton Hall Estate near Congleton.
"Eventually, we were granted permission to extract sand from this site for a period of at least 20 years, provided we complied with the many conditions imposed to protect the environment. At first sight, these conditions appeared to be totally unrealistic.
"We had to agree to restrict the dust emission level to less than one tenth of previous practice. We had to agree to restrict the noise from the plant to an extremely low level. We had to agree to site all the classifiers and stockpiles some 50 feet below the normal ground level. We had to agree to use an electrically operated dredge to extract the sand from below the water-table. And so the list went on.
"We quickly came to the conclusion that a conventional plant lay-out and design couldn't possibly meet these conditions. It took two years of research and a tour of works in America and Europe in the search for new technology … before we were finally able to set down our proposals.
"Prior to commencing any work at all on this site, we presented a full set of plans and drawings to the newly formed residents' committee from the nearby village of Eaton. The frank and open discussions with the committee resulted in several modifications

525
and did much to allay their fears and suspicions concerning the impact we were to have upon their environment.
"Our choice of the drying and cooling system, which we modified to suit our own requirements, resulted in a 50 per cent. saving of the fuel oil required and enabled us to achieve dust emission figures approximately 60 per cent. below the permitted maximum. These results played an important part in negotiations between the Alkali Inspectorate and the Technical Committee of the Silica and Moulding Sands Association which led to new national standards for the silica sand industry.
"A theoretical study of the noise problems indicated the necessity for the installation of acoustic control equipment which has enabled us to restrict the noise level from the plant to approximately that of a public library. The County Council Mineral Planning Committee has since adopted these figures as a standard for all future sand processing plants in Cheshire. We've subsequently received permission to operate during the night, which has enabled us to achieve greater output without increasing the size of the plant and its visual impact upon the environment.
"As a result of siting the classifiers and stockpiles below ground level on the quarry floor, we've been able to reduce pump and motor sizes by taking advantage of an abundant natural water supply from the adjacent lake.
"The necessity to use an electrically operated dredge led us to develop an almost automatic system of quarrying with savings in operational costs".
This is the important conclusion:
"In fact, many of the onerous conditions that were imposed have assisted us in achieving significant technical and financial advantages in the efficient design and operation of the plant".
That leads me to say that the flexibility in making provision for compensation ought to be a flexibility which allows the mineral operator to pay the planning authority for doing them a good turn by so concentrating their minds on the process that they have been able to introduce economies from which they have taken a positive advantage. I think there is a good deal of that in the whole compensation business.
I should like now to turn briefly to Clause 5 and to welcome, with others, the after-care conditions. I think the main factor to bear in mind here is the complete distinction that arises according to whether the topsoil has been stockpiled or not. If the topsoil has been stockpiled—and, of course, under any modern conditions given today it certainly should be, and usually is—then I do not see any difficulty in reaching normal agricultural yields and normal forestry yields after restoration, and I would hope that the after conditions would require it. There is not a lot of evidence but there is enough in a number of cases of restoration after opencast mining and deep mining that where the topsoil has been stockpiled for 20 or 30 years and then put back properly with suitable drainage and looked after for four or five years, or sometimes not more than three or four years, normal local agricultural yields can be achieved.
I would hope—and here I agree with the brief provided by the National Farmers' Union—that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would be actively involved, and they have not, in my experience, in a number of instances in the past where they should have been. If the topsoil has not been stockpiled it is totally unrealistic, in my view, to contemplate normal agriculture or normal forestry, and in that case the appropriate treatment is to restore the land for some form of amenity, put bushes and shrubs and trees on it, which will not produce an economic crop but will make the site attractive and contribute to the landscape. I agree with all those noble Lords who have said that this clause must be amended to allow of that possibility and to make it
526
possible for the planning authorities to prescribe that kind of condition.
The only other things I want to speak on very briefly are suspension and cessation orders. I think on Committee we want to consider shortening the waiting period; and the duration of the planning permissions, where again on Committee I think we want to cons der shortening the period also. Generally speaking, I should like to join with others and very much welcome the Bill.
5.42 p.m.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I must first declare an interest as I am the chairman of a company with substantial mining and quarrying activities within the United Kingdom. I consider the purpose of this Bill to be highly commendable and most of it I am only too happy to support. The purpose is—as indeed was the purpose of the Stevens Committee on which much of it is based—to reconcile the needs of the environment and the needs of industry, not a particularly easy task.
As I understand it, the core of the agreement which was reached in discussions with industry depended upon the understanding that there would be the grant of longer-term planning permissions, in return for which the industry accepted that there could be modifications of the non-fundamental conditions attached to planning permissions without full compensation being paid. Indeed, my noble friend the Minister in his opening speech, in which he expounded the Bill with such clarity, did refer to the fundamental condition, the understanding about there being long-term planning permission. Also, my noble friends Lord Rochdale and Lord Falmouth have made similar remarks about the need for being able to look well ahead in one's planning. Many of these mineral operations involve enormous capital expenditure, not just in the opening of the quarry but the processing plant that goes with it, such as kilns costing £6 to £10 million each, railway sidings, special loading facilities and the like. It is therefore essential that those mineral operators should be able to look well ahead to security of the permission for their source of supply; it is also essential for the downstream industries being supplied to be assured that a long-term supply is coming from the mineral works.
The Stevens Committee in their report said that planning authorities should be urged to consider the national interest alongside the local considerations in considering the length of planning permission to be granted. The Bill is strangely silent on this, and it is a very important point because it is the quid in the quid pro quo, the understanding between industry and the department that there would be long-term planning permission given, provided that flexibility could be negotiated to make non-fundamental change of conditions without paying full compensation. I hope that my noble friend will be able to give us some assurance on this and perhaps be able to assure us that something might be introduced into the Bill to make clear the intention that there will be long-term planning agreements and the national interest will betaken into account by planning authorities. There must inevitably be some conflict between planning authorities and the national interest; planning authorities are focusing

527
primarily upon the needs for their locality, and the large operations that may be desirable for the national interest are less likely to commend themselves to them or their electorate or indeed their ratepayers. That is my first point.
My second point relates to the compensation provisions or perhaps the lack of them in the Bill. I agree with what the noble Baroness, and indeed my noble friend have said, that this Bill leaves extremely open what compensation basis will be adopted. I hope my noble friend will be able to give us some assurance as to what we are likely to see in the regulations before this Bill comes before the House again or at the time that it does so.
There has been a consultation paper—indeed two. The content of those is somewhat disturbing to the mineral operators and the mineral industry. The latest consultation paper suggests that the mineral operators will receive no compensation on a loss of 20 per cent., or if it is a large operation 10 per cent., of the value of their minerals every five years, and that is a very significant and serious penalty. It applies to existing workings where the capital has been invested and the investment decisions made on the basis of the present law, that full compensation will he paid for any interference with or modification of the planning permissions.
There is perhaps an even more serious point which arises from the consultation paper, and again I hope my noble friend will be able to say something about this. That is that the consultation paper appears to limit the compensation, if any is payable, to the cost of carrying out the further work that is required to be done by the modification of the planning permission. Under the law as it stands today compensation is payable, if planning permission is modified, not only for the costs incurred in carrying out that particular work but also for the loss that the mineral operator suffers from being placed under further restrictions.
The consultation paper is silent on the question of loss; it limits its indication of compensation, and indeed very reduced compensation, to the costs of carrying out the particular work. I cannot believe that my noble friend intended to place such heavy charges on essential industry. Massive capital investment has been made in existing mines and quarries on the basis of the existing law, and some of those workings would become quite uneconomic if they were then subjected to modifications, restrictions and the like and were not entitled to any compensation for the loss or the costs they incurred as a result. Having said that, I support the Bill; I believe it is right to get the proper balance between industry and the environment. I hope my noble friend will he able to give me some reassurance on the two major criticisms I have made.
5.48 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Mansfield): My Lords, this has been an interesting and indeed wide-ranging debate. We have heard a variety of views on the problems raised by mineral working and on the new provisions to meet those problems being proposed in the Bill. These proposals are complex, but they reflect a simple purpose, which is to provide within the present planning system more
528
sensitive and more flexible measures than are now available to deal with mineral working and its impact upon the environment. The variety of points which have been raised this afternoon reflects the magnitude of the task which faced the Stevens Committee when it came to consider this whole question. I should like to associate myself with the tribute paid by my noble friend Lord Bellwin, and indeed others, to the thorough and painstaking work of the late Sir Roger Stevens and his committee. I should also like to reiterate the point which was made by my noble friend, and indeed other noble Lords, that consideration of these problems is very much a question of balancing a number of potentially conflicting interests.
The Stevens Committee Report recommended a package of measures, and while those which are now embodied in the Bill would seem by and large to be giving greater powers to planning authorities, they must be seen in the context of the package as a whole. Taken together with the recommendations which do not require primary legislation—the proposed amendments to the General Development Order, the updating of advice on good mineral working practices and the co-operation between planning authorities and mineral developers on long-term policy—they will constitute valuable improvements to the system which will then be able to take better account of the needs of minerals developers as well as of the concern of planning authorities for the proper planning of their area as a whole.
I accept that this is not the time to be adding significantly to industry's burdens. The Bill does not do that and, indeed, no real allegation that it does do so has been made this afternoon. It provides a framework which will give some planning authorities additional powers to deal with those recalcitrant operators who just do not meet their environmental responsibilities; the good operator has nothing to fear from the provisions of the Bill. The considerable dereliction arising from past mineral working is all too powerful evidence for the need for increased powers, and I am confident that with the increased co-operation between planning authorities and the industry these powers will be used reasonably and to the benefit of society as a whole.
My noble friend and I will consider most carefully all the points raised by noble Lords. I shall deal with some of them in a moment; in the case of others they will be taken away and either my noble friend or I will reply to them after consultation. Of course, your Lordships will have ample opportunity to debate the detail of the Bill at the Committee stage—and, if I may say so without being too offensive, a number of points which have been raised are really Committee points. But, at any rate in order to facilitate consideration of the Bill in Committee, I am glad to be able to say that copies of Notes on Clauses will be available in the Printed Paper Office, I hope, within the next few days, and in any case well before the start of the Committee stage.
Before I go on to deal with some of the detailed points which have been raised, I must say a few words about the way in which the Bill applies to Scotland. Although the Stevens Committee was appointed by the previous Conservative Government—indeed, by my noble friend Lord Sandford, in effect—it reported in

529
1976 to the Labour Government in which the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, played such a prominent part, The provisions of the Bill are not, I fancy, a matter of party political controversy. But, the differences in political circumstances are relevant to Scotland, since the then Secretary of State for Scotland in 1978 prefaced his response to the Stevens Committee Report in effect by saying that so far as primary legislation was concerned its proposals would be for consideration by the proposed Scottish Assembly. Events, of course, have moved on since that time.
Be that as it may, the present Government have carefully considered the question of the application of the committee's recommendations to Scotland and have decided that basically the same provisions should be applied to Scotland as are being applied to England and Wales. The problems in Scotland are perhaps somewhat smaller in scale, since conflicts between the needs of mineral development and other land uses are less acute, but they are the same in substance. In addition, many mineral operators conduct their business throughout Britain, and it is therefore desirable that legislation in this area should, so far as possible, be identical on either side of the Border.
In spite of the bulk of the Scottish clauses, therefore, which is due largely to the need for separate references to the Scottish legislative background, the provisions of the Bill in relation to Scotland are identical in substance to those in relation to England and Wales. What differences there are simply reflect the difference in the legislative and administrative arrangements in force in Scotland.
I should now like to turn to one or two of the general points that have been raised. I think that there may have been some misunderstanding about the effect of the Bill so far as time limits for mineral working are concerned. The Bill does not impose a blanket limit of 60 years on the life of new mineral permissions. The 60-year limit will only come into play where planning authorities do not exercise their discretion to set a longer or shorter life. Similarly, it does not interfere with planning authorities' discretion to set the appropriate period within which mineral working must start following the grant of a planning permission.
My noble friend Lord Mottistone complained, if that is the right word, about what I might call the "five-year period". Planning authorities have the power to prescribe a period other than five years—either longer or shorter—before the expiration of which working must have begun. Local planning authorities are encouraged to discuss industry's needs and take its views into account when considering when development should start. To adopt my noble friend's suggestion—which would be to exempt mineral working from the prescribed period—would lead to uncertainty as an operator would have a valid planning permission, but there would be no control on when he would actually start working. Such uncertainty about our commencement or recommencement of working has led to many of the detrimental effects of mineral working on the environment which the Bill is seeking to alleviate. Therefore, at present we are not convinced that mineral working should be treated differently from other forms of development in this respect.
I come now to some of the more particular points which were made. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk,
530
asked for an assurance that the enforcement provisions in the original Bill will be reintroduced. The facts of the matter are that the Government are looking at the enforcement of planning control generally and not just in respect of mineral working. If, in due course, it appears that further measures are necessary, then they will be introduced. But I hope that so far as mineral working is concerned the provisions of the Bill, in particular the new orders, will do much to improve land restoration.
The noble Baroness and also—in an unholy, but I hope short-lived alliance—my noble friend Lord Mottistone, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and others, complained, in effect, about the proposed regulations in relation to compensation which are due to be published and then eventually pass into law. 1 appreciate that if is fair game to say that every Government pass regulations in a way which cannot be properly questioned or supervised by Parliament and that therefore, to that degree, the democratic processes of our country are being polluted. T think that everybody says that in Opposition. But, as regards these particular provisions, I wish to point out that we are aware of the fundamental importance of the modified compensation provisions to the concept of the Bill.
As has been said, a consultation paper was issued in September 1980 to local authorities, the industry and others with an interest in the proposed content of the regulations. That is still the subject of discussion. The aim is to provide a workable formula to interpret the reasonable contribution which the Stevens Committee recommended the industry should pay. The formula is likely to be both complex and detailed and is, therefore, not really suited to primary legislation. Equally important, the formula is likely to need to be changed from time to time—in other words to be up-dated—and regulations provide a certain flexibility in this regard which primary legislation certainly does not. We do not want to impose too great a burden on either industry or mineral planning authorities. Nevertheless, because of the importance of the regulations, they will be subject to the procedures of an Affirmative Resolution of both Houses.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, if the noble Earl is moving on from that point, I should like to ask him a question about this. I take the point that the regulations have to be up-dated, but that is for the future. I want to know, quite clearly and plainly, whether we in this House shall have a sight of the original regulations—the regulations before they were up-dated or changed—while this Bill is proceeding. As I said, I am not very happy about the legislation going through and then, by Affirmative or even Negative Resolution, having these regulations put down. I think that we should know—and this has been said on all three sides of this House—what, in fact, is contained in the regulations; that is to say, the basis of the compensation.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I had not quite reached the end of my remarks because I was going to give the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, such undertaking as I am able to give. He said that he thought the regulations should be available by the time the Bill, hopefully, receives its Third Reading

531
in your Lordships' House. On that, I can simply say that we shall certainly try to give a firm indication of our thinking. But I must repeat that there has been a consultative paper, and a great deal of detailed consultative work has already taken place. Therefore, I do not anticipate that there will be any surprise about the regulations when they are published. Further than that I cannot go and, on reflection, I think that the House would scarcely wish me to at this particular stage of the Bill.
On past dereliction, there is already a system of derelict land grants which can be used to restore the effects of old mineral workings, such as those mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. We do not think that there is a need for this Bill to do more on this specific matter. The Government have undertaken to reconsider a separate allocation for derelict land reclamation grant if local authority associations consider this necessary.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, if my noble friend will be good enough to give way, I can tell him now that it is not adequate. Nothing less than 100 per cent. will be sufficient.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I take my noble friend's point. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, raised a number of very detailed points, and my noble friend or I will write to him. The five-year after-care period is needed for agriculture and forestry, because without it land is not properly restored. We do not believe that the same considerations apply to other situations, such as recreational uses. As to another point that the noble Lord raised, a certificate of completion certifies that restoration has been completed. If working has been abandoned, the planning authority can revoke the planning permission under the procedures proposed in the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Mottistone raised what I might call a vicarious point on behalf of our noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood; that is to say, the use of minerals by farmers. If necessary, the position could be covered by further amendments to the General Development Order. My noble friend Lord Nugent has already made his position plain. There have already been surveys of derelict land, and I believe that the way forward now is for local authorities to develop proposals for particular sites. We hope that the industry will wish to be fully involved in this process, and we are willing to do what we can to assist. I am all too aware of my noble friend's dissatisfaction with the level of grants which are available under existing legislation. One hopes that eventually the resources will become available to improve them, but one cannot see it for the moment.
My noble friend Lord Rochdale raised a point about time periods under the new Section 51A and Section 49A Orders. I have no doubt that suspension orders will be debated in some considerable detail in Committee. Suffice it if I say for the moment that we think we have the balance about right between the conflicting interests of the environment and the industry. But I want to tell my noble friend that the Government's mind is by no means closed on this matter, and any points which are raised in Committee will be listened to with considerable interest.
532
My noble friend Lord Gisborough raised six points about which he was good enough to warn me by letter in advance. In view of his courtesy, I think that I should do my best to answer them. The first question that he put to me was, in effect: Could the Bill be made to cover the existing areas of development which are not covered by after-care conditions? The answer is, yes. Clauses 7, 8, 23 and 24 empower planning authorities to attach after-care conditions to existing permissions. My noble friend then asked this. As well as returning to agriculture and forestry, can there be a return to more recreational uses, such as golf courses? The answer to that is that there may be occasions when mineral land can subsequently be put to such uses, specialist though they may be, but we believe that it would be more equitable if the new user, rather than the mineral operators, undertook the necessary preparatory work.
Then my noble friend asked whether planning authorities should consult surface owners for mutual benefit on restoration conditions. I can only answer him by saying that it is a matter which will be considered. He asked whether there should be a need to stage after-care—that was reflected in his speech; that is to say, whether one stage should not be started until a previous stage had been completed. That is a matter into which we can go in Committee, to see whether the Bill needs to be amended to cover progressive restoration.
Then my noble friend raised the point—as, I think, did one or two other noble Lords—that grants should be given to remove existing slag heaps and, therefore, no planning consent should be necessary, if heaps are worked, to remove them as opportunities arise. Of course, this is something which farmers find important. At present we believe that planning consent should be required for the removal of shale heaps, but in reaching a decision on an application the planning authority will naturally take account of the use to which the material is to be put. Finally, my noble friend raised a point about the definition of "forestry", and whether it should include amenity planting, such as shelter belts. That, too, is a matter of definition which we can go into in Committee.
My noble friend Lord Sandford suggested that district councils should be consulted on the reviews carried out under the provisions of Clause 3. We believe that the reviews must be a county council function in England and Wales, but we have provided that where a county council proposes to make one of the four orders under Clauses 7, 8 and 9, it must consult the district council if it wishes to benefit from the modified compensation arrangements. I hope that in the circumstances my noble friend will feel that this provides an adequate balance between unnecessary bureaucracy and consultation with the interested parties.
I think that that encompasses most of the points put to me, but not that of my noble friend Lord Boardman. I shall look with interest at what he said in the Official Report tomorrow. My noble friend or I will write to him, as desirable. I am very conscious that a winding-up speech on a somewhat complex and complicated Bill such as this is bound to be disjointed, but I hope that my efforts, such as they are, will not

533
prevent your Lordships from giving this Bill a fair wind.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ECC 70th Report: European Social Fund
6.11 p.m.
Lord Wolfenden Lord Wolfenden rose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on the European Social Fund (70th Report, Session 1979–80, H.L. 361).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. In presenting to your Lordships' House this report on the European Social Fund the European Communities Committee have ventured to begin with a very brief history of that fund from its inception up to the present time—well, up to 1978, the latest year for which the Community's documents were available at the time of the committee's deliberations. This narrative occupies the first four pages of the report; and for much of the material in it we are indebted to our specialist adviser, Dr. Doreen Collins of the University of Leeds, a recognised authority, whose professional erudition and untiring attention to the committee's affairs I should like to acknowledge here. At the same time I would wish to pay tribute to Mr. John Turnbull, the clerk to Sub-Committee C, who bore the often vexatious heat and burden with unfailing thoroughness and indomitable good humour.
It may be that much of what is contained in this section of the report is already familiar to your Lordships—or maybe not. At least it enabled members of the committee to lay down a firm historical base for their inquiries and subsequent conclusions. My second word is of thanks to all those who gave evidence to the committee, written or oral or both. That evidence included valuable memoranda from the TUC, from the Development Commission, and, for those who are more numerate than I, from the European Court of Auditors. Especially, in oral evidence, the committee enjoyed conferring with Mr. Vredeling, the vice-president of the Commission—and we look forward to close and frequent relations with Mr. Ivor Richard—and with the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, who, in the middle of a particularly busy spell last July, enlivened and enlightened the committee considerably from his intimate departmental knowledge of these matters.
All this evidence will be found in the appendices to the report. I have heard it said in relation to documents of this kind that readers can be divided into two mutually exclusive categories; those who read the report but never look at the appendices, and those who read all the appendices but never look at the report. I dare to hope that this time there may be two, three, or even four Members of your Lordships' House who may have the interest and the conscientiousness and the perseverence to read, mark, learn and inwardly digest the whole lot.
The committee then, after the historical introduction, deal with the European Social Fund in the broad Community context before going on to examine its application and use in the United Kingdom. And
534
finally, your committee offer nine conclusions which are actually set out in the form of recommendations or exhortations.
Before I turn to a consideration of some of these conclusions, may I make one point which will be well known to many of your Lordships but perhaps not to all? The European Social Fund is not a "social" fund in the ordinary English meaning of that adjective. It is not primarily, but only secondarily or even incidentally, concerned with what in this country we call social problems. It is primarily and fundamentally a training and retraining fund, basically concerned with those problems, throughout the Community, which arise from the need to train men and women (especially young ones) for work, and to retrain for other work those who for one reason or another have lost the work they had.
There is a second general point to be made, so obvious that it is easily overlooked but basic to an understanding of the fund's operation. It is simply that between the date of the inception of the fund and the present day the whole economic picture in the states which constitute the Community has radically and disastrously changed. Since 1971 unemployment has become endemic throughout the Community, and there seems to be little immediate prospect of renewed economic growth within the Community as a whole. The background of the fund's activities has changed in such a way that the perspective of those activities must be adapted correspondingly if it is to preserve any credibility and effectiveness. This situation, I suppose, is likely to be aggravated rather than ameliorated by the further extension of Community membership.
Against that background, my next observation must be of a plainly stark and gruesome kind; namely, the underlying fact (perhaps "overriding" would be a more appropriate adjective) is that the budget allocation of the Social Fund in 1978 was 4·4 per cent. of the total estimated expenditure of the Community in that year. Without making contentious comparisons with other budget items, 1 think your committee is justified in calling 4·.4 per cent. an inadequate share for the work which the fund ought to be undertaking throughout the Community.
It is hardly surprising that this minute allocation was in 1978 oversubscribed to the tune of 93·3 per cent.; that is, legitimate applications amounted to almost twice the amount of money that the fund had available. I know that it is customary nowadays to prefix the adjective "inadequate" with horrific adverbs like "totally", "grossly", "manifestly". If I just say "inadequate", I shall stand, like a distinguished public servant under parliamentary cross-examination in 1773, astonished at my own moderation. Your Lordships will not be surprised that this point is made more than once in your committee's report. How far this gloomy situation is likely to be remedied in the near future it is impossible to say in the uncertainty, not to say chaos, which still surrounds the Community budget for 1981.
After those prolegomena, may I now, very briefly, call attention to four of your committee's conclusions, leaving to others the opportunity of filling in the gaps which I deliberately leave. Each one of these conclusions exemplifies one or other of the intricacies of the fund's nature and operations. The first concerns

535
the problem of youth unemployment, which your committee had no hesitation in describing as "potentially catastrophic". There is, I am sure, no need for me to labour this point today, especially as it is a major concern of another committee of this House. But it must be said, bluntly and without equivocation, that unless young people receive some further education and training after they leave school a great many of them will grow up to be unemployable, especially in a future where higher and higher skills are certain to be demanded.
This is not a problem confined to any one member state; it is Community-wide and industry-wide. It is true, and welcome, that the social fund has paid increasing attention to these young people in recent years. But in 1978 the fund's provision under this heading was 31 per cent. of its budget; that is, 31 per cent. of 4.4 per cent. of the whole Community budget, which is, if my arithmetic serves, just over £100 million for these millions of young people who are at very grave risk with possible consequences nobody dares predict.
My second point is less sombre, vexatious rather than crucial, tiresome rather than desperate. It concerns simply the cumbersome nature of some of the Commission's procedures and documentation. To help intending applicants, the Commission produces guidelines setting out areas of the fund's activities, priorities which it observes and detailed criteria which govern the selection process when, as at present, applications amount to double the amount of money available. The result is a document which would effectively deter any but the most determined and persistent applicant.
Further, there are changes in the guidelines from time to time—rightly, since priorities change—so that applicants must be up-to-date and on-the-ball as well as tenacious and undauntable. The guidelines being mastered, there is an application form to complete, equally formidable and indigestible. Of course it is not easy to produce forms and instructions which cover the different training patterns and systems of 10 member states, but there is no doubt that the existing documents are in themselves a serious deterrent to the non-expert would-be applicant. It would perhaps help towards simplification of these documents if they had to be approved, as at present is not required, by the European Parliament.
My third point concerns what is rather inelegantly called the principle of "additionality". It is central to the whole concept and purpose of the fund that any grant it makes towards any scheme of training or retraining should be additional to any expenditure which the government of the relevant member state undertakes on that scheme. Broadly speaking, one-half comes from public funds in the country concerned and up to one-half from the social fund. It is not the fund's purpose to provide money which will be deducted from a member state's own proposed outlay on a scheme and so save it money. Rather, its purpose is to stimulate Governments into expenditure which, without help from the fund, they would not have undertaken.
It is of course, to put it mildly, not easy to ensure that all Governments all the time carry out this obliga-
536
tion in full. Let me leave it at that. But there is the further disagreeable consequence that when a government finds it necessary to reduce its expenditure in these fields, it loses pro tanto any hope of assistance from the fund. Then we are only a move or two away from the harsh fact that countries which are too poor to spend much in these ways draw less from the fund than their more affluent fellow member states, so that the more they need help from the fund the less chance they have of getting it. The principle of additionality, one might say, cuts both ways.
My fourth comment may become complicated, but I will keep it as simple as I can, even if over-simplification leads to some shortfall in strict accuracy. Each member state is required by the Community to appoint one contact organisation for its dealings with the fund. In the United Kingdom this is the Department of Employment, some of whose duties in this regard are to provide information to intending applicants, to help them in the framing of their applications, to forward to Brussels applications which are eligible and to keep in touch with the staff of the Commission.
Besides the applications which arise from the public sector there are applicants from the private sector, individual firms and voluntary bodies, who must be sponsored by some organisation or institution agreed between the Commission and the Department of Employment. In relation to the voluntary bodies, many of whom are eager to help, for instance with the education and training of migrants or the handicapped, the National Council of Voluntary Organisations has done and is doing valuable work in information, help and advice. It would seem that this work could well be extended, not of course in competition with the Department of Employment but in collaboration with it, especially in those spheres where the applicants might be more familiar with the idiom—if I may call it that—of the National Council of Voluntary Organisations than with the idiom of a Government department. It might even turn out that, in certain areas of application, the NCVO might be accepted as a partner with the department in validation and sponsorship.
This is the first time that your committee has ever examined and reported on the European Social Fund. It is perhaps surprising that such a major policy or policy instrument of the Community has not received more attention in the past. I therefore take this opportunity to raise, before I resume my seat, two questions which seem to be fundamental. The first, simply, is this: What is the point of having a European Social Fund at all? I would not presume to offer anything like a comprehensive answer to such a basic question, especially at this time, but I would offer one thought which may seem almost pitifully naïve. We arc talking and thinking and operating in terms of a European Community. In the smaller communities to which we all belong—our families, villages, streets and workplaces—we expect and almost take for granted a degree of concern from each member of that community for each of the other members. I suggest that the European Social Fund is the instrument or vehicle through which a corresponding concern may be felt and exercised in the broader context of the community of Europe to which we stand committed.
Finally, why is it in the interest of our own country

537
that such a fund should exist? In recent years we in the United Kingdom have not done at all badly from it proportionately and comparatively with other member states. From the point of view of sheer self-interest, the fund's attractiveness to us may be reduced as other, comparatively poorer, countries join the Community. We shall certainly not cease to benefit from it, especially in those areas where we most need help. But I repeat, we are talking about a Community, and I for one should be sorry and sad to think that our interest in the European Social Fund was wholly governed, even in these hard days, by nothing but self-interest. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on the European Social Fund (70th Report, Session 1979–80, H.L. 361).—(Lord Wolfenden.)
6.29 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, it is all too well known that the European Community no longer has the popular support which as little as five years ago it seemed to possess. It now has an opportunity, if it will take it, to show how relevant the Community can be to the problems which confront ordinary people in this country, and it is only by establishing its relevance to the problems of the ordinary people that the imagination of the voters, and therefore the enthusiasm of Governments, can be recaptured. It is perhaps sad that that relevance springs from the horrors of unemployment which we are enduring today and which there is little doubt we shall continue to endure for months and probably years.
As the noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, has already indicated, the Social Fund was established under the terms of the Treaty at a time when the problems facing the Community were of a quite different order from the problems of today, and in those days it was perhaps not unreasonable that the distribution of resources in the Community should have been established along the lines which then in fact took shape.
But the Community is a moving, an alive, and a dynamic institution—otherwise it cannot possibly endure. The problems have changed so greatly since the Community was established and since the Social Fund was set up, and so it is surely reasonable and right that the handling of the budget of the Community, and the way in which the Social Fund is used, should change to meet the changing needs of a Community in which the economy and the social position of so many of its citizens have altered so drastically and so very much for the worse. Therefore this opportunity for the Community to show its relevance has to do with the way in which the Community can help to alleviate the problems of unemployment, and indeed to forestall the development of still more serious unemployment, with which we are threatened.
It seems to me that there are in particular two areas of activity with which the Social Fund is peculiarly suitable to deal, and indeed one at least of these aspects can be dealt with adequately only if it is handled on a Community scale, and if we do not attempt to deal with such problems purely on a national scale. Of course that becomes more difficult the more people forget the idea of a European Community and the more that they tend to think of it as a collection of individual nation
538
states, each fighting to get the best possible pickings out of the Community in their own short-term interests.
The first and major contribution that surely must come has to do with what is, and since the beginning of the Treaty has been, at the heart of the purpose of the Community—the restructuring of industry. Any of us who has looked in any depth at the problem of unemployment must be convinced that, whatever palliatives are introduced in order to deal short-term with unemployment problems, the only longer-term and enduring solution is for a fairly drastic restructuring of industry in the industrialised countries as the less-developed countries become more developed and present a more serious competition, but at the same time a growing opportunity. That restructuring was of course very much in the minds of the founding fathers of the Community, and the major purpose of the Social Fund in its early days was to alleviate the pain that such restructuring would inevitably cause.
If that were necessary in the days when the Treaty of Rome was passed and when the Social Fund was set up, it is far more necessary today. It needs to be a European initiative, a Community initiative, envisaging the restructuring of the old industry on a Community scale, and backed by resources to enable that restructuring to be carried out with a minimum of hardship.
The Social Fund has been set up in order to provide for training and retraining of adults and youngsters, too. The retraining of adults is a subject that we have often talked about in your Lordships' House, but may I once again underline that there is abundant evidence that a very large proportion of people, to a much greater age than used to be so considered, are capable of retraining, of going into new work, of learning new skills, if the resources are there—both the financial resources to support them while the training is going on, and the technical resources to provide training of a modern kind which can revolutionise the opportunities to learn new skills.
So for that purpose the Social Fund was set up; but, as the noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, has said, it was on a scale that was totally inadequate for dealing with the restructuring needs on which future employment prospects for the Community as a whole depend. We must urge Her Majesty's Government to put their whole weight behind securing a redistribution of resources, so that the Social Fund has more money for this purpose, and to be prepared also to see more national resources go to the Community, so that the fund can not only draw on moneys that are already there but also have available additional resources.
Linked with the problem of the restructuring of industry is the problem of the immediate alleviation of unemployment today, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, has said, in particular the alleviation of unemployment among young people and school-leavers. I would ask your Lordships, if you do nothing else in relation to the report, at least to look at paragraph 19 and to brood upon it, for it contains a horrible and terrifying message. Paragraph 19 says that 35 per cent. of all school-leavers in the Community get no training after they leave school, and it adds that it is likely that many of them will not have regular employment during their so-called working lives.
That problem is made more serious by the restructuring which we must have. Two aspects of

539
the problem are closely interrelated. The kind of restructuring that we need will reduce the demand for unskilled people. The percentage of unskilled people in the employed population will become smaller the more effective the restructuring and the greater the move into the higher technology industries. So while the fact that 35 per cent. of school-leavers receive no training is already serious, it becomes very much more serious as we take the measures which we need to take in order to secure employment prospects as a whole. Thus we need to see that the 35 per cent. is greatly reduced and that as a Community we do not go on complacently allowing that proportion of school-leavers to have nothing that they can sell on the labour market except time and physical strength, as the demand for people with nothing but time and physical strength becomes less and less while the years go by.
This is a matter of the greatest possible urgency, and it is absurd to leave it to 4 per cent. of the Community budget, a budget which in any case is not enormous in its total. If it could be shown that the Community was really making an effective contribution to long-term employment prospects, an effective contribution here and now to cutting down unemployment among youngsters, and to seeing that there are fewer and fewer youngsters who have no skills to sell, then in popular regard the Community would rise in respect throughout this country; and we have the opportunity to press that that should be done.
There are other, perhaps smaller, matters which relate to the need to focus on that question and to take action in connection with it. As the noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, has said, at present the applications to the Community all have to be routed through the Department of Employment. The Community in Brussels is accused of being excessively bureaucratic, and certainly there is some evidence to support the accusation. We do not want to compound that by being excessively bureaucratic in this country; we do not want to catch the Community bureaucratic disease. Is it really necessary that all applications should go through the channel that I have mentioned? As the noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, has said, it is a complicated and frustrating business. Some of us have managed to get by, through, and under the regulations, but that requires much ingenuity. Is it not possible that reputable voluntary organisations, that schemes which have been backed by reputable trusts which are prepared to put up the money, should be able to go direct to Brussels and obtain money for what they want to do, informing the Department of Employment, so that it knows the total picture, but by-passing all the bureaucratic machinery?
Surely we want people in this country to feel that this is a popular Community in both senses—a Community which is well regarded, but also a Community to which the people in this country can have access; to which they can take schemes which at local level they believe to be valuable for the development of their local communities, and that they can go to Brussels and get backing for them. I cannot believe that, with determination, it would not be possible to open Brussels up to a far wider range of applicants without running any serious risk that resources will be badly
540
wasted. Because it is very plain that a great deal of the improvement in the employment position is going to come, not so much from large-scale schemes developed from the centre but from a multiplicity of small schemes springing up from the grass roots, where at local level people have the conviction that there is some new work, some new activity, that they can get going. If they can get support for this, with some backing, perhaps, from voluntary organisations, by going directly to Brussels, then I believe that not only will this help considerably the unemployment position but it will have a very big effect on changing the attitude toward the Community.
I wonder, too, whether it is not possible to bring pressure to bear to modify the requirement of the 50 per cent. funding. Of course, I can very well understand why this has been laid down. There are certain circumstances in which 50 per cent. funding from the applicant country is not required. It already exists in the Community regulations; there is precedent for it. Surely it would be possible to devise schemes whereby, for areas or for groups of people where the need is very great, assistance can be obtained from Brussels without the 50 per cent. funding from the applicant country. For example, areas of very high unemployment or particular categories of youngsters might be eligible for treatment in this way. Otherwise, in many cases, especially if you are going to allow for a wider range of applications, as one would very much like to see, the ones who need it most are not going to be able to find it at all easy to get financial backing for the schemes that they want to see adopted.
In all these ways there is a great possibility for the European Community, through the extension of the Social Fund, to prove its value and its worth to ordinary people in this country. It means, of course, that the Government have got to give a high priority to getting results in bringing about changes in the Community. It will do this, of course, only if it is seen that there are the funds available to do effective jobs, to meet needs. We are in a double bind, in that there is so little support for the Community that there is very little public steam behind the idea that we should improve Community institutions, that we should give them more resources, and that in doing this we will make it a far more effective institution.
Here, it is surely for the Government to give the lead. We are members of the Community. The noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, has said that it is a community. It was perhaps necessary that at the beginning we should indulge in a fair amount of bickering. We have been told that that is now behind us. We do not want to draw up a very detailed profit and loss account showing how much we put in and how much we get out. We want, surely, now to come out as good members of the Community who see that it is only by working at Community level that we can solve our own problems.
6.44 p.m.
Lord Plant: My Lords, when M. Spaak gave impetus to the idea of a European Social Fund to assist in the "re-adaption of labour", there was generally full employment in the Community and, indeed, throughout Western Europe as a whole. It is not so today. In the United Kingdom we are approaching 2½ million unemployed—as many as were unemployed in the

541
whole of Western Europe when the European Social Fund was created. Readaption of labour meant training workers for employment and for better and more useful jobs, and the encouragement of retraining to achieve geographical resettlement. Today it is different.
The title of the fund is misleading. Its title gives an indication of social welfare, whereas the rules make it clear that the fund deals only with training problems over a relatively narrow field of categories. The report makes it clear that some urgent attention is needed for publicity for the fund and its title, so that the man in the street can more clearly see the help available from the Common Market. As my noble friend Lord Wolfenden has said, this is the first time there has been an in-depth public review of the working of the fund, which is a major instrument of European Economic Community policy. A long-term understanding of the political objectives of the fund is needed if public and parliamentary opinion is to insist that the European Social Fund should have a greater share of the EEC resources. More publicity and informed debate is needed. The European Parliament must pay more attention to the allocation of money to the fund, and its work.
For an application to be successful in Brussels it must be supported by a public authority, and then the European Social Fund will meet half the cost of the project, the remainder being met by the public authority. Here I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has said about having a further look at the question of the 50 per cent. figure. It follows that if the Government engage in economies in this field then there will be less support from the European Social Fund. For example, if the Manpower Services Commission is denied funds to cover its half of the cost, less is obtained from the Social Fund. It would be inexcusable if the Government reduced its potential for retraining to meet industrial and technological change.
One of the complaints mostly made is about the complexity of the application forms. It is wrong, in my view, that applicants feel it necessary that they should go to Brussels personally to present their case. Simplified administrative arrangements ought to be considered. Since 1973 the United Kingdom has averaged 23 per cent. of the Social Fund disbursements. In 1979 we received 26 per cent. We are getting our share. Training of young people gets most of our grant. Over 50 per cent. was utilised for first-time job seekers under 25. This came under the Manpower Services Commission's Youth Opportunity Scheme.
The European Social Fund Advisory Committee is tripartite, the TUC and the CBI playing their full part. The TUC wants the fund strengthened and revitalised. Present economy forecasts suggest that the criteria for assistance be extended in particular to meet the wider training of women and to deal with long-term unemployment. Here I again support the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, in underlining this particular issue. In the last 10 years long-term unemployment has increased fourfold. Today, nearly half-a-million adults have been unemployed for over a year. The fund as constituted does not help with this considerable problem. The TUC supports the proposed allocation of £7·5 million to assist in the retraining and resettlement
542
of workers in British Shipbuilders. I hope that the Government will similarly support it.
I am sure that this House will be grateful to the many people in Brussels and elsewhere who do so much to try to meet applications from inadequate resources. Here, I would pay tribute to the chairman of our Committee, Lord Wolfenden, who guided us very expertly in this quite difficult task. Perhaps I could also mention that during our discussions I inevitably sat next to Lord Wall, who is unfortunately no longer with us. I should like to pay tribute to all the work he did on this inquiry. With many industries declining there is urgent need for more money for the fund to improve employment opportunities for workers in the Common Market and, ultimately, to improve our standard of living.
6.50 p.m.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to take part in this debate. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, for putting the matter before the House in such a clear way. I should like to pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for the work that she has done in the past for this committee and also for her speech today. I am certain that all members of the committee would like to join in thanks to the Clerks for their help. I want to refer to page xxiii in the summary of main conclusions. I should like to support the fact that the MEPs should study the method of working the fund and keep an interest in the manner in which the money is allocated. It seems to me very odd that neither the European Parliament nor the Economic and Social Committee is directly involved in the right to be consulted before the Council of Ministers take a major decision upon us. I feel that it is very necessary to interest the MEPs in regard to this fund because this is the only way we are going to get any attention in the European Parliament.
We discussed the question of the guidelines. We asked a question of one of the MEPs who came before us. He said that there is no parliamentary scrutiny of the guidelines as they are adapted each year. He quoted—and I am quoting him:
"The Commission is an extremely interesting animal to deal with because it is at one level Civil Service and, at another level, holder of the political initiative".
At the present time—and it has been mentioned already—applications go through the Ministry of Employment, but it is interesting to note that Greece has no funding system and I understand there may have to be a change when Greece comes in fully and also Portugal and Spain, because the guidelines cannot apply to them. I should like to suggest they may need to have an ad hoc grant. If we are going to have to change the guidelines, let us try to make them better for all countries concerned.
I am a little worried about the number of allocations that go to Government departments: for example, the Manpower Services Commission, and the Department of Manpower Services. We really have no idea what they spent the money on. There were other organisations, such as the textile industry. These are laid out in a report in detail showing what they receive and the names of the firms. Then you get occasionally the handicapped people. St. Loyes' College is an exception, being a voluntary organisation. It is stated that

543
this is because it is very proficient and good at retraining. It would be interesting to have further details of how the money is allocated, especially in the training of women.
Also, on page 18, we are given an idea by a witness on behalf of voluntary organisations of the difficulty he had. He said that he had to fight his way through queues of enthusiastic Irishmen from voluntary organisations when he went to Brussels. But he was successful in getting what he wanted. What I am worried about is what will happen to the future of the National Council of Voluntary Organisations. I understand they have had to close down their Brussels desk and to cease publication of their Inside Europe. They can afford only one member of staff and a secretary for European affairs. Surely this is a time for this organisation to be given extra money. At present it is funded mainly on the Voluntary Services Unit of the Home Office. Could the noble Earl say whether it would be possible to approach the Department of Employment to help this admirable voluntary organisation which co-ordinates so many of the voluntary organisations in this country that are doing an excellent job. Also, there is the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas which is wholly financed by the Development Commission, and this is very successful. I mention this because I think it is interesting to note that they train new entrants and have eight different trades, varying from four years to two years in the training period. Sixty-three students are training at present and 90 per cent. of the trainees who have completed their courses have remained in their trade and have set up their own businesses.
I should like to make one or two suggestions. It would appear (as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden) that in 1978 only 4·4 per cent. of the Community budget was allocated to the European Social Fund, whereas 70 per cent. went to the CAP. I can understand when this fund was first set up that it was necessary to help with retraining of people from agriculture; but surely this amount now needs reconsideration as the industrial situation (as mentioned previously) is causing additional funds to be needed. And there is a minor point which would facilitate the working of the committee. When distinguished members from the Commission come over to give evidence and prefer to give evidence in their own language, this takes a great deal of time. I should like them to send a copy of their evidence in English. At the moment, they read it out in their own language and it has to be translated. A prior translation would enable members of the committee to consider what questions they might ask when the witnesses come. It would be advantageous both for the members from the Commission and also for the members asking questions.
There have been some successes. The Training Opportunities Scheme for all adults completing courses in 1978 resulted in some 73 per cent. being in employment three months after completing their course. For handicapped school-leavers, in the case of the Queen Elizabeth Foundation for the Disabled, it was in the order of 32 per cent. in the first three years being able to be entirely self-supporting. In my opinion, it would be advantageous for more British civil servants to have the opportunity to go to Brussels.
544
This might help them know how the money is allocated and what is going on in other countries. Often when you want to compare one country with another and ask what is happening in Holland, Belgium or France, it is not known. It would be a good thing for them to go over more frequently so as to obtain more knowledge.
I hope that this debate will be widely read because I think it is essential, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has said, that the general public should know more of what is going on. I hope also—and I refer to Recommendation No. 8—that the Department of Employment will increase its provision for publicity, information and advice to intending applicants for grants from the fund. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Plant, has gone. I wanted to say that I thought that the recommendations on pages 11 to 14 by the TUC were excellent, well-balanced and helpful. Also, we have had some very constructive work by them in this regard. I am glad to end by saying that it is a great pleasure to have the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, to wind up. He gave us sympathetic answers to our questions when he came before the committee.
6.58 p.m.
Lord Chitnis: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, for introducing this debate, as I am to him for steering us through the discussions in the committee when we were talking about the fund. As he and every other participant in the debate has said so far, the most important thing about the fund is that it should have a proper set of priorities and sufficient funds to tackle them. In this context, although we are debating the activities of the fund in the financial year 1978, none the less it was depressing to read recently that the money available to the fund for 1980 represented an increase of only 10 per cent. on its inadequate 1979 resources. But I do not want to dwell on that. I should like to talk about the lesser but by no means insignificant aspect of the fund—its administration.
The noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, described the problem of the fund's procedures as vexatious and tiresome rather than crucial. I would put it higher than that, because unless the procedures of the fund are simple, access to it and the benefits it can supply will be too difficult for many, particularly those outside the official system, and thus opportunities will be lost. Complaints about the complexities of the fund's procedures and administration was a theme which ran through the evidence given to the committee. I accept that there is only the slightest of similarities between administering the European Social Fund and a relatively small private trust. But certainly I would be ashamed if when numbers of applicants were asked if there was any point they wished to make about the trust which I administer, unanimously they complained about its methods and procedure.
In the evidence given to the committee about the fund, the representatives of the Engineering Industry Training Board asked for a clearer set of guidelines and, astonishingly, even had to complain about the quality of the photocopied application forms they received. Mr. Smith, of the Queen Elizabeth Foundation for the Disabled, pleaded for simplicity, and a less baffling form on which to claim grants and described

545
the quality of existing ones as a disgrace. Mr. Abbott, of the London Council for Social Service, complained about the time taken to pay grants, and the method of paying them. The last word from the Society of Education Officers was to plead for more straightforward and simple language. The CBI thought:
"the procedures of the fund could be significantly improved".
Mr. Vredeling was moved to confess that the guidelines had been rather complicated in the past.
It is not surprising that Mr. Vredeling spoke as he did, because no fair person could doubt the validity of the complaints. The new guidelines for 1981–3 are printed as an appendix to the report and have, according to Mr. Vredeling, been simplified. Even so, some paragraphs, notably in the first section, are very complicated. For example, I accept that if your Lordships read paragraph 1.4 on Weighted Reduction very carefully two or three times, it is quite intelligible, and in any case it is describing a complicated formula. It is, though, the sort of paragraph which non-experts could find very daunting. Then, as the noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, said, an applicant will be faced with an extraordinary application form. This is also reproduced in the report. Even if he is lucky enough to have a perfect photocopy, an applicant will conclude, as I do, that there must be a simpler way of obtaining details and costs of the projected activity—and his feelings will be certainly echoed by the typist who has to type every single letter and figure in exactly the right spot on the form.
Having filled the form in and sent it off, he must hope the guidelines are not changed while it is being considered, thus nullifying it. If he is successful, he will find that payment of his grant is by no means straightforward. If the applicant is a well staffed and well equipped Government department, with no cash flow problems, he will survive to the end of the course; if he is from a private organisation with ordinary resources, and lacks the determination of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who could blame him for falling on the way—or being daunted from setting out on the obstacle course at all? The noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, suggested that the fund's documents should be approved by the European Parliament: my own suggestion is that they be subject to scrutiny at the offices of the Plain English Campaign!
Having said that Government departments have an advantage in the application process, for those of them that do make the grade, a particular form of torture has been devised, but this is not the fault of the European Social Fund. The noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, made some reference to it. As the Development Commission told the Committee in evidence:
"all United Kingdom receipts relating to Government organisations go to the Exchequer instead of to the applicants".
As the Development Commission went on, this means that applicants of this kind will have gone to immense labour, yet derive no direct financial benefit. On this question, I recall an exchange on 29th October last between the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, when the Minister was asked whether money received from the European Social Fund would be used in addition to British Treasury money. The noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, said that it could be argued that the European Social Fund money
546
is simply Treasury money in the first place. No doubt it could be so argued, but this thinking seems to be directly contrary to the purpose of the fund.
To return to the difficulties encountered by applicants, it was represented to the committee that much of this complexity was inevitable, given the different procedures in each of the member states. My main reason for doubting the validity of this point is that there is some evidence that the administration for pilot schemes is much simpler and easier. I have talked to two successful applicants for pilot scheme funding and been impressed by their account of speedy treatment and a refreshing lack of bureaucracy. If it is possible in those cases, could not a vast improvement be made in the procedures for dealing with the bulk of the fund? My only complaint about pilot schemes is a different point, which is that I suspect that not enough is done to publicise the results of what are often very interesting schemes. Clearly what the European Social Fund needs most of all is more resources for the vast job it has to do. I hope not only that increased resources will be forthcoming but that simultaneously the procedures for their release can be simplified.
7.5 p.m.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, I apologise to the House for speaking, but with the absence of one noble Lord who was to be the last speaker before we have the pleasure of hearing the winding-up of my noble friend and the speech from the Government, I will trespass on the time of the House for three minutes or so because this is one of the most interesting debates that we have had this week and I hope that more will be heard. Unfortunately, I probably would be right if I said that not 10 people in a thousand that you would meet in the street could define what the European Social Fund is because many of them would be looking at it from the point of view of old-fashioned social security.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, aptly, succinctly and logically said, the purpose was looking at this from the point of view of the reconstruction of industry, The noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, is an expert and has explained to the House that originally we were looking at the reconstruction of Europe at a time when, as my noble friend Lord Plant pointed out, there were less unemployed in the whole of Europe than we have today in Britain. I think first and foremost that one of the tragic facts of the world in which we now live is unemployment.
As a young student and from my experience in my Welsh grammar school, I saw young men who went up to the sixth form with me who years later had no employment. They had first-class IQs—a terrible word. But one of the sad facts which we have heard tonight is that 35 per cent. —and I will be corrected if my figures are wrong, but the general contention will be right—of the youngsters leaving school today, boys and girls, over the whole of the European Community, have no education afterwards.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, aptly pointed out again, we are in a world that is different and is reconstructing. One of the priorities of this fund should be towards the child who is leaving school. We are gradually getting rid of the redbrick and the Oxford and Cambridge university snobbery and realising the importance of the polytechnics and the technical colleges in

547
man's modern constructive society. I should therefore like to see a change in direction in the European Community, and in Britain itself, and more emphasis being given to further education—even if it is compulsory—in regard to the technical know-how of the world in which we are now living, with the microchip and all the modern computer systems.
I mentioned yesterday that the day of muscles and shovels is moving to the day when aptitude and ability will be needed. The technical colleges can assist children leaving school and this fund should be looking at this aspect. My Lords, I promised to speak for three minutes and my three minutes is up. I am grateful to the House for allowing my short intervention.
7.8 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, and indeed to his committee for having produced such a comprehensive report on the operation of the Social Fund during 1978. I am sure your Lordships will appreciate the tremendous amount of personal endeavour that had to go into examining the numerous regulations governing the fund, the amendments that have taken place to those regulations, and indeed the somewhat complex evidence that came before Sub-Committee C when they were advising the committee on various aspects of the Social Fund.
As the noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, correctly pointed out, the name "Social Fund" gives no real clue as to its significance. It is fundamentally concerned in Articles 4 and 5 respectively with labour retraining and resettlement, and Article 5 deals, by financial support, with the traditional difficulties in various countries which are of a structural or regional nature. It is quite inevitable that in the times in which we are now living some very considerable emphasis has been given to the necessity of helping in one way or another the growing number of those who swell the ranks of youth unemployment. The point has been well made by most speakers this evening and was emphasised in particular by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear.
In approaching this question we have to take a stance. Are we directly and fundamentally concerned with the welfare of the unemployed themselves and in particular the young unemployed, or are we concerned with ensuring that the Community gives the appearance —I am using the words of the noble Baroness—of doing something or of establishing the relevance of the Community as such? Are we satisfied with that emphasis rather than with the fate of individuals, of which there are millions throughout Europe at this time?
If we are concerned with people as distinct from being concerned with establishing or maintaining the respectability of institutions, then I think we have to take a slightly different look at it because by all accounts the amount of the Social Fund of the European Community is pitifully small. In money terms it is in fact much lower than the administrative costs of the Commission in Brussels, which in 1980 amounted to no less than £421 million under Titles 1 and 2 of the Commission budget. The funds available to the
548
Social Fund in 1978, translated into money terms, totalled £381 million, to cover the various problems supposed to be dealt with throughout the length and breadth of Europe and in particular the problems of those regions in Europe which are poorer than the remainder.
By all accounts, the amount to be spent in Europe as a whole in support of the objectives of the Social Fund is manifestly minuscule, almost derisory. The noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, gave a clue to its magnitude when he said it was only 4.4 per cent. of the Community budget—a smaller percentage than the administrative cost of Brussels itself and its outpost.
How, therefore, can we pretend, and indeed why should we try to pretend, that this particular aspect of Community activity is of any material significance at this time? It is not good for the people of this country that they should be deluded into thinking that in this particular respect the European Economic Community as such has anything very material to offer. Indeed, I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, for reminding me, when he referred to the answer given to a question by the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, that it was, after all, in effect recycling Treasury money.
On going through the guidelines for the operation of the Social Fund—and I refer here to document C.116 of the 19th May last—I invite the noble Earl, when he comes to reply, to say whether there is anything in those guidelines that imposes on Her Majesty's Government any extra obligation that they would not ordinarily undertake themselves. In other words, of what value to Her Majesty's Government are the guidelines that are proposed in this document for implementation in member states?
On going through them, I cannot find one particular item which must not already have been taken into account by the Department of Employment and by Her Majesty's Government. What point, then, is there in sending our own money to Brussels—we contribute roughly 20 per cent. of the European Social Fund—and receiving back 23 per cent.? I agree that we make a profit of some 3 per cent., and that is excellent: I defend it. I cannot altogether agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, in matters of this kind and I am quite sure it would make the Treasury Bench blench if they were persuaded that the profit and loss in these matters did not really matter. The Treasury cannot talk with a forked tongue. It cannot apply profit and loss considerations for internal consumption within the country, as it is doing at the present time, and then invite us to ignore them overseas. That will not do.
I come back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, when he asked the first of his last two questions: what is the point of the fund? I would agree immediately that if the European Community were to give to social affairs generally the same kind of priorities that it gives to agriculture there would be some point in the fund. Already, as I am quite sure the noble Lord is well aware, the resources of the Community are nearing the limit imposed upon them by the VAT percentage enshrined in the Sixth Directive, and an increase in own resources beyond that I per cent. can be made only by the unanimous agreement of the member states. From what one reads in the press,

549
it would not appear very likely, in view of the stated stance of our fellow member, France.
Indeed, I believe that the right honourable lady the Prime Minister has given no positive indication of this country's willingness, for own resources purposes, to go beyond the 1 per cent. limit imposed by the treaty; but at the same time expenditure of Articles 6, 7 and 8 of the Community budget on agriculture now occupies some 75 per cent. of Community expenditure. There was some hope at one time that that percentage could be brought down; indeed, when Mr. Peter Walker took his initial look at the Common Agricultural Policy he was almost tempted to echo the words of the right honourable lady the Prime Minister that the conduct of the Common Agricultural Policy was almost insane. But since that time there has been a moderation in attitude by the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Agriculture, who now envisages a gradual transition over the next five years. But of more immediate importance, there is the next price review, in May of this year, and nobody knows which way it will go.
One thing is for certain, that the funds of the Community which are available for the Regional Fund and for the Social Fund will be squeezed and squeezed. Is it not better, therefore, to see the existing social fund for what it is; not for what we should like it to be? Is it not far better to echo the words of the former President, Mr. Jenkins, himself, who recently described the Community as being essentially the Common Agricultural Policy with a few peripherals?
We have a choice. We can either make the Community into a living and vibrant thing, by extending the scope of its activities beyond its central core, which is the Common Agricultural Policy, or we can stop pretending that it has any validity whatsoever over and above what Governments themselves are prepared to do about the other social and regional problems, with which the Community is supposed to deal.
I put it to the noble Earl, as a matter of administrative practice, avoidance of complication and elimination of waste, upon which Her Majesty's Government have set very great store, how can he justify, on the basis that this is already Treasury money—and the words are the noble Earl's—that applications go, first, from private organisations or voluntary bodies to the Department of Employment for processing, then on to the Commission, then after that for review by the Consultative Committee, consisting of six from each member state and then back to the Commission again, with ultimately, at some time, payment back to the United Kingdom of what was Treasury money in the first place? How can that be justified? I do not think it can be.
I am not saying that the day may not come when the Community functions as a community, as distinct from functioning as a mere shield for the Common Agricultural Policy, when it may be possible and, indeed, desirable to have these things on a massive scale. But so long as they are merely tokens—and I am quite sure that the noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, will agree with me that, at the moment, they are tokens only—we should not pretend to the public at large that they are any more than tokens. Otherwise, the public will never forgive us for misleading them.
550
This report is in very great detail and it has been most skilfully and carefully drawn up. I cannot help feeling that any noble Lord who reads through it very carefully, bearing in mind the budgetary strictures that I have seen fit to make—because we have to bring these things out into the open here, and there is no point in having a pretence—will substantially agree with me that we are not concerned with the preservation of the image of an institution. We are concerned, fundamentally, with the welfare of people.
7.25 p.m.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I very much welcome the chance that this report gives for us to debate the operation of the European Social Fund. It is, as many noble Lords have said, a relatively little known part of the European Community's activities, and other aspects of Community policy and expenditure normally attract rather more notice. Therefore. I believe that the committee has done a really useful job in its report by illuminating the fund's activities for the benefit of a wider public. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, and his colleagues have gone to a very great deal of trouble to get information and views from those who really know about the operation of the fund. And, if I may say so, the report seems to me to be an excellent example of the kind of study in depth which this House does particularly well.
On behalf of the Government, I should like to thank all those who worked so hard—the noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, especially—and to congratulate them on their good work. May I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, and the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, for their generous remarks about myself. Also, I am delighted to think that the phrase "the Wolfenden Report" may now shine in a rather wider or more useful context than earlier.
I naturally want to concentrate my remarks today on the main points raised by the committee in their report and, of course, on some of the additional points that have come up in the course of the debate. However, before I do that I want to make a few general points about the Social Fund and the United Kingdom's interest in it. As the excellent historical summary at the start of the report shows, the fund goes back to the Treaty of Rome which originally set up the European Community. It reflects the recognition at that time that a dynamic economic community would need to tackle problems of unemployment and changes in patterns of employment, at least in part, at the level of the Community itself.
I must say at this point—I shall come back to some of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, with some of which, to his surprise, I agreed—that the much feared Common Agricultural Policy was in its inception, to some degree, a social, employment and retraining fund and, as such, it was successful. Its problem is not in its success or its inapplicability to Europe. Its problem is in its lack of success and its inapplicability to Great Britain. Of course, it is a major cornerstone of our policy to smooth out that difference, but it takes time. Therefore, these are important objectives. The report also makes clear that the Social Fund, despite its slightly misleading title, which I regret, is thus concerned almost exclusively with employment and training matters.

551
That is why I myself, rather than my noble friend the Foreign Secretary, am dealing with it tonight. It does not extend to providing assistance for schemes of social welfare more generally—though I know that some people regret this. It is, therefore, very important when discussing the fund that we always keep in mind these limitations in its scope.
Over the years since we went in, the United Kingdom has consistently been a net beneficiary from the fund. This has justly reflected the scale of the employment and other problems which we face. Over the years, we have secured an average about 23 per cent. of the fund. Last year, 1980, we were allocated a total of £135 million—that is, 22.7 per cent. of all allocations—for a wide variety of employment and training schemes. These ranged from large national programmes, such as the Youth Opportunities Programme and the Training Opportunities Scheme, down to much smaller projects run by voluntary bodies, as well as individual companies and local authorities.
But given the way in which the fund currently operates—in particular, the absence of fixed national quotas and the excess of eligible applications over available resources—it is never possible to predict accurately from year to year exactly what we shall be allocated. We naturally hope that the fund as it develops—and we want to see it develop—will continue to give as substantial support as possible to the task of resolving the United Kingdom's problems and pre-occupations. The rules are, in fact, due for review by the end of 1982. That review will have to consider the implications of further enlargement of the Community, whether the fund's current priorities are likely to remain appropriate in the late 1980s, and whether changes in the way the fund is administered are required in the light of its rapid expansion. I very much hope that this review will put the fund on a basis which will allow it to play an increasingly important role in the affairs of the Community in the years ahead not least, because of its connection with what the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, called the inevitable restructuring of industry—inevitable, but none the less painful for that, as she herself reminded us.
May I come to the point of the size of the fund's budget, which virtually all noble Lords mentioned. First, the committee has in its work highlighted the gap, which has been persistent in recent years, between the level of eligible applications for assistance and the resources available to the fund. In percentage terms, that gap was narrower in 1979 and 1980 than it was in 1978 but it has nevertheless remained substantial. The Government have no doubt that spending on employment, industrial and regional policies ought to take up a significantly higher proportion of the Community's budget than it does at present. As the noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, pointed out, this is particularly important in the context of the economic problems facing the Community in the 1980s. We have therefore supported the expansion of the Social Fund.
I must add a note of warning. The scope for this is not unlimited except as part of our wider policy of obtaining agreed restructuring within the Community budget itself. The scope is not unlimited because the United Kingdom taxpayer contributes towards the cost of the fund as he does towards other Community
552
policies. We cannot therefore let things rip at Community level while pursuing policies of public expenditure restraint domestically. Other member states who are in much the same position as ourselves in this recession take this view as well.
An additional factor in the next few years will be, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, reminded us, the 1 per cent. VAT limit which will impose an absolute ceiling on Community expenditure. That will make it all the more important for the Community to consider its priorities within the budget. It is realistic therefore to assume that for the foreseeable future it will be necessary, as it has been over the last few years, to find some way of determining priorities among applications. Of course this is very difficult and of course the fund is faced with a variety of competing requests for assistance from different groups of workers and individual countries which at present it is not possible to reconcile completely. The committee's report recognises this, implicity at least, in recommending, to my great pleasure as the Minister responsible in this field, that in particular priority be given to the problem of youth unemployment.
I was rather surprised that my noble friend Lady Vickers, whose speech I very much enjoyed, had no idea what the MSC spend all the money on. Under the policy direction of Ministers they spend it on the Youth Opportunities Programme, on the other special programmes, on training. Lady Vickers mentioned women in this context. Very large numbers of women in the United Kingdom benefit from schemes which secure support from other parts of the fund. For instance, in 1980 the Training Opportunities Programme secured an allocation of over £20 million from the fund. That was almost twice the amount allocated for special women's schemes in the Community as a whole. And 43 per cent. of those people who completed TOPs courses were women. May I also say to my noble friend that we, both Ministers and officials, do go to Brussels. I myself go a great deal, as I am responsible in this field. And we have permanent representatives in Brussels.
I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that we in the Community have common problems and that we are seeking common solutions. The noble Lord will be well aware that it is a cornerstone of our entire foreign policy to try to get these budgetary inequities sorted out. Where the noble Lord and I perhaps part company is in that, though the imbalances within the Community's budget, for the historical and other reasons of the period of its development that were earlier mentioned, are a cornerstone of our foreign policy, we do not think that the European idea, the European venture, or the sheer sound practicality of our training and tariff relations with the Community are limited by the problems we have on the budget, problems which, the Government are proud to say, they have gone a very considerable way—further than any previous Government—towards solving.
May I say another word about youth unemployment. As I said, I am glad that to a significant extent the pattern of spending from the Social Fund indicates that this has come to be a special priority. In 1976, when provision was first made for schemes for young people, the percentage of the fund's budget going to such

553
schemes was only 16 per cent., whereas in 1980 it was almost 40 per cent. That is a priority which the Government wholeheartedly share. Within the limited resources available to us for employment and training programmes in this country, for two years running, we have found scope for major increases in the size of the Youth Opportunities Programme. The Social Fund has contributed substantially towards the cost of this, providing allocations of over £47 million for the Youth Opportunities Programme this year. As the noble Lord, Lord Plant, reminded us, that is out of a total of £71 million for young people's schemes in the United Kingdom. I very much hope that this support from the fund for our efforts will continue and grow. I am sure that the fund must continue to regard support for young people as a major priority because, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, reminded us, this is a restructuring problem which we all share, regardless of individual differences of policy.
I now turn to the question—I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, that it is an inelegant term—of what is termed "additionality of social fund expenditure". May I take this chance to explain to your Lordships the Government's approach to this issue. In deciding between competing priorities for public spending, account is taken of the extent to which assistance might be available from the Community. The general effect of this assistance is that programmes can be sustained at a higher level than would otherwise be the case, but this in turn implies that the Government cannot simply add the money received from the Community to the resources they have already decided to make available for such programmes. To do so would be contrary to the basis on which the programmes had been decided and would drive a coach and horses through any of our attempts to control public spending and keep down the public sector borrowing requirement in order to lower inflation, lower interest rates and release resources for industry to invest and create more permanent jobs.
A further point is that the United Kingdom makes a large contribution—this is at the core of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington of the order of 20 per cent. towards the cost of the Community budget as a whole. It needs therefore to look for a contribution from that Community expenditure to offset the cost of national programmes if our borrowing is not to be further increased. That again is a central core not only of our economic but of our entire foreign policy. This policy of non-additionality is one which has been applied by successive Governments to receipts from the Community. While this is a general rule, there are some exceptions. In the case of the social fund, assistance towards the costs of programmes run by organisations outside government, notably by voluntary bodies (and some of these have been mentioned), is genuinely additional to the money which has been put into the project from other resources, including resources coming from the Government themselves.
Much mention has been made of publicity. In the light of the Select Committee's recommendation we will do what we can to see that the fund is better known and understood among potential applicants. My department's staff are always ready and willing to provide information and advice about the fund. I was naturally
554
pleased to read the generally favourable account the committee had of the work done by my department in this respect. I am also pleased to be able to say that a new and I think an improved version of the explanatory booklet which we issue about the social fund will be distributed in the next few weeks to a wide variety of organisations which have some potential interest in the fund. I will see that this is laid before the House as well.
May I come quickly to the National Council of Voluntary Organisations. I have already touched briefly on this subject but there is an element of genuine additionality in the resources that voluntary organisations can receive, through the conduit of my department, from the fund. We have welcomed the work and we join with the report in praising the work of the National Council of Voluntary Organisations in keeping the voluntary sector abreast of development on the Social Fund, and were glad to co-operate with them in the provision of information about the fund. I very much hope that this fruitful relationship will continue, and I myself have had the benefit of hearing the NCVO's views on the operation of the fund within the last few months.
The noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, has suggested that the NCVO might, in respect of certain applications, be accepted as a partner with the department in validation and sponsorship. As I pointed out, we arc responsible for the submission of applications from the United Kingdom, but I would be pleased if the NCVO found itself in the position of being able to extend its own role as a first port of call for voluntary organisations, or perhaps it would be better to call it a clearing house in that regard. I hope that also answers the point made by my noble friend Lady Vickers.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and others raised questions about the work of my department as the sole channel for applications. As indicated in one of the appendices to the minutes of evidence, all member states have nominated only one or two agencies through which applications are transmitted to Brussels. This is in line with the rules of the fund, reflecting the Commission's need to limit the number of organisations they have to deal with, rather contrary I think to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington—that is, to slim down bureaucracy and the necessity for different organisations to have to sit in perhaps conflicting judgments on the quality of applications being put before them—and I think it is working reasonably well.
However, my department in no way acts as a barrier to potential applicants to the fund. One of its functions is to help and advise such organisations and we welcome any further eligible applications; but we have to be frank with organisations whose schemes stand little or no chance of success. Therefore, when we are saying "no" it is not that we, as it were, are turning down the application, hut we are advising the organisation that the way the fund is structured at present gives them little chance of benefiting from it. I think we owe it to the Commission not to waste their time by submitting manifestly ineligible applications.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl the Minister, but I wonder whether I may have a direct answer to this question. The noble

555
Earl has said that the function of the department is to advise. If the advice is: "We do not think that you will get the grant", is it still open to the body wishing to apply, to go ahead and take the risk of being turned down? If that is not the case, then I really do not think the word "advise" is appropriate because then it is in fact a question of making the decision.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I think the way it works is this. The noble Baroness is right in logic in that things have to be channeled through ourselves. It might be, however, that we would advise a given organisation that they have little chance of success. If they really pressed me—and I use that pronoun advisedly—as the Minister responsible, and felt that they must "chance their luck", I certainly would not stand in their way and I would instruct my officials to process it all the same. I think that is how it would work out in practice.
I note what everyone has said and the noble Baroness in her intervention as well as in her speech has said, about direct access by applicants to the Commission. I personally think that the way we have it cuts down on bureaucracy, but I am sensitive to the feeling about this and I am quite happy to consider whether we have got it right and perhaps return to the question.
May I come again quickly to the issues about the simplification of rules. The committee's report also discussed the way in which the fund is administered. The committee recommended that the administrative procedures of the fund and especially the guidelines should be simplified. The noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, had something to say about that. I can assure the House that the United Kingdom Government have supported and will continue to support measures to these ends. I am glad to say that the Commission have taken steps to try to speed up payments, and in the last couple of years they have introduced a new system of advanced payments. They are also reviewing application forms to see whether they can be simplified. My department seeks to give applicants as full information as possible on the time which an application is likely to take to be decided and on any subsequent procedures. Again I refer back to our new guide which T laid before the House, because I think that will give a clearer picture of what is required. Again on the issue of duplicating bureaucracy, I was pleased to see from Mr. Vredeling's remarks and submission that he says that the United Kingdom is among the best in the speedy submission of claims for payment.
My Lords, I have done my best in the relatively brief time to cover, so far as I can, all the main recommendations set out by the committee in what I regard as a most valuable report. As I and other speakers have made clear in the course of this debate, the fund's rules and structures are due for review in the not too distant future. It is too early, of course, to say what new ideas may be forthcoming from the Commission. It is for them to make the proposals in the first instance. Nevertheless, in the light of experience we shall be considering what changes and improvements can be made to the fund which would improve both its operation and our essential interests. In this context the ideas and suggestions in the committee's report, as well as in this debate tonight, have been most
556
pertinent, and I can assure your Lordships that we will give them most careful consideration in preparing our own position for this important review.
7.47 p.m.
Lord Wolfenden: My Lords, I think we have had a useful debate. Naturally I could have wished that there had been a more populous attendance, but I think this has done something towards one of the desiderata that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, mentioned, of bringing this whole business about the European Social Fund in its context in the Community to the notice of the great British public, who know so little about it and I think ought to be encouraged to know more. I hope it is just possible that this evening we have added one element to the publicising of this operation.
There has been a considerable measure of agreement in the comments that have been made—of course not totally unanimous, as one might expect. But at any rate I think contributions of great value have been made and I hope we may have provided some ammunition for the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, in the good fight that I know he is fighting, both in London and in Brussels. We hope that we have helped him a little in that.
Finally, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have attended this evening, especially those who have spoken, and to add my own very warm personal thanks to my colleagues on Sub-committee C and my colleagues on the Select Committee itself. With those very sincere words of gratitude, I resume my seat.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

  TERATOLOGY: RESEARCH BY MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
  TERATOLOGY: RESEARCH BY MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
  PRISONERS IN POLICE CELLS: VISIT REQUESTS
  PRISONERS IN POLICE CELLS: VISIT REQUESTS
  PASSPORTS
  PASSPORTS