Sitting of 3 March 1986

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  WALES

    Rating Reform
    Mr. D. E. Thomasasked the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of the gross earnings of those earning less than £100 per week is, on average, taken up on local authority rates in Wales; and what the figures will be if the Government's proposals in their Green Paper, "Paying for Local Government" are implemented.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): Only householders are directly liable for domestic rates, and there is no way of knowing the extent to which non-householders, earning or not, contribute to the cost of rates. Comparative information on the basis requested is not therefore available.
    Mr. Thomas: Does the Secretary of State accept that that is an inadequate and innumerate answer from his Department yet again, because the whole direction of Government policy in this area is to shift the burden to all householders? That is the basis of the poll tax. Does he accept that it is completely illogical to propose to introduce a poll tax without making such comparative information available so that we know that each adult householder in Wales will be substantially worse off as a result?
    Mr. Edwards: If anything is innumerate, it is the question. We know what the effect on households will be, and we know that the community charge will reduce bills for low-income households. We know that the domestic rate is 7·5 per cent. of the income of households with a net income of £100 or less, and we know that the new community charge will lessen the burden. What we do not know is all the information that the hon. Gentleman wants about single persons, young adults, and so on, who at present do not contribute directly to the rating system.
    Mr. Raffan: Referring to my right hon. Friend's recent rate support grant announcement, will he confirm that Clwyd, which is making a real and genuine effort to find savings in its budget, will receive a substantial part of the remaining unclaimed grant, as five other county councils in Wales have categorically said that they will not be making savings? Can he give me any idea of how much Clwyd will receive?
    Mr. Edwards: I am not sure that that arises from the question, but it is certainly true that the pressure on councils to reduce their expenditure remains and that those which have succeeded in cutting their expenditure will get a higher proportion of remaining grant than those which continue to spend at a high level.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept my warning that the collection of the community charge—the poll tax—will be difficult? Why did the right hon. Gentleman hand over £13 million to the Welsh counties on 20 February after saying on 17 February that he would not do so? Why did he give in? I remind him of the heading, "Edwards gives in" in the Daily Post of 21 February.
    Mr. Edwards: I propose to say something on the subject in the debate on Welsh affairs, but the fact of the matter is that at the meeting on Monday I did not say that I would not. I said that if I did the county council should offer some reduction in expenditure. The county council said that it was impossible to reduce expenditure by a single penny. I am glad to say that subsequent to that the Clwyd council, by reducing its expenditure by £1·5 million, showed that it was possible, and it has passed on the benefit to its ratepayers.
    Mr. Speaker: I have a suspicion that that was somewhat wide of the question.

    Sixth Form Colleges
    Mr. Gristasked the Secretary of State for Wales what advice his Department has given to local authorities considering the establishment of sixth form colleges.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): The Macfarlane report, which was commissioned by the Government and the local authority associations, identified the advantages and disadvantanges of establishing sixth form colleges and considered various patterns of provision.
    Mr. Grist: Does my hon. Friend agree that whereas some schools have adequate and large sixth forms, many with falling school rolls no longer have and are unable to offer a sufficiently wide choice of subjects to those pupils who are academically able? In such circumstances, is it not wise for local authorities to consider setting up sixth form colleges?
    Mr. Roberts: My hon. Friend is right. We are faced with falling secondary school rolls, and between 1981 and 1991 there will be a decrease of 22·9 per cent. in secondary school pupils in Wales. That is why many local authorities are trying to rationalise by making alternative provision for them.
    Mr. Wigley: In any discussions that the Minister has with local authorities, will he ensure that if they are considering moving towards sixth-form colleges they take into account the Welsh language, especially those councils that have bi-lingual secondary schools, and the consequences that will flow unless there are Welsh language sixth-form colleges? Will he also consider the effect on rural areas and the need for local authorities to have more resources to cover transport costs or the cost of children staying at one centre?
    Mr. Roberts: The Welsh Office does not seek to prescribe the pattern of provision to local authorities. That provision is basically a matter for them. There are various options. For example, there are the traditional sixth-form colleges, tertiary colleges and further education colleges. The Macfarlane report states that special steps are needed to ensure continuity between sixth-form colleges and their feeder schools in both education and pastoral matters. I should have thought that the Welsh language was covered by that statement.
    Mr. Best: My hon. Friend may be aware that one of my constituents, Mr. John Rowlands, the headmaster of Holyhead school, is on a year's sabbatical to consider the problem raised by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). Is it not imperative that we recognise that there is only one choice available to us if we are to provide the great variety of disciplines that are necessary in a sixth form, which is to establish sixth-form colleges, especially when we bear in mind falling school rolls?
    Mr. Roberts: I have already said that that is only one alternative. There is only one sixth-form college in Wales, and that is Yale at Wrexham. There are other options, including those that I mentioned, but it is important that there should be rationalisation of provision for secondary school pupils to reflect falling rolls.
    Dr. Roger Thomas: What advice would the Minister give to anxious parents of sixth formers at our small comprehensive schools? I am thinking of the one in Llandovery, which is quite a distance from any other school and has only 400 pupils. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the choice of A-level subjects at such schools is disgustingly small? The choice is extremely limited and the pupils at such schools are suffering a disadvantage when compared with those who attend schools in more populated areas.
    Mr. Roberts: One of the advantages of sixth-form colleges, as outlined by the Macfarlane report, is that they are able to offer a wider range of subjects than sixth-form schools. I am glad the hon. Gentleman is apparently prepared to support a proposal for the rationalisation of secondary education in his constituency and county.

    Colliery Closures
    Mr. Ron Daviesasked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he intends to take steps to provide further employment opportunities in the light of continuing colliery closures.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Following the closure of several consistently uneconomic collieries, the NCB has no current plans for further closures in south Wales, and the industry can look forward to much greater stability and renewed development. Efforts to provide other employment opportunities are continuing, using the instruments of regional industrial policy, the urban programme, and the Welsh Development Agency and drawing on the support of NCB (Enterprise) Ltd.
    Mr. Davies: It is not surprising that we have heard nothing new yet again from the Secretary of State. When will he show some sign of understanding, let alone compassion or concern, of the effect of the Government's policies on the south Wales valleys? Is he aware that in the lower Rhymney valley 500 jobs will be lost as a result of the closure of the Bedwas colliery? The Government, the Welsh Office and NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. have nothing to offer.
    May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the report which was published today by the Department of Trade and Industry which suggests that regional policy is effective and has created over 600,000 jobs in Britain over the past 20 years? If he accepts the findings in the report, which was sponsored by the Government, why does he not ensure that the logical conclusion of the report is accepted and that Wales has a proper regional investment policy to provide the jobs and infrastructure that it needs to replace the jobs that it is losing?
    Mr. Edwards: I agree that regional policy has an important role to play. The hon. Gentleman knows that his constituency has the maximum level of assistance that is available under regional policy. The fact that assistance differs in various areas gives the policy its impact. NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. has made a good start by supporting projects in Wales. The cost of the investment has been over £11 million and about 1,400 jobs have been provided. I am taking other initiatives for the valleys, of which I have sent the hon. Gentleman details and to which I shall refer in the debate that is to follow.
    Mr. Harvey: Can my right hon. Friend estimate the number of jobs lost in Wales as a result of the miners' strike last year?
    Mr. Edwards: I cannot. We know that more than 6,000 jobs have been lost in the pits that have been closed. We cannot tell what the total effect of that strike has been. It affected many other industries and many small firms.
    Mr. Gareth Wardell: Does the right hon. Gentleman have any plans to increase the proportion of the working population living in parts of Wales eligible for regional development grant?
    Mr. Edwards: We carried out a major review of regional policy comparatively recently. I do not believe that it would be sensible, so soon after the last review, to recast the present distribution of coverage. There is no doubt that if we extended coverage in Wales there would have to be a major extension of coverage in other parts of the United Kingdom. It is therefore by no means clear that Wales would benefit from such a change.
    Sir Raymond Gower: Although it is true that in recent years there have been pit closures in south Wales, did not the most marked decline in employment in the coal industry in Wales occur during the period of the Labour Government?
    Mr. Edwards: That is true. That decline continued for many decades. We can be thankful that we have probably reached the end of that long historic process.
    Mr. Ray Powell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since the end of the miners' strike, which the Prime Minister, MacGregor and others conspired to ensure took place, every colliery in Ogmore has been closed? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that 1,500 of the 6,000 people whose jobs were lost were living and working in Ogmore before the strike? What does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do to replace the jobs which he and his Government have ended during the past 18 months?
    Mr. Edwards: There is no truth whatsoever in the allegation about a conspiracy. It has been denied by the Prime Minister's Office and by Mr. MacGregor. The hon. Gentleman knows that the allegation is nonsense.
    Mr. Raffan: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to congratulate the NCB on progress with the coal to oil liquefaction plant at Point of Ayr, on which construction has now started and which is expected to be completed by December 1987, providing 80 new jobs?
    Mr. Edwards: That is part of the major investment programme which the NCB is undertaking in the Welsh coalfields. There has been substantial investment in the south Wales coalfield as well, much of it in new equipment at the faces. That holds out a much better prospect for the future.
    Mr. Anderson: Does the review of regional development grant, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, take account of the sudden avalanche of job losses in the colliery areas?
    Mr. Edwards: Most of the colliery areas are substantially covered under the existing provisions, giving maximum levels of assistance. I do not believe that there would be any sense in having a major extension of coverage. That would be bound to cover a large part of the English and the Scottish regions as well. Instead of
    6
    increased incentives to encourage people to come to Wales, there would probably be greater competition. An extension of coverage would not benefit Wales.

    Agricultural Technology (Joint Degree)
    Mr. Livseyasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will indicate when the Welsh Office and the Welsh Advisory Body will sanction the joint degree in agricultural technology, which has been initiated by University College, Aberystwyth, and the Welsh Agricultural College.
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: A working group set up by the University Grants Committee and the public sector higher education advisory bodies has concluded that sufficient course capacity already exists to meet the industry's demands for graduates and diploma holders. However, the two colleges are now considering a suggestion that a new degree course could be established at Aberystwyth by transferring student places from the existing higher national diploma and degree courses.
    Mr. Livsey: Will the Minister explain why this strictly Welsh matter was referred to the National Advisory Body? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that colleges such as Harper Adams and Seale Hayne in England have 100 HND students and 40 graduate students per course? Why is Wales losing out in that way? Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that sufficient resources will be made available to run the course as a viable one?
    Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the working group's report related to the position in Great Britain as a whole. The demand for graduates in production agriculture and the capacity of existing degree courses in Wales to meet it are in line with the position in Great Britain. What is needed now is a change in the type of course available, and that possibility is now being examined.
    Sir Peter Emery: Will my hon. Friend make certain that he does not begin poaching from Seal Hayne in the way that the Welsh Development Agency might be doing for jobs in the west country in other instances?
    Mr. Roberts: I am sure that there will be no poaching or any hint of illegality. The hope is that student places can be transferred from existing higher national diploma and degree courses to provide this new course.

    Welsh Water Authority
    Mr. Ray Powellasked the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he had with the chairman of the Welsh water authority prior to his statement to the House on privatisation; and on what date they took place.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I met the chairman of the Welsh water authority on 25 June 1985 to discuss the authority's response to the Government's consultation paper on privatisation. I also spoke to the chairman on the morning of 5 February to inform him that I would be making a statement on privatisation that afternoon.
    Mr. Powell: On Friday 5 February, how far did the right hon. Gentleman screw the chairman's arm around his back to get him to agree to the idea that we should have privatisation of the water industry, because for months before—indeed, in all probability during the whole of

    7
    1985—John Elfed Jones had publicly declared, together with the board, that he was against any sort of privatisation? I should like an inquiry into what happened with the Secretary of State and what pressure he put on the chairman of the Welsh water authority to obtain his agreement.
    Mr. Edwards: The thought of trying to twist someone's arm over the telephone is interesting. If anyone imagines that John Elfed Jones is the sort of man to have his arm twisted, he clearly does not know the man. He is well able to stick up for himself and to express his own views. He and the board will be considering the proposals put forward in detail and will be presenting their fully considered views to the Government in due course.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: Has my right hon. Friend been asked to convey any apology to the chief executive of the Welsh water authority for what must have been, at best, a sincere misunderstanding by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd)?
    Mr. Edwards: I have no desire to act as a postbox between the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) and the chief executive of the Welsh water authority. I am sure that they are able to conduct their exchanges directly and on their own.
    Dr. Marek: Is the Secretary of State aware of the quality of water that is being drunk by residents in the Wrexham area? Is he further aware—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There is another question on the Order Paper about that.
    Dr. Marek: I was thinking that it might not be reached. It fits in with the present question.
    Is the Secretary of State aware that there was a fire this morning, that some very toxic chemicals leaked into the soil, and that the Welsh water authority was able to say only that it probably will not reach the River Dee? What will the Secretary of State do, consequent upon privatisation, to ensure, if it happens, that any subsequent company will have sufficient capital to undertake a new water supply to the people of Wrexham?
    Mr. Edwards: It is quite clear that none of the evils described by the hon. Gentleman could arise from privatisation. If the water authority is privatised, it will operate under a licence from the new Director General of Water Services, who will lay down strict conditions under which the service will operate. Undoubtedly one of the advantages of privatisation is that it will be easier for the authority to carry out its capital programme without the day-to-day and year-to-year interference from the Treasury and Ministers which is inherent in the present system.
    Mr. Best: Is it not apparent to anybody who takes the trouble to read the White Paper that two things flow from the privatisation proposals: first, that the money would be raised from the private sector so that capital investment could be undertaken without the present great charges to many subscribers; secondly, that there would be much greater pricing protection and protection of the water consumer in the proposals than is presently enjoyed?
    Mr. Edwards: I am sure that sewage will continue to flow as well. However, my hon. Friend is right.
    Mr. Rowlands: Is it not a fact that the only way that privatisation of the Welsh water authority can be carried
    8
    out is if the Government and the Secretary of State wipe off the vast majority of its debt? Instead of doing that for the benefit of future shareholders, why does the right hon. Gentleman not do it now for the benefit of the overwhelming majority of Welsh water consumers?
    Mr. Edwards: We have made it clear that we shall be looking at the financial structure of the authority before privatisation. Surely the hon. Gentleman cannot object to any reconstruction of the debt position, because it is something for which Welsh Members have long pressed. In particular, it helps the authority to raise its capital more easily and carry out its programmes more satisfactorily, which is directly to the benefit of consumers.
    Mr. Wigley: May I press the Secretary of State further on this point? If, in order to make privatisation viable, it is necessary to write off £450 million of historic debt, why does the right hon. Gentleman not do it now and give even more benefit to consumers?
    Mr. Edwards: We shall look at the capital structure when we privatise and consider what is necessary for a sensible structure, but it is not the capital structure that controls the external financing limits—the borrowing—of the water authority. They are laid down by the Treasury, because of the need to control the totality of Government expenditure. That is the principal constraint on the capital programme at present — not the debt position of the water authority.
    Sir Raymond Gower: Is it not a fact that prior to the big nationalisation programme of 20 or 30 years ago, many utilities in the private sector—gas, water, electricity and so on — had a splendid record of service to the community, and is it not likely that that will be reproduced in future?
    Mr. Edwards: I think I am right in saying that one quarter of the water in England and Wales is presently supplied by private companies. Therefore, the idea that it is not possible to supply it efficiently and economically is disproved by existing facts.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that the director of the School of Water Sciences at Cranfield has predicted that when the details of privatisation are considered they will look impractical? Even at this late stage, will he strive to exempt Wales from the water privatisation proposals? Does he understand that the proposals have offended public opinion in Wales because they put profit before public service?
    Mr. Edwards: No doubt we shall have many predictions. I predict that privatisation can go ahead and will result in an improvement in the service and the charging structure for the users of the Welsh water authority's services.

    Singleton Hospital, Swansea
    Mr. Gareth Wardellasked the Secretary of State for Wales when the planned new paediatric and obstetric unit at Singleton hospital, Swansea will be completed.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Mark Robinson): Construction is expected to start in December 1987 and the unit is expected to be in service in 1991.
    Mr. Wardell: Is the Minister aware that on 12 December 1983, in an oral reply, I was told that the West

    9
    Glamorgan health authority was planning to open that unit in 1988–89? For how long must the Welsh Office endure health authorities pulling the wool over its eyes and over the eyes of the public at large? In view of the answer that I received earlier, it appears that the unit will be delayed by at least another two years. I hope that the shambles with the casualty unit at Singleton is not repeated in connection with the paediatric and obstetric units there.
    Mr. Robinson: The date previously given was the best estimate for completion at that time and was based on preliminary planning only. More detailed planning for the development, which involves considerable reorganisation and expansion of existing support services and departments, has identified a need to reprogramme a sequence of building operations to enable replacement accommodation to be built to free the site location for the new paediatric and obstetric block.
    Mr. Williams: Will the Minister recognise that there will be genuine regret in that part of Wales about the two-year slippage that he has just announced? Will he bear in mind that we are grateful for the fact that the announcement that the casualty unit is about to be opened has been made? The Opposition would like to put on record our thanks to the general practitioners and the consultants who made that possible. Will the Minister say whether he has made it clear to the West Glamorgan health authority that, while the unit can start on a part-time basis, he hopes that it will soon be on a 24-hour basis?
    Mr. Robinson: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will concede that it is important to get the building of the new unit right. With regard to the casualty service, on Friday we received the formal proposal from the health authority and we are considering that. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that our reply will be issued in the very near future.

    Sheltered Housing
    Mr. Raffanasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the effect on sheltered housing in Wales of the Housing Act 1980 as amended by the Housing and Building Control Act 1984.
    Mr. Mark Robinson: The effect of the Housing Act 1980, as amended by the Housing and Building Control Act 1984, is to exclude sheltered housing from the right-to-buy provisions. These provisions are consolidated in the Housing Act 1985, which comes into effect on 1 April.
    Mr. Raffan: Is my hon. Friend aware that Delyn borough council has a particular concern in this matter, which is highlighted by the case of 3 St. Mary's Drive, Northop Hall? What assurance can he give the council that its sheltered housing stock will not be eroded under the amended right-to-buy provisions should it replace resident wardens by visiting wardens on schemes where there is no common room nearby?
    Mr. Robinson: My hon. Friend wrote to me on 10 February and I replied to him on 28 February. We do not consider that there will be any erosion of sheltered accommodation under these provisions, as the purpose of the provisions was to remove the accommodation that had been adapted for the elderly or disabled several years ago and which is no longer suitable using today's criteria.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Rowlandsasked the Secretary of State for Wales what was the level of unemployment in both numerical and percentage terms in Merthyr Tydfil in 1979; what is the current percentage; and what are the similar figures for Wales.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: On 6 February 1986 there were 11,279 unemployed claimants in the Merthyr and Rhymney travel-to-work area, a rate of 21·4 per cent. A comparable claimant-based figure for February 1979 is not available. For Wales as a whole, for the same dates, the seasonally adjusted claimant-based figures were 176,000 and 76,400, or 16·6 per cent. and 6·9 per cent. respectively.
    Mr. Rowlands: In the face of those terrifying figures, should not the Secretary of State's complacency have been shattered by the past two month's unemployment records, and the trends that are accompanying them? Does he agree that we are not seeing the light at the end of any tunnel and that unemployment is rising? In addition to the genuine problems of the young unemployed, is the Secretary of State aware of the growing anxiety that hon. Members have witnessed over the 50-year-old unemployed, who now believe that they will never work again unless the Government change their direction and policy?
    Mr. Edwards: Of course, I share the hon. Gentleman's concern that the recent, more encouraging, trend in unemployment figures has come to an end and that we have had two or three poor months. That is one reason why we are continuing to extend, enlarge and improve the wide range of employment and training measures generally, and those for the category of people to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
    Mr. Foot: As the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned improvements in training measures, can he tell us whether he has sorted out the problem of the heavy extra burden which he and the Government are imposing on local authorities in carrying out the second part of the two-year programme? All of us want to assist the young through the YTS programme, but it is unfair that such a heavy, increased burden should be put on local authorities.
    Mr. Edwards: The Government are providing substantial resources for this important new major extension of training provision. Local authorities are also playing their part, and I am glad that all Welsh local authorities, including Mid Glamorgan, which has had difficulties in the past, will participate fully in the next phase of the programme.
    Mr. Barry Jones: The right hon. Gentleman has not told us how he proposes to make major inroads into the terrifying unemployment in Wales. Can he throw some light upon the firm Biomass International in my constituency? Does he know that £1·1 million of county council, Development Agency and Government money was on offer to create only 76 jobs on Deeside? Before Biomass International ceased activities, only nine jobs had been created. Has the Welsh Development Agency's £416,000 investment been lost? What moneys can be rescued? I remind the right hon. Gentleman that Biomass follows the problems with the Parrot Corporation. Does he plan to review investment policy in his Department?
    Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman identifies the great difficulty that all venture capital organisations, in the public and private sectors, have in always backing successful projects. If he wishes to encourage the support of the new high technology industries, especially in areas such as biotechnology, there will always be risks and failures. I hope that in developing the Labour party's general policies for investing vast sums of public money into such ventures and directing them centrally, he will realise that they are hazardous and risky choices. It is unlikely that public funds will be recovered in this case, except on a very small scale.

    Job Creation
    Mr. Bestasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will state the number of new jobs created in Wales since 1979.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: In a period of rapid change, in which large investment has taken place in industrial and service sector projects in a more diversified economy, no comprehensive statistics on new jobs are available. Many new jobs are created without Government financial assistance, and between 1981 and 1984 the number of self- employed increased by 30,000.
    Mr. Best: Bearing in mind the worthwhile meeting that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had exactly a week ago with academics from the universities, does my right hon. Friend agree that we need a much closer empathy between education and industry, so that each understands the other?
    Mr. Edwards: I was present at that meeting. In addition to representatives of the universities we met several leading representatives of British industry, who drew attention to many of the shortcomings of our education system, which is failing to provide the mathematicians and scientists who are needed. I agree that one conclusion that emerged from the meeting was that we must have closer links between industry and local schools, to persuade pupils that industry offers attractive careers, and to point them towards the skills that they will need to acquire.
    Mrs. Clwyd: The Secretary of State cannot tell us how many new jobs have been created in Wales, but he must agree that not many of them were created in the Cynon Valley, which has the highest male unemployment in Wales, and among the worst male unemployment of any industrial area in Britain. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that substantial sums of Government money are necessary to create the infrastructure and employment opportunities that are needed in the valleys of south Wales?
    Mr. Edwards: I do not doubt the problems of the Cynon Valley. However, the hon. Lady will agree that the recent completion of the Cardiff to Merthyr road provides greatly improved access to the Cynon Valley, which will improve its inhabitants' chances, and which is part of the substantial infrastructure expenditure in the area, which we shall continue to make. The hon. Lady should remember that, although there are serious problems, between April 1985 and January of this year—the latest period for which figures are available—at least 200,000 people have taken up employment in Wales. Although
    12
    many people—too many—are on the unemployment register, many more are going into new employment all the time.
    Mr. Geraint Howells: The Secretary of State will be aware that the hon. Member for Ynys Môon (Mr. Best) is keen to find out how many new jobs have been created since 1979. The majority of Opposition Members would be glad to know how many jobs have been lost in Wales since 1979.
    Mr. Edwards: The hon. Member has frequently tabled questions on that subject and we have answered them. In a changing industrial world, even he must understand that there will be many job losses and job gains. I am sure he will be glad to know that we have a higher proportion of the working population in employment than almost any other country in Europe, with the exception of Denmark.
    Mr. D. E. Thomas: Will the Secretary of State accept that the Government of which he is a member have tinkered with the base on which the officially registered unemployment figures are calculated at least 15 times since the Government took office in 1979? One day, will the Secretary of State come to the House and give us the number of jobs lost in Wales since that date?
    Mr. Edwards: If the hon. Member tables a question I shall do so, but it does not arise from this question.
    Mr. Barry Jones: I can help the right hon. Gentleman. Since 1979,, under his regime, Wales has lost 105,000 manufacturing jobs. We have heard nothing from him in six years as to how we shall regain those lost manufacturing jobs. It is about time he came to the House and told us that he has a plan to bring Wales back to work. May I remind him that in Anglesey one in four men are jobless. What will he do to help north-west Wales?
    Mr. Edwards: There are few developed countries in the world where there has not been a loss of jobs in manufacturing. We are witnessing a major change in the pattern of employment. There are far more jobs in the service sector, and far more self-employed, than before. A large number of new small firms are being created continuously.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER

    Museums and Galleries, Merseyside
    Mr. Altonasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster with whom he consulted before appointing the trustees of the national musuems and galleries on Merseyside under paragraph 3(2) of the schedule to the Merseyside Museums and Galleries Order 1986 (S.I., 1986, No. 226).
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Norman Tebbit): The appointments were made upon the recommendation of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts, who will assume full responsibility for the Merseyside museums and galleries after the forthcoming transfer of functions order is made.
    Mr. Alton: I can understand the Chancellor's reticence about assuming responsibility for the arts on Merseyside. Will the right hon. Gentleman say why, under section 46 of the Local Government Act 1985, the order was laid before Parliament setting up the trust before consultation

    13
    with other political parties and indeed with Parliament itself? What was the particular hurry in proceeding with the appointment of the Duke of Westminster, whose previous affinities with the arts on Merseyside are not especially well known?
    Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman chooses one appointment — that of the Duke of Westminster. If I recollect rightly, 13 appointments were made. The appointments make up a group of good, well-balanced people who have had a long interest in Merseyside and in the arts. I think that the hon. Gentleman should be very pleased about that and should stop trying to introduce political factors.
    Mr. Frank Field: Will the Chancellor accept that not all those living on Merseyside share the views that have just been expressed? Many of us are extremely pleased that the Government have established most of the museums on Merseyside as national museums.
    Mr. Tebbit: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. I must confess to the House that those actions were taken primarily on the recommendations of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts, and I am sure that he heard the hon. Gentleman's words.

    The Arts
    Mr. Freudasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what functions he exercises in relation to the arts.
    Mr. Tebbit: When the then Minister for the Arts was appointed to the office of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in 1984, his arts functions were formally vested in that office by virtue of the Transfer of Functions (Arts, Libraries and National Heritage) Order 1984 (No. 1814). They will be the subject of a further transfer of functions order shortly, since my right hon. Friend the present Minister for the Arts does not hold the office of Chancellor. Meanwhile, my right hon. Friend exercises all day-to-day arts functions on my behalf.
    Mr. Freud: Will the Chancellor tell the House why it has taken from September of last year until now to effect a transfer of functions order? As the right hon. Gentleman is travelling and down the country talking about the incompetence of the arts, will he accept the Government's appalling incompetence in allowing this to go on for so long? Is there not an overwhelming reason for having a Minister for the Arts instead of this nonsense of incompetence in which different people have different responsibilities?
    Mr. Tebbit: I do not accept a word of what the hon. Gentleman has said. The arts function will formally be passed back to the Lord President of the Council, to whose Department the present Minister for the Arts is technically attached. That was the case between the summer of 1983 and late 1984, before my noble Friend Lord Gowrie was appointed Chancellor of the Duchy. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman would just listen for a moment, he would get the answer. The transfer of functions order will be made shortly. It has taken longer than usual because of a study of possible alternative ways of legally vesting the arts functions without requiring an order every time the ministerial portfolio changes hands. Meanwhile, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts has full authority to
    14
    conduct the day-to-day arts business, while the ultimate legal power rests with the Chancellor of the Duchy. There are no legal or administrative problems whatsoever about this.
    Mr. Buchan: But there may be many artistic problems, and it does not give the Opposition much comfort to know that the right hon. Gentleman is in charge of the arts. Does he not think it is time that he gave some consideration to the all-party Select Committee report, which simply said that there should be a Ministry for the Arts, Communication and Tourism, which would bring in films, broadcasting and the arts, and above all strip the responsibility from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and make a proper Ministry for the arts?
    Mr. Tebbit: I notice that the hon. Gentleman's party did not take that view when it was in office, and this Government do not take that view now. I do not think that these problems are best dealt with by permanent restructuring of the Departments in Whitehall. The arrangement is working very well and effectively today, and that is the best way to leave it.

    Ministerial Duties
    Mr. Winnickasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proportion of his time in the week beginning 24 February he has spent on matters relating to the Duchy of Lancaster.
    Mr. Tebbit: It is my practice to devote such time as is necessary to carry out my responsibilities as Chancellor fully and effectively. In the week beginning 24 February, I estimate that some three hours were required for this.
    Mr. Winnick: Would not some of the right hon. Gentleman's Cabinet colleagues, such as the Home Secretary and the Leader of the House, prefer him to spend much more time looking after the affairs of the Duchy of Lancaster? Is it altogether a coincidence that since the right hon. Gentleman became chairman the Conservative party has gone even further down the polls? Does he connect that in any way with his taking over the job?
    Mr. Tebbit: I do not answer in this House for my responsibilities as chairman of the Conservative party, and most certainly I would not abuse my post as Chancellor of the Duchy by doing so. I was very glad to note that on Saturday my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was in vigorous and raucous form, busily scragging the Opposition.
    Mr. Ryman: With his intimate knowledge of the Prime Minister and what, if anything, she is thinking, will the Minister say whether it is true that Mr. MacGregor is going to Downing street tomorrow—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That was a good try, but I doubt whether it has very much to do with the Duchy of Lancaster.
    Mr. Ryman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister has answered the question about how much time he spends on these duties, the inference being that he has other time for other duties. I wish to ask him whether he can confirm or deny that Mr. MacGregor is seeking to shorten his term of office—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The point is that that has nothing to do with the Duchy of Lancaster.
    Mr. Skinner: Does the Minister recall that his predecessor could not manage on £33,000 a year in that job and went to other fields to feather his nest? The right hon. Gentleman has just said that he does about three hours work for this £33,000. It is not a bad number, is it? He gets £33,000 for three hours' work, yet last week one of his playmates on the Government Front Bench came here and said that they would give single pensioners an extra 40p in the coldest February for 40 years—just enough to buy a mustard plaster.
    Mr. Tebbit: If the hon. Gentleman was right about my salary, he might conceivably have some sort of point. I am not paid as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster from public funds. I do not receive a salary as a Cabinet Minister from public funds. I do receive a nominal salary as Chancellor of the Duchy from the Duchy itself.

  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Sunday Trading
    Mr. Peter Bruinvelsasked the hon. Member for Wokingham, as representing the Church Commissioners, what response the Church Commissioners have received from those retail companies of which they are shareholders regarding the proposed deregulation of Sunday trading.
    Sir William van Straubenzee (Second Church Estates Commissioner, Representing Church Commissioners: Of the responses received so far, the majority have indicated in varying degree that they are not in favour of Sunday trading, although many say they may well feel compelled to open if their competitors do.
    Mr. Bruinvels: In view of the General Synod voting 427 to six against Sunday trading, I warmly welcome my hon. Friend's answer. Is he aware that the cathedral bookshops at Canterbury and Guildford have now closed and are awaiting the debate on Sunday trading? Will my hon. Friend impress on shop chains in which the Commissioners hold shares that they should close on Sunday, to ensure that Sunday is a day for recreation, religion and leisure?
    Sir William van Straubenzee: The Church Commissioners would expect any institutions in which they hold shares to obey the law. Perhaps I might add that the nearest biblical analogy that I can find for the Government's present stance on this issue, if they insist on persevering, is that of the Gadarene swine.
    Mr. Frank Field: When we next ask questions on this subject, may we ask the Second Estates Commissioner to draw attention to the Prime Minister's post? She has received only 100 letters in support of her proposal, and 37,000 against.
    Sir William van Straubenzee: I shall bear that suggestion in mind. The interesting experience of many hon. Members on both sides of the House, and with differing views of the legislation, concerns the number of people who express their anxiety when they have no religious observance whatever.

  THE ARTS

    Arts Council (Funding)
    Mr. Murphyasked the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on the implications for the arts of the increase of Government funding for the Arts Council since 1979.
    The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): Arts Council funding from 1979–80 to 1986–87 has been increased by 32 per cent. in real terms, including the extra abolition money, and by 7 per cent. in real terms excluding it.
    Mr. Murphy: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a 7 per cent. increase in real terms, with a 10 per cent. increase in real terms in overall arts funding and £20 million-plus from business sponsorship, means that there are excellent implications for the arts?
    Mr. Luce: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The picture that is painted by some of gloom, doom and despondency in the arts world, is the very contrary of the fact. The Government have increased the amount of resources for the arts in real terms.
    Mr. Tony Banks: It is not a matter of gloom and doom. Is the Minister aware that since 1982–83, excluding abolition money—which we must, as it is an inadequate substitute for the money previously put into the arts by metropolitan county councils and the GLC—the real increase in the arts funding by the Government is less than 1 per cent.? That figure was produced by the House of Commons Library. Does the Minister not feel that it is an obscenity in terms of values for the Government to spend £18 billion on defence and only £136 million on the arts?
    Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman abuses the English language by suggesting that it is an obscenity when we have increased overall resources available for the arts. He should bear in mind that local authorities give a great deal of support to the arts. The diversity and plurality of funding is the very strength of arts in the long term.
    Mr. Jessel: How far does my right hon. Friend think the arts should rely on the Government rather than on local government? As for abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils, does my right hon. Friend agree that the 32 London boroughs and other successor authorities could do rather more than they have so far shown signs of doing?
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right. We have to remember that the Government have switched £43 million from local government funding to Government funding. As a result, we are relieving local authorities of the overall burden. On Merseyside, for example, we are merely asking successor authorities to fund 10 per cent. of what is being precepted from them under present policies.
    Mr. Buchan: We are in the classic situation of asking why, if things are so good, they are so bloody awful? Theatres, music halls, concert halls and arts centres throughout Britain are desperately anxious about the fall in the amount of money that they receive. Does the Minister agree that since the Government came to office arts funding has collapsed in real terms? Does he agree also that local authorities are being cut and capped, if not abolished, and that it is a cruel and obscene joke to suggest that they can match the proper funding given earlier?
    Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman is painting a wholly false picture. The West End commercial theatres are doing exceedingly well and their attendances are increasing. The hon. Gentleman should not assume that everything should be done by the state. He should welcome the fact that one of the major ways of finding a solution to the problems of the Empire theatre in Liverpool, for example, has been through the private sector, not the ratepayers. Both the private and public sectors should work in partnership in the arts world, and that is what we are seeking.

    Local Government Reform (Theatres and Concert Halls)
    Mr. Altonasked the Minister for the Arts what recent representations he has received from those theatres and concert halls threatened with closure as a result of the abolition of the metropolitan authorities.
    Mr. Luce: I have received a number of representations about some of those theatres and concert halls, and I have discussed their concerns with the Arts Council. As the House will know, good progress is being made on a number of issues, including Sadler's Wells, the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic and the Liverpool Empire.
    Mr. Alton: Notwithstanding that reply, may I ask whether the Minister is aware that the director of the Merseyside Arts Association, Mr. Peter Booth, is reported as having said last Friday that he is fed up with hearing that everything is safe, that the crisis is still a deep one, and that some £600,000 will be required to save the philharmonic, the Everyman, the Playhouse and 30 other smaller art groups on Merseyside? What hope is there of that £600,000 being found? What co-operation is the Minister receiving from the five district councils on Merseyside?
    Mr. Luce: The Arts Council, under the chairmanship of Sir William Rees-Mogg, is doing an excellent job in trying to solve all these problems in turn. On Merseyside, the local authorities are being asked to take a small burden. I emphasise that it is small, because I know that the hon. Gentleman is deeply worried about the continuity of the arts on Merseyside. The local authorities are being asked to pay only 10 per cent. of what they are being precepted until 1 April. The whole burden of supporting museums and galleries is being assumed by central Government on behalf of taxpayers. That is a genuine demonstration of the Government's anxiety to ensure that we play our part. We now look to the local authorities to pay their share of the matter.
    Mr. Hanley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, following the abolition of the Greater London council and metropolitan county councils, such halls and theatres will have to survive because of the plural funding, which he mentioned earlier, from local authorities, the Arts Council, business sponsorship and one group that has so far not been mentioned—the public, who attend such shows? Does my right hon. Friend further believe that some sensible taxation reforms may help to encourage more people to donate money to their local theatres and concert halls?
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right about the paying public being important. Indeed, at present they are the largest supporters and funders of the arts—way beyond any other source of funding. The Government have
    18
    already made some tax concessions to encourage people to give to the arts, and we are concerned to ensure that everything possible is being done to improve on that.
    Mr. Wareing: Does the Minister realise that, despite being within one month of the abolition of Merseyside county council, many arts facilities on Merseyside still do not know whether they will be open or closed after 1 April? Is he aware that Liverpool city council, which is short of resources and is being rate-capped, cannot finance all those services? He has had correspondence over the Croxteth hall and community park, for example. Is he about to respond to my request that he visits the area and sees the people concerned with that hall and park?
    Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman is not quite with it. As I said in Friday's debate, I have already visited Merseyside and seen a large cross-section of the arts. On the question of funding, which is important for the continuity of the arts, Arts Council clients which are not affected by the abolition of the metropolitan county councils have been informed of their allocation for 1986–87, and those affected by abolition are being given interim assurances that their Arts Council funding will be no less than at present. Their final figures will depend on the outcome of negotiations with local authorities. It is now up to local authorities to show that they wish to play their part in the partnership.
    Mr. Michael Marshall: Will there not be a genuine problem if the various local authorities taking over responsibilities for such things as health, safety, fire precautions, and so on, make differing interpretations of their duties, which could affect, for example, the activities of touring companies? Will my right hon. Friend keep an eye on this and help to bring a balanced and reasonable approach across the board wherever he can?
    Mr. Luce: Although I have been somewhat critical of some local authorities, principally Merseyside and Islington, in the large bulk of the cases, including Tyne and Wear, Manchester arid South Yorkshire, local authorities have been co-operating extremely well with the Arts Council in negotiations to deal with abolition problems. They have set a good lead and we look to other local authorities to follow their good example.

    Disabled People (Attenborough Report)
    Mr. Wigleyasked the Minister for the Arts what progress has been made by the Government in implementing recommendations of the Attenborough report on arts for disabled people.
    Mr. Luce: Good progress has been made. The Arts Council published a "Code of Practice on Arts and Disability" on 6 December 1985. The public libraries, museums and galleries have for many years made special efforts, within the resources available, to facilitate visits by disabled people. I shall continue to take a close interest.
    Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware that that is a very disappointing answer, in that there were a series of specific proposals in the report, most of which have not yet been taken up? Has he had any discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a view to implementing some of those suggestions in this year's Budget? Will funding for the proposals in the report come from the expenditure of his Department, or from that of other Departments?
    Mr. Luce: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the recommendations in the report about Government activity, I can tell him that I have already had a preliminary meeting with representatives of the Carnegie trust, which produced the report and the recommendations, and I have had meetings with my hon. Friend in the Department of Health and Social Security to discuss these matters. My problem is that I am clearly limited by available resources in doing much more, but I am giving every support to the work of the Arts Council in trying to ensure that the code of practice is implemented by arts organisations.
    Mr. Buchan: We all welcome the report and that partial response to it, but the crucial question is to what extent there will be resources so that it can be implemented? Is the Minister aware that we shall give him full support in any argument that he has with the Treasury to achieve that purpose?
    Mr. Luce: I note what the hon. Gentleman has said. In libraries, museums and galleries a good deal of progress has been made in providing access to the disabled. There is more of a problem with the performing arts, but a great deal of attention is being given to this sector.

Leyland Vehicles
3.33 pm
Mr. Jack Straw: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the refusal of Her Majesty's Government to extend the deadline of 4 March and to provide proper information, so as to enable Lancashire Enterprises Ltd. and others to prepare properly costed bids for Leyland Vehicles as an alternative to a takeover by General Motors."
This matter is obviously specific. As to its importance, four days ago the Prime Minister told the House, in answer to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition:
"Those who are interested in making genuine bids—the trade unions could have done the self-same thing—could have obtained the information from the Department of Trade and Industry or British Leyland."—[Official Report, 27 February 1986; Vol. 92, c. 1066.]:
On the Jimmy Young show last week, the Prime Minister said of those talking of alternative bids to General Motors that they should
"put up or shut up".
Lancashire Enterprises Ltd., with the West Midlands enterprise board, has sought to do that—put up a bid. It is hoping to sponsor a federated management buy-out in which the major investment will be made by the finance institutions, with a stake from the enterprise boards and from the management and work force. Contrary to the pledge given by the Prime Minister four days ago, the request for information met with a point-blank refusal. Messrs Hill Samuel, on behalf of British Leyland and the Government, have refused to provide any information unless a series of onerous conditions are met. However, they have caught Lancashire Enterprises Ltd. in a catch 22 trap, for these conditions can be met only with the information which Hill Samuel is refusing to provide. In other words, the Government are creating conditions which make it impossible for any others but General Motors to get to the starting line. No prospectus has been provided.
22
As to the urgency, the deadline set by the Government expires tomorrow. It has taken General Motors at least nine months of work, and I understand that it has not yet formally submitted a bid. The National Carriers buy-out — greatly applauded by Conservative Members — of a size similar to that proposed for Land Rover took nine months to reach fruition. The Government's proposed time scale for counter-bids to that of General Motors for Leyland Vehicles is laughable. It makes a mockery of the Government's claim to be serious about alternative bids.
Yesterday, the former Conservative Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), suggested that Leyland Vehicles was to be sacrificed and sold off to General Motors as part of a private deal between the White House and Downing street. This Government's tactics in blocking other bids suggest that the right hon. Member is right. The deadline in this case can be extended only if there is an emergency debate today or tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the refusal of Her Majesty's Government to extend the deadline of 4 March and to provide proper information, so as to enable Lancashire Enterprises Ltd. and others to prepare properly costed bids for Leyland Vehicles as an alternative to a takeover by General Motors."
I have listened with care to what the hon. Member has said and I fully understand the case that he has made, but the only question that I have to decide is whether this matter should take precedence over the business set down for today or tomorrow. I regret that I do not find that the matter meets all the criteria laid down in the standing order. I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.
Mr. Stan Thorne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: No, I will take the other Standing Order No. 10 application first.

Nuclear Waste (Disposal)
3.37 pm
Mr. Douglas Hogg: I also beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the anxieties, potential financial loss and planning blight caused by the announcement that Fulbeck airfield is a possible site for disposing of nuclear waste."
Last week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced that Fulbeck airfield is to be one of four possible sites for disposing of nuclear waste. My constituents have greeted this announcement with a justifiable mixture of shock, disbelief, grave concern and total opposition.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: I bet they have.
Mr. Hogg: They are sentiments that I wholly share.
As part of this application, I need to make it clear that my constituents and I will resolutely oppose this application unless and until four conditions are satisfied.
The first is that the Nuclear Industry Radioactive Waste Executive must prove that this method of disposing of waste is the only proper way of disposing of that material. Secondly, it must be proved that Fulbeck is the only proper site. Thirdly, it must be established that the scheme is absolutely safe. Lastly, all financial damage must be fully compensated. My constituents and I do not believe that any, far less all, of these conditions will be satisfied. Unless and until they are, we are wholly opposed to what NIREX has in mind.
As to recent developments which justified this application, there is clear and pressing evidence that contracts for the sale of property will fall through as a consequence of this application and that severe financial loss will be suffered by my constituents.
It is against this background that I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the anxieties, potential financial loss and planning blight caused by the announcement that Fulbeck airfield is a possible site for disposing of nuclear waste."
I regret that I have to give the same answer to the hon. Member as I gave to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr.
24
Straw). I do not consider that the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion—[Interruption.] Order. I do not consider that the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10. I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I will take the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Thorne) first.
Mr. Stan Thorne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In reply to the application of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) under Standing Order No. 10 you referred to the importance of tomorrow's business as one of the reasons why you felt obliged to reject the application. One item of tomorrow's business is the Salmon Bill—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman misheard. I said that the application did not meet all the criteria laid down in the Standing Order. That is a different matter.
Mr. Thorne rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman is challenging my decision, I am not interested.
Mr. Thorne: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The urgency of this matter in Lancashire—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a continuation of the application. I will take the point of order from the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours).
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Have your received notice, Mr. Speaker, from the Government Chief Whip that he intends to apply for a debate on nuclear waste tomorrow under Standing Order No. 10?
Mr. Speaker: If he had made an application, I would have heard it.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c.
Ordered,
That the draft Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments &c.
That the draft Mental Health (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order 1986 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments &c.—[Mr. Durant.]

Wales
Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Durant.]
3.43 pm
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): I intend to concentrate on a few subjects of special importance. Before turning to the central economic and industrial theme, I shall say something about agriculture, rates and the Health Service. At this delicate moment in the negotiations, I do not intend to speak about education, save to say that I hope that all the unions will now join in bringing this damaging disruption to an end by sitting down to talk about pay and conditions of service in the knowledge that the Government are prepared to make very substantial additional resources available to get a better paid teaching profession with extra pay for those with skill, responsibility and experience.
In agriculture, this has been another difficult year for Welsh farmers and the supporting industries. Fortunately, many in Wales were able to recover some of the harvest during the few fine weeks in September. Farming incomes have declined but not so severely as in other parts of the country. The Government made available £1 million weather aid to help the worst hit. Hill livestock compensatory allowances have been increased and part of the sheep premium for farmers in less favoured areas has been paid early.
Most milk producers have adjusted to the quota regime better than was expected a year ago. As a result of the outgoers' scheme, all small milk producers of up to 200,000 litres — that is, more than half the milk producers in Wales—were restored to their 1983 levels of production. We can now issue more quota producers whose development awards represented a high proportion of their total quota. These will now have at least 90 per cent. of the total quota that they would have had if there had been no cut. We shall end completely the 35 per cent. cut in development awards for all producers with quotas of up to 200,000 litres.
At recent meetings, the farmers' unions have emphasised the importance that they attach to maintaining support for beef in the price-fixing negotiations and opposing proposals by the European Commission that discriminate against British farmers. The Government share those objectives.
Over the years ahead we face fundamental changes in the pattern for agriculture. We shall need to make full use of a range of measures to achieve those changes and to give farmers the time that they need to adjust. Among the instruments are price restraint, quotas, quality control, income support, assistance with countryside and conservation measures and the encouragement of new crops.
I am surprised that, at a time when the National Farmers Union in Wales is pressing for much wider use of quotas, Liberal spokesmen have announced their total opposition to quota systems. I look forward to hearing their alternative policies.
Mr. Geraint Howells rose—
Mr. Edwards: Are they coming?
Mr. Howells: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, but first of all he said that the Government had plans to introduce quotas; I am just wondering for what commodities.
Mr. Edwards: As I thought, we are not to hear the alternative policies. All I am saying is that quotas are one of the instruments that will continue to be needed. We shall clearly continue to need them for milk. The National Farmers Union in Wales, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is suggesting that they should be used for a wide range of commodities. I do not entirely share the views of the NFU on that issue, but the Liberal party has said that quotas should not be used as an instrument at all, and I find that surprising.
The rate support grant settlement for local government that I announced before Christmas was a good one for Wales. It provided for a 5 per cent. increase in current spending, which is more than the likely rate of inflation. Local authorities have complained of a reduction in grant, but this year we were proposing an increase to 67 per cent. Local authorities understood very well that the system was designed to discourage high spending and that authorities spending above the settlement figure would lose grant. I had undertaken that any grant unclaimed would come back to local authorities, but that the method of recycling would be decided only when we had a clearer indication of spending plans.
While the system undoubtedly had the effect of discouraging authorities from proposing even larger increases in spending—I am glad to say that on average they have been substantially less than in England—some have chosen to impose very high precept demands on ratepayers.
I make no apology for seeking to discourage high spending, or for trying to protect ratepayers from what the chairman of the Welsh Counties Committee at the meeting with me described as "horrendous rate increases". I agree with Mr. Arthur Harris of Dyfed that:
"vast endeavours must be made to reduce the burden on ratepayers".
Local councillors talk about the pressures on their services caused by high unemployment and the need to fund high pay settlements in the local authority sector, but private sector firms cannot pass on high wage settlements, or their rate bills, without losing business, and high rate burdens add to unemployment.
When representatives of the Welsh counties came to see me, asking for immediate recycling of grant, I believe that I was right to suggest that if I did so they should trim their expenditure as well. What shocked me was not that they refused to reduce by 2 per cent., or by 1 per cent. but that they said that it was impossible to make any economies or to reduce by a single penny. I was even more shocked when Dyfed's "vast endeavours" to help ratepayers led to a further increase in spending and precept, despite its receiving extra police grant.
Following that meeting with the Welsh Counties Committee I decided that I would give the maximum possible immediate relief to ratepayers through a recycling of RSG, on the clear understanding that it would be passed on, while maintaining pressure on the remaining counties to reconsider their expenditure plans. The decision of the Clwyd county council, both to reduce its precept by 10 per cent. and to make a £1·5 million reduction in expenditure,

27
proved that this was the right approach, and it made nonsense of the argument that expenditure reductions were impossible.
Dr. John Marek: How much extra unemployment will result if the £1·5 million cut takes place, as opposed to appearing on paper?
Mr. Edwards: I have just said that, because industrial firms and businesses cannot pass on the demands to customers, with high-spending decisions fewer people will be employed in commerce and industry. So far from increasing unemployment, the cut will protect jobs which would otherwise have been lost.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
Mr. Edwards: No, I have just given way and I want to get on. I know what will happen. The last time that I spoke from the Dispatch Box I was criticised for giving way too often and for making too long a speech. On this occasion, the proper thing is for me to allow everyone to speak, and I shall try not to take too many interventions.
I am glad that other counties have reduced their precept as well, and there are good reasons for thinking that the pressure of the system will lead to further reductions in expenditure during the year. Last year, Welsh local authorities undertook to exercise restraint if we removed the system of targets and penalties. Regrettably some of them have failed to do so; but I am quite clear about three things: first, that our system has and will continue to put pressure on local authorities to restrain expenditure, secondly, that I have been able to obtain direct reductions in the rate burden for the benefit of the ratepayers of Wales, and thirdly, that the case for our package of reform of the local government finance system has been further reinforced by these events.
Sir Raymond Gower: South Glamorgan's proposed rate increase is the highest in Wales, and I should like to know whether my right hon. Friend has made a special appeal to it. There seems to be little difference between the circumstances of the Welsh counties, and certainly not one which would merit such an enormous increase.
Mr. Edwards: I agree with my hon. Friend. The leaders of the councils made it clear at our meeting that they were proposing increases in their spending programmes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) observed at Question Time, the system is such that, if the authorities continue to spend in this way, they will lost grant and low-spending authorities will benefit when we come to the further redistribution of grant withheld.
I have now given way three times, twice to Opposition Members and once to my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Sir R. Gower). I should like now to get on with my speech.
We are at the time of the year when health authorities are having to face the difficult decisions that they have to take about priorities. That will always be the situation because funds cannot be infinite, while demand is virtually unlimited. What the House and the public must understand
28
is that health authorities are dealing with the problems and the priorities of an expanding service and changing needs, and that the allegations of widespread cuts are false.
The Government are providing record levels of financial resources for the National Health Service in Wales. We are carrying out one of the largest programmes of hospital building ever. Taking account of inflation, recurring revenue allocations to district health authorities have been increased by over 23 per cent. between 1978–79 and the financial year which is just ending. We have recently announced that, in total, a further £44 million in revenue provision will be made available to health authorities in Wales for the coming financial year, which represents a cash increase of more than 7 per cent. over the provision in 1985–86. Between 1979 and 1985, the number of staff concerned directly with patient care has increased by more than 12 per cent. allowing for the reduction in the standard working hours of nurses.
Among new services announced in 1985 was an eight-bed bone marrow transplant unit in Cardiff. In August I announced that high-resolution CT scanners would be provided at Morriston and Ysbyty Glan Clwyd, supported by five or six small to medium scanners at other locations. The third Welsh renal dialysis unit became fully operational at Morriston in 1985, while the two new subsidiary renal units at Bangor and Carmarthen both opened in the summer and are working well.
There is, of course, considerable concern about waiting lists, which have risen under this Government just as they did under the previous one. There is one difference between the situation then and now, and that is that already by 1984 we were treating 63,000, or 18 per cent., more in-patients than in 1979 and 51,000, or 12 per cent. more out-patients. These figures have continued to rise since. The acceleration in the number of patients treated and in the range of services has been far greater than under our predecessors: it is a remarkable achievement. Health authorities have been checking on their waiting lists and report that in many cases the numbers include double counting; but that is no consolation to the patients who are having to wait and we are undertaking a major exercise with health authorities to try to get on top of this longstanding problem.
Mr. Anderson: The right hon. Gentleman has boasted about an increase in the number of in-patients. How much of that increase is accounted for simply by demographic factors—the aging population—and how much is a real increase?
Mr. Edwards: Of course there is an aging population, but we have provided not only additional resources to deal with it but a wider range of new and improved services. It is a considerable achievement to have been able to extend the service in the way we have and to treat this large number of additional patients.
Dr. Roger Thomas: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Edwards: I think that this must be the last time I shall give way, or I shall be accused of speaking for too long.
Dr. Thomas: How much has the fact that people are leaving Wales and seeking specialist treatment elsewhere contributed to reduced waiting lists in Wales?
Mr. Edwards: I fear that it has not contributed as much as perhaps it should have. Although we have greatly improved and extended the service, there will always be opportunities for some patients to go elsewhere. Indeed, in some specialist cases, it is right that they should do so. We must use all the available resources for health care in a particular district both within Wales and within the United Kingdom as a whole. I hope that authorities will look at that as one way of reducing health pressures in the short term.
I turn now to the economy. In the last year, the coal industry in south Wales has undergone a major change, hastened and made more severe by the miners' strike. Eleven of the heaviest loss-making pits have closed or merged. The number on colliery books is down to about 13,500 and the total work force to just under 16,000. The coal board has fulfilled its commitment of finding alternative jobs for all those who wanted to remain in the industry, while those who chose to leave have received generous redundancy terms.
While these closures have been taking place, the work force has responded very positively to good management and the result has been a dramatic increase in performance. Productivity has increased by 46 per cent. in eight months; and the coalfield, which had been losing £100 million or more a year, expects to break even in the March quarter. It is a remarkable achievement. It has enabled the board to announce since the beginning of the financial year investment of £80 million—the largest capital development programme in so short a time in the history of the coalfield. Much of this new investment has been directed into new coalface equipment. I am particularly pleased that the board has approved the investment of £30 million in a new anthracite project at Carway Fawr, thereby safeguarding 800 jobs. There are good grounds for thinking that we have now reached the end of a period of decline that has lasted for many decades in south Wales, and caused much hardship.
The 6,000 job losses in the coal industry, along with losses in a number of other industries including the closure of Courtaulds in north Wales and the loss of jobs at BP Llandarcy, have contributed to the distressingly high unemployment in Wales, now at a record level. I very much regret these closures and loss of jobs, and the impact that they have on local communities, but the process of industrial change is continuous. Whatever general economic policies are adopted, particular companies will cut back or go out of business.
Fortunately, there have been many positive developments. Two major steel projects have been completed on schedule—the £171 million hot strip mill project at Port Talbot and the £30 million Galvalume project at Shotton. Work is well advanced to provide Llanwern with the concast facility which will further improve its performance.
We continue to see a high level of industrial investment in Wales. During 1985, offers of regional selective assistance and new-style regional development grants totalled nearly £60 million, with the aim of creating 12,500 new jobs and safeguarding over 4,800 existing jobs.
During 1985, Wales continued its record of attracting around one fifth of all the inward investment to the United Kingdom with 25 new overseas projects and 23 expansion projects by existing overseas companies involving a combined capital investment of £143 million. In addition,
30
United Kingdom firms from outside Wales decided to locate 20 new projects and one expansion project in Wales with a promise of nearly 2,750 jobs and over £14·5 million in capital investment. I am glad to say that only today it was announced that Nimbus records, the sole manufacturer of compact discs in the United Kingdom, has decided on a major expansion in Cwmbran which will lead to the creation of 275 jobs.
In 1985 the small firms centre dealt with over 17,000 applications, over 9,000 from individuals seeking to start up in business. The business improvement services scheme received over 900 applications in steel closure areas and made offers to over 550 small firms with a value of £2·8 million. The number of self-employed in Wales is rising fast. An example of what projects of this kind can lead to is the firm in the Rhondda, Valdons Ltd., which just three or four years ago was launched by two redundant workers and which now employs over 70 people, about 60 of whom are making plastic mouldings to the very high standards demanded by National Panasonic.
I am encouraged by the very wide range of projects started during the year. The list covers almost every industrial sector, including electronics, biotechnology, pharmaceuticals and aircraft, as well as high-volume consumer products such as video recorders and microwave ovens. I was particularly pleased by the decision of an outstandingly successful British high technology company, Renishaw, to establish a manufacturing plant in Cwmbran backed by high quality research and development, providing over 500 jobs; and by Warner Lambert's decision to consolidate its United Kingdom manufacturing operation at Pontypool which will provide 250. Similarly, Pirelli has announced a major new investment at its Aberdare factory, which will provide over 150 jobs. The further expansion of Amersham International at Cardiff will provide over 200, and a notable success was the safeguarding of over 500 jobs at Borg Warner after a long period of uncertainty.
Our success in attracting Japanese companies continues with the announcement during the year of projects by Brother Industries, the 10th Japanese company to come to Wales, and Sharp, which will lead to the creation of over 350 jobs at Wrexham, I was also particularly struck on a recent tour by the scale of the modernisation and expansion of the major factories of Hitachi, Sony and National Panasonic in south Wales, involving the creation of nearly 450 jobs. United Paper Mills, a Finnish company, began production two months ahead of schedule at its mill at Shotton in which it has invested well over £100 million to create over 250 jobs on the site as well as providing a major boost to the forestry industry.
The Welsh Development Agency, with its offshoots WINvest and WINtech, continues to play an important role in encouraging investment and preparing industrial sites. During 1985 the agency contributed 1·5 million sq ft to the total of more than 2 million sq ft of Government factory space that was allocated. The agency expects to spend about £11 million on land reclamation and environmental improvement in the current year and is, at this time, drawing up a further programme.
The Welsh Office, the agency and Mid Wales Development are working up further programmes to help job-creating business activity in the rural areas, and I hope to announce details within the next few weeks. I believe all Welsh Members will welcome the Government's

31
decision to maintain the present system of tourist boards, and in particular to retain the Wales tourist board, which is doing much good work.
Despite all those encouraging developments—with continued growth in the economy and high investment—we have not been able to make any impact yet on total unemployment levels at a time when large numbers are joining the labour force and job losses continue to arise from changes in the industrial structure. Against that depressing background, the Government have reinforced their employment and training programmes.
The growth of the number of long-term unemployed is a particularly disturbing aspect of the situation. During the year, we have more than doubled the number of available places on the community programme, and I am pleased to say that the Manpower Services Commission is well on its way to meeting the June target of 20,500 filled places. Pilot schemes in Neath and Port Talbot aimed at getting the long-term unemployed into jobs or training are already showing encouraging signs. Fourteen thousand places are planned for the adult training programme in Wales in the coming year, representing a threefold increase since 1984–85. The revised training arrangements announced last year are developing well.
I have been particularly encouraged by the success over the last year of the enterprise allowance scheme, which provides a weekly allowance of £40 to unemployed people wishing to set up their own business. We shall have 5,192 places available in Wales this year, an increase of more than 1,000.
The two-year youth training scheme is being introduced from 1 April, and that major training programme will provide school leavers with high quality training and work experience. I am pleased that the problems in Mid Glamorgan have been overcome and the area manpower board has unanimously approved the plans.
Mr. Michael Foot: On the subject of the second year of the youth training scheme, the right hon. Gentleman talks of problems being overcome, but the Government are imposing a considerable increase in the amount that the local authorities have to pay. Will he not look at that afresh, particularly in the light of the meeting we had at the weekend, representing all the heads of the valley areas, which are all facing the same problems? The Government boast about what they are doing about training, when a considerable part of the burden is being put on the local authorities. Will the right hon. Gentleman look at the financing of that matter again?
Mr. Edwards: I take note of what the right hon. Gentleman says. As I said, we have allocated massive additional funds to start this training programme, which, regrettably, was not started when the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) had responsibility for such matters. We had to catch up with other countries and I am pleased with the progress that is being made to introduce better training for young people. [Interruption.] The Opposition do not like being reminded of their neglect of these matters in the past.
Mr. Foot rose—
Mr. Edwards: I will not give way again. I have just given way to the right hon. Gentleman.
32
I turn now to another package of measures which we have developed in our drive to tackle the problems of unemployment, urban dereliction and social hardship which are the consequences of industrial change. In addition to a major road programme—last week we went out to tender for the Conwy crossing, one of the largest road and bridge contracts ever undertaken in this country—during my time in the Welsh Office we have set in motion a dramatic and far-reaching transformation and reclamation of the urban areas of Wales that have been symbols of industrial decay for so large a part of this century. One instrument has been the urban programme. We have increased resources from £7·1 million in 1979–80 to £29 million in 1986–87. I am pleased that it has proved possible to approve 200 new schemes at a total cost of £14·4 million for 1986–87, which represents a 53 per cent. increase in the value of new schemes approved over 1985–86.
In addition to the urban programme allocations, nearly £10 million has been earmarked for urban development grant projects throughout Wales. Since we introduced the urban development grant scheme in 1982, it has proved to be a highly effective tool in bringing forward private sector projects which together have a total investment value of about £115 million. As well as many other benefits, those projects are expected to create nearly 4,000 permanent jobs as well as some 1,800 temporary jobs during the construction stages. By far the most significant project so far approved is the £42 million redevelopment of the Bute east dock area in Cardiff by Tarmac, which is now well under way.
We are now looking at what development opportunities might be created in the wider south Cardiff area if we were to construct a barrage across the harbour mouth, and we are awaiting the results of the feasibility studies. Already the proposal has stimulated widespread professional and business interest in the considerable development potential of south Cardiff.
What is being achieved in south Cardiff also points the way to what can be done elsewhere. It is with that in view that I am today launching a new initiative to improve the environment of the south Wales valleys.
The special problems of the valleys cannot be tackled in isolation. Just as business in the communities of the coastal plain and the valleys grew and prospered together, so the future of the valleys must be related clearly to the tremendous progress which is being made in modernising and diversifying the economy of the rest of south Wales. A key to achieving that lies in the improvement of communications. The new road between Cardiff and Merthyr and into the Cynon valley is complete. We are continuing to support major improvements to the A467 beyond the Rogerstone to Risca section and have supported the construction of the important new access roads into the Rhondda valley.
We have approved capital expenditure allocations to the major development programme that British Rail is undertaking, in partnership with the county councils, for the Cardiff valleys network. It involves the replacement of the existing rolling stock, together with new stations, and other major improvements to services and facilities. With other important road schemes planned to improve access to the valleys still further, this is the moment to launch a fresh initiative to help ensure that the valleys share in the regeneration of the rest of south Wales.

33
A great deal can be done to improve the valley environment. That is especially true of the town centres and the areas lending to them, where poorly maintained buildings and a damaged environment sell short the enormous attractions which the valleys have to offer. What we shall seek to do is to trigger a series of co-ordinated initiatives by the local authorities and private and voluntary organisations to improve those areas. I am not proposing Welsh Office solutions. Where communities have sound ideas and the willingness to back them, the Welsh Office will focus the many existing mechanisms of assistance and will also make available additional resources to reinforce them, and to promote the contribution that is necessary from the private sector.
I am making available initially in 1986–87, for that specific valley initiative, on top of the other Government funding, £2 million of special capital allocations for housing-related initiatives and £1 million from urban programme resources, quite apart from special capital allocation of £3 million for housing priority estates projects, much of which will go to the valleys, and which I shall refer to later. Inevitably the bulk of developments under that initiative will fall in later years and those planning those projects can work on the assumption that we shall want to reinforce successful schemes in the years ahead.
Mr. Allan Rogers: I am not sure whether I heard the Secretary of State correctly. Did he say that £3 million is available for each of the 12 or so districts in south Wales, or is there £3 million for the whole of the south Wales valleys?
Mr. Edwards: I am saying that there is a substantial allocation of resources to local authorities under the housing schemes, to urban programme schemes, and to the work of the Welsh Development Agency and other agencies, all of which will be directed and concentrated. In addition, we are making available £3 million in the coming financial year for the initiative, and a large part of the £3 million of special capital allocation for housing priority estates projects will support the initiative.
I have set out my proposals in a statement, which I have already circulated to hon. Members and to organizations that we expect to be involved. We have shown in south Cardiff and in Swansea what can be achieved. The opportunity is there for the valleys as well. It will not surprise the House if I say that I do not always agree with the Bishop of Durham, but I felt that for once perhaps we shared a common approach when he spoke recently about the need for financial pump priming for community self-help. That is exactly what I am seeking to achieve.
Our drive to tackle housing dereliction has the same objectives. I have been able to increase local authority housing capital allocations for 1986–87. Within the total of over £141 million, special allocations of some £40 million have been made to encourage local authorities to concentrate on the renovation of both public and private housing stock. Taking into account the available spending from housing receipts, local authorities will be able to spend well over £140 million on the renovation of unsatisfactory housing in the coming year. In addition, I have increased net provision for the Housing Corporation by almost 15 per cent., to £44·7 million. A good deal of those resources will go into the valleys, and particularly into the programme of priority estates projects.
34
What can be done is already being demonstrated at Penrhys in the Rhondda and by the Afon project in Wrexham. The number of long-term unoccupied properties has already been greatly reduced, rent arrears have started to come down and vandalism is being brought under control. There is now a sense of commitment to make the estates places where people can live decent lives.
A new project in Bute Town, Cardiff got under way last October and is already making encouraging progress. We are now launching a further phase with new projects in Merthyr Tydfil, Pontypool and the Rhymney valley as well as in Barry. In total, special capital allocations of £3 million will be made for projects in 1986–87 and we are providing extra revenue support. Most important of all, we are making possible a much more sensitive style of management, which recognises the essential contribution which the people who live in the estates can make to improving them.
No doubt there will be a great deal to divide us in the debate this afternoon, but I hope that at least we can unite to make possible a real success of those important initiatives, and I seek the support of the House for them.
4.15 pm
Mr. Barry Jones: My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Dr. Thomas) hopes to wind up for the Opposition, and to be able to pick up some of the many points raised by the Secretary of State, particularly about agriculture and health.
I should like to remind the Secretary of State that last month, in his own county, 1,000 people demonstrated in the county hall against cuts in the education service in the county of Dyfed and for higher rates.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to training in reply to an intervention by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot). When the right hon. Gentleman was in opposition he used to say that training places were not proper jobs. Many of us remember the attacks that he used to make in that sphere. However, I want to give a positive welcome to his announcement about Nimbus Records—275 jobs in Cwmbran will be much welcomed.
The Secretary of State mentioned an opening at Shotton in my constituency. I can help the House by telling hon. Members that one of our evening papers has written:
"Welsh Secretary Nicholas Edwards certainly has a talent for bad publicity. He can drive into a bed of roses and come up smelling of—fertiliser.
BSC has invited him to open the new £30 million … line at Shotton in June but Alyn and Deeside councillors are to write to the Steel Corporation saying Mr. Edwards is not welcome on Deeside."
Rightly, the Secretary of State made the economy the central part of his speech. I agree with him on that. He also made important remarks about our valley communities. Before I take up the points that he made, I should like to make a plea to him to raise in Cabinet the need for extra help for old people in the present freezing weather in Wales. I remind him—the House should know—that our housing problems in Wales are arguably the worst in Britain. Elderly people in leaking, draughty homes, particularly in the south Wales coalfields, are at risk. I have in mind pensioners who are partly disabled through arthritic hips, and live in homes that can be reached only by climbing many steps.
Many pensioners are trapped in the coldest of homes. The chief housing officers in Wales say that the elderly

35
live in some of the worst housing. What prospect is there of a special payment? The Secretary of State must fear, as I do, the manifestation of hypothermia in Wales. Despite our record of neighbourliness, there is no doubt that many of our fellow countrymen and women in Wales are at risk.
I should like to refer to tourism. For once, I can fully agree with the Secretary of State. His stand is right. He was right to stand up for the Wales tourist board. He would have been greatly criticised had he not. I very much appreciate the alacrity with which he moved to make sure that nobody got any idea that we were to lose our tourist board.
I advise the Government to exclude Wales from the unpopular Sunday trading legislation—the Shops Bill. The Secretary of State and the Cabinet to which he belongs have under-estimated the disquiet and opposition to it in Wales. For the archbishops of the Church in Wales and the Roman Catholic Church to agree, for the Free Churches, the Mothers' Union and the Salvation Army to agree, when all-party unease is expressed and when the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers agrees with these bodies, there is clearly considerable evidence of the unease about the Bill in Wales. At a recent press conference in Cardiff, the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Sir R. Gower) made a fine plea for second thoughts by the Cabinet about this important matter.
Mr. Anderson: Conservative hon. Members may be laughing now but, come the election, they may have a very different expression.
Hon. Members may like to know that I addressed a meeting in Cardiff four weeks ago where there was only one person in favour of the Government—and he was a Conservative councillor. I addressed another meeting in Swansea on Friday and again only one person at a large meeting was in favour of Government policy. Again, he was a Conservative councillor doing his inadequate best.
Mr. Jones: Even the South Wales chamber of trade came out against the Cabinet's proposals on the Shops Bill.
Mr. Ray Powell: I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) can recall the figures published by the Minister of State, Home Office relating to the number of letters he received for and against the Bill. I believe that the Minister received 310 letters in support of the Shops Bill and 37,000 against it.
Mr. Jones: All Opposition Members have found that their mail bags feature this issue strongly and emphatically. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to take the views of the House to Cabinet and at least exclude Wales from the Sunday trading legislation, even if he cannot have the Bill killed in its tracks.
The right hon. Gentleman wriggled somewhat over the issue of rates in his speech. I want to put it on record that since 1980–81 it has been estimated that almost £451 million in cash has been lost by local authorities in Wales in terms of rate support grant and penalties. I advise the right hon. Gentleman—and he knows virtually all the authorities and is on first name terms with them after seven years—to work with the local authorities. He should not take them on or attack them. By not taking that approach,
36
the right hon. Gentleman was forced to make one of the most incredible U-turns in the history of Welsh Office Ministers. I quote from the Swansea Evening Post:
"Tory joy at £13 million U-turn."
The article continues:
"The Labour Leader of West Glamorgan County Council has been congratulated by his Tory counterpart for spearheading the successful campaign to secure an extra £13 million of Government money for Welsh county councils."
The Daily Post ran a large headline on 21 February. It read "Edwards gives in." There is no doubt that the Daily Post correspondent, Mr. David Rose, was correct when he reported:
"In an astonishing climbdown, the Government is to hand over an extra £13 million … But Mr. Edwards' announcement amounts to an embarrassing about-turn for the Government. Only four days ago he told the Welsh counties that they could only have the extra cash on condition that they reduce their overspending first."
What has happened is that, late in the day, the right hon. Gentleman has realised that the Government's policies, which have pushed up unemployment in a huge fashion since 1979, have left the local authorities desperately short of the financial resources to cope with the demands made on their services by the unemployed. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has become a kind of St. Paul on the way to Damascus.
The right hon. Gentleman raised an important matter regarding community investment in the valleys. Nothing is more important to us in the House than the future of the valley communities through to the end of the century. The concept of assisting the valleys is a good one and I welcome it. Any help for these beleaguered communities is most welcome. If the right hon. Gentleman can enhance the scheme with greater cash backing I would welcome it even more. However, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many jobs will be provided by the six schemes? Despite references to the high level of unemployment in the valley areas, there is no suggestion that the schemes will provide any new jobs. Indeed, the first four pages of the document are a eulogy to the policies that have helped to bring about industrial dereliction, mass unemployment and critical housing conditions in the valleys. Has investment in the coal industry really been substantial? Why does the south Wales coalfield have only one high-tech coalface compared with almost 50 in the rest of Great Britain?
When explaining the method of cash allocation, the right hon. Gentleman made it clear that initially there will be only six places and that the valley communities will be in competition with each other. What is the sense in that? Is it not true that the communities least able to mount an effective challenge for cash will be those with the least resources and most desperately in need of assistance? Is the Secretary of State initiating a programme which will merely lead to the survival of the fittest? What will happen to the communities which fail at the first hurdle? Will they receive no help?
The cash allocation for housing must be described as derisory. The £2 million cannot provide hope to undo the damage caused by the 25 per cent. cuts in housing budget made by the Government the year after the general election. The Chief Housing Officers Association suggested that billions of pounds in cash over 15 years is required in south Wales to avert a major housing crisis.
If the right hon. Gentleman would allow Welsh local authorities to use the many millions of pounds from housing sales, if he would free the receipts from these

37
sales, the communities would have a better chance of correcting the amazing dereliction with which they have to cope.
To put the right hon. Gentleman's statement into context, I remind him that when steelmaking at Ebbw Vale was ended, the Labour Government pumped £25 million into the area and when steelmaking at Shotton was finished, the Department of Industry in 1980–81 put £12 million into that area. On that basis the right hon. Gentleman's initial offer in relation to the coalfield communities and valley communities is not enough.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the housing associations will be able to take advantage of the scheme?
Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Yes, indeed.
Mr. Jones: The right hon. Gentleman has said yes and I thank him for that information.
The Welsh Office has identified the problem but in some respects, given the amount of funding that it has announced, it has passed on the responsibility for dealing with the problem to the local authorities which have been starved of cash since 1979. The two pilot schemes outlined in the appendices are worthy enough. However, as an assault on unemployment, an attempt to attract new industry and as a means of reducing poverty and improving the quality of housing, the schemes are inadequate. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to consider the weakness of the schemes in terms of funding.
I would like the right hon. Gentleman to meet representatives from the Coalfields Community Campaign. He should explain his intentions to them and attend a meeting of the Heads of the Valleys standing conference and discuss the document. The right hon. Gentleman should call the coalfields county councils together and tell them how he views the way forward. He should discuss these plans at length with those whom he hopes will promote them in the years ahead.
If the right hon. Gentleman doubts what I am saying, I will give him an uncomfortable minute by reading the latest unemployment figures for the valley communities. Aberdare has male unemployment of 29·5 per cent.; Blaenau Gwent and Abergavenny have male unemployment of 25·7 per cent.; Cardiff has 21,966 people seeking work; Bridgend has male unemployment of 22 per cent.; Merthyr and Rhymney have male unemployment of 25·4 per cent.; Newport has male unemployment of 19·9 per cent.; Pontypool and Cwmbran have male unemployment of 19·5 per cent.; Pontypridd and Rhondda have male unemployment of 22·4 per cent.; and Swansea has male unemployment of 21·5 per cent. Those are horrendous figures.
The statistics can never adequately explain the humiliation, sadness, deprivation and poverty in the homes of unemployed men and women. The right hon. Gentleman's valley initiative is minuscule compared with the task that we shall have when we take office. As the general election nears, the right hon. Gentleman's language becomes softer. It is dawning upon him slowly that his proposals are insufficient for our people.
On the economy generally,
"we have blown North Sea Oil. We have sold the assets. We are a society too anxious to consume and an economy too reluctant to invest. There is a world of ownership and a world of managers and they don't meet. The whole psychology of the City is profoundly anti-industrial."
That was said by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). The Government have been successful—
Mr. Keith Best: Why is capital investment in Britain at an all-time high of £55 billion?
Mr. Jones: Why has Wales lost 105,000 manufacturing jobs since the right hon. Gentleman took office? Why is one in four men in Anglesey out of work? Why are 11,000 people in Gwynedd out of work? The hon. Gentleman cannot answer that. He should have remained in his seat. He knows that the Secretary of State is not delivering enough new jobs to Anglesey and the county of Gwynedd. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his timely intervention.
What will be the plight of the Welsh economy when the oil revenues cease? Wales has suffered more than the rest of the United Kingdom in the depression. I look to the Secretary of State to fight in Cabinet for a major change in policy and for a policy that will ensure an attack on the unacceptable unemployment in Wales. If he believes that he can delay that, I must tell him that Carmarthen town has lost 400 creamery jobs; Metal Box has decided that 800 jobs at Neath must go; we have lost 1,200 Courtaulds jobs at Flint and Wrexham, and in that area 14,000 people are jobless; 130 plastics jobs will be lost in Ruabon; and in the Swansea valley, Lucas is destroying 260 jobs. What plans does he have for pumping replacement jobs into the Severn tunnel, Margam and Llanelli following the British Rail job losses?
Why did the Secretary of State fail to halt the closure of the Islwyn and south Gwent skillcentre? Why did he not fight for it? He talks proudly of training investment. Why did he let the Llanellii and Islwyn skillcentres go to the wall?
I repeat that Gwynedd suffers from 23 per cent. male unemployment and 4,000 people in Holyhead are looking for work. For as long as the county of Clwyd is desperate for new jobs, Gwynedd has few prospects, because it is far to the north and to the west. I heard nothing today from the right hon. Gentleman about how he would help that county.
The Secretary of State glossed over our unemployment problems. Officially, in January, 190,000 people were on the register. This month, we hear that the figure is 188,000. It is fair to say that the true unemployment figure, making the generous allowance that half of those on special training will find employment, is probably 210,000. The trend is becoming worrying. The loss of more than 5,000 pit jobs in the south Wales coalfield in less than a year has caused much anxiety to the president of the south Wales NUM, Mr. Emlyn Williams, and to Mrs. Moira Sharkland, the chairperson of the Coalfield Community Campaign in south Wales. Both of them ask for more money for the activities of NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. The Opposition say that the money earmarked is insufficient for the post-closure tasks.
In response to the Secretary of State's initiative announced today, I ask him to make another. He should initiate an investigation of the state of disrepair in Wales' crumbling infrastructure. I remind him that the National Economic Development Council has called for an in-depth examination of infrastructure investment needs in the United Kingdom. The English regions are analysing and quantifying what needs to be done. The Confederation of British Industry has asked the right hon. Gentleman to invest heavily in infrastructure improvements. I have in mind the current state of housing, schools, colleges and hospitals in Wales. There is a major backlog of

39
improvements in the operations of the Welsh water authority and there are many outstanding road improvement schemes. Such a national audit of the Welsh infrastructure would give us a gobal picture of the task that we face. If the right hon. Gentleman had had the benefit of such an audit and perhaps more funding, his announcement about the valleys might have meant that we could have worked constructively until the end of the century to right much that is wrong in the valleys and in the rest of Wales.
It is not widely known, but the conservative estimate is that the 190,000 unemployed people in Wales cost the taxpayer, at 1984–85 prices, more than £1 billion a year. According to the latest quarterly report of the Manpower Services Commission, about 77,000 men and women of all ages have been jobless in the Principality for more than a year. The right hon. Gentleman must tell us how to return them to work. How can we lessen the humiliation of the families of the long-term unemployed?
I hope that the Secretary of State will go to the Cabinet and insist at least on the proposals made by the Select Committee on Employment, which have received widespread commendation. The Financial Times said that they were "not outlandish" proposals, and they could become the basis of a fight back for jobs in Wales. I have tried to adopt those proposals to the Principality, and I hope that the Secretary of State will consider urgently what I propose: 17,500 jobs subsidised at £40 per week per job; 15,000 jobs, at a cost of £5,000 per job per year, centred on a long-term programme for urban rehabilitation, housebuilding, house renovation and local building projects; and 5,000 jobs at a cost of £4,000 per job per year on improvements to social services. The latter could provide helpers and carers for the elderly, especially in Arctic conditions such as we have now, and people to care for the disabled and those recently discharged from hospital. This would be centred largely in the Health Service and the local health authorities.
It is estimated that the entire programme would cost about £165 million, or £55 million a year for three years, and that it might remove 37,500 people from the dole queues. That is the least that the right hon. Gentleman should do. It is the bottom line. The Opposition are not aiming an ideological arrow at the right hon. Gentleman. The proposals come from an all-party Select Committee and are endorsed by the Financial Times. I hope that one of the Ministers will respond sincerely to that tonight.
Because there is a pressure on time I shall, like the Minister, keep my remarks to a reasonable length. We are critical of the Secretary of State not only for his past record but for the huge increase — 137 per cent. — in unemployment in the Principality. We are also critical of him and the Government because they have no strategy to help the unemployed.
4.40 pm
Sir Raymond Gower: There is a temptation on these occasions to be parochial and to sound constituency themes. There is also a temptation to be partisan. However, seldom has there been a greater need to be as objective as possible rather than subjective. We should seek to speak about the economic realities rather than political panaceas. It is quite natural for
40
Members to adopt constituency matters which are so important to us all, but it would be inconsistent with our main objectives if we dwelt upon them.
It should be possible to view the problems of the Welsh economy in the context of the United Kingdom. We are witnessing general economic problems arising out of a deep-seated malaise of our industries, which have been declining for many decades. Coupled with this malaise is the somewhat different problem of unemployment—the two things are not always the same. Indeed, if we take steps which are designed to deal with the long-term economic malaise, the immediate effect may be some increase in unemployment, either short-term or long-term. Similarly, steps to counter unemployment — though helpful in the general economic context — can be damaging to long-term trends.
An increase in the activities of the building and construction industries would have an obvious advantage in dealing with unemployment levels. Whatever disadvantages there may be in increasing the activity of the industries, they are on the whole fairly labour-intensive and do not use a great number of imported products. Such an increase in activity would also benefit other industries. There would be an increased demand on the manufacturers of paints and materials, and furniture. Housebuilding and other forms of building would increase the activities of these industries and would, by definition, be likely to lead to an increase in their exports. In this case there would be a contribution to solving the long-term problem of inflation and to the prosperity of our economy.
To adequately reconcile attempts to deal with the deep-seated problems of our economy and at the same time with unemployment are matters of nice judgment on the part of the Chancellor and the Government. In the context of the type of unemployment referred to by the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), there is a strong case for increasing the production of the construction industries above the levels which have been contemplated previously. This should be done not least in Wales. I hope that serious consideration will be given to this shortly by Ministers in general and by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in particular.
There are, of course, particular problems in Wales. I understand the views of those who continuously express the wish to restore the old basic industries of coal, iron and steel. It is possible to increase the efficiency of those industries and a good deal has been achieved, but it does not seem likely that we shall see a return to the former levels of production. What can any Government do to deal with these problems? What should be their main efforts?
I would suggest, somewhat differently from others, that the first consideration should be communications. There is a good deal of evidence that, more important than regional grants and any other help which the Government can give directly, industrial growth benefits more from good communications than any other single factor. Successive Governments have a reasonably good record in this connection.
One project which has been cited already is the completion of the M4 and the completion of the dual carriageway beyond the M4 to Dyfed. My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) mentioned the north Wales coastal road. The Secretary of State also referred to the dual carriageway from Cardiff to Merthyr Tydfil. One might mention the dual carriageway from Newport to Ross-on-Wye and its connection by motorway to the

41
industrial midlands. Some bypass schemes—which have not been mentioned in this debate — have been invaluable. I feel that more could and should be done.
While there is evidence that the motorway and dual carriageway schemes have progressed satisfactorily, other main roads are in need of attention and repair. I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State what is the degree of his Department's inspection of the condition of those roads for which the county councils are largely responsible. Is there any system by which these roads are regularly inspected and the defects brought to the attention of the county councils?
There is also the problem of the Severn crossing. I have been encouraged by the steps which have been taken recently to effect certain considerable repairs, but I still believe that there is a need for a second crossing. I do not believe we shall be forgiven in Wales if, within the next year or two, we do not give a strong assurance on this issue. I have heard the view expressed frequently in Wales—it is wrong but quite understandable—that it would be ironic if we had a tunnel to France but an inadequate connection between England and Wales. This is a poor comparison, but I must tell my right hon. Friend that it is a view which is unfortunately held by many Welsh people. Much attention should be given to roads which are maintained by the county councils, and the permanent question of the Severn bridge.
Dr. John Marek: The hon. Gentleman cannot shift responsibility solely onto the counties. The current expenditure, the non-capital expenditure, comes out of the rate support grant. What constructive suggestions does he have to ensure that the county councils can repair the roads?
Sir Raymond Gower: We must first identify the need, and in some cases I believe that there is a need. That is why I have asked my right hon. Friend about the extent to which there is an adequate system of inspection to enable us to know what is needed, because we can then make suggestions along the lines that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
The Cardiff Wales airport is another factor in communications. The steps that have already been taken are most invaluable and helpful, and should ensure the continued growth of the airport. The improvement of the runway enables that airport to handle much larger aircraft than most of its rivals, and that is laudable.
The second priority has already been mentioned. Wales wants a fair share of the newer, highly technical and modern industries to compensate for the real loss of jobs caused by the decline of the older industries. Here I disagree with the Labour party. It is not easy to attract into Wales the sort of industries that will provide the required number of jobs, because by definition these newer industries employ fewer people. They are much more highly technical and capitalised. In that sense, it is a formidable task to arrange for a sufficient number of such industries to come into Wales so that they provide the number of jobs that have declined in the labour-intensive industries. Labour Members are wrong to minimise the difficulties associated with that task.
Whatever Labour Members may think, I believe that my right hon. Friend and his Department have done an amazing job in their efforts to obtain new industry from abroad. The success of that has been evidenced by the
42
number of new companies that have come to north and south Wales from Japan and other countries. In that regard, Wales has been more successful than any other part of the United Kingdom, and my right hon. Friend, his fellow Ministers and all who work in the Welsh Office deserve much praise.
Mr. Rogers: Only from the hon. Gentleman.
Sir Raymond Gower: Such a tribute is deserved. I do not believe that I am the only hon. Member who thinks that. I extend such praise to the Welsh Development Agency and its efforts to attract new factories and new jobs. I am not so convinced that it has yet been as successful in relation to the financial part of its remit—its role as merchant banker. That is much more difficult, and I hope that in future that part of its business will be as successful as the construction of new factories.
I too shall curtail my remarks, but I should like to mention the work of other authorities as well as that of the Welsh Development Agency and the industrial department of the Welsh Office. Work is also done by some local authorities and by organisations such as Cardiff and Vale Enterprises — which operates in south Glamorgan — as well as the Thomson International Organisation, which has done invaluable work at Neath and is now starting to do the same in my own constituency. Such efforts are to be admired.
But part of the remedy lies in the hands of our own people. We must not ask that all these things be done for us. There must be a determination throughout the Principality to assist in this major undertaking. I hope that there will be wholehearted party co-operation, irrespective of whether we are in government or opposition. This is a long-term job which will not be achieved in the lifetime of one or even two Parliaments. We shall need the co-operation of all.
4.55 pm
Mr. Geraint Howells: I have taken part in a number of Welsh day debates since my election to Parliament, and I have had the privilege of representing my constituency for 12 years. I am delighted that in the Chamber today there are three other hon. Members who were elected on the same day as I was. There is the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist), the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), and the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Thomas). I believe that we are the only four hon. Members from Wales elected in February 1974 who are still here. All of us have in our own ways tried to play our part for the Principality that we all love so much.
On each occasion, I have wished to have the opportunity to celebrate progress in the life and economy of Wales. Many of us celebrated St. David's day last weekend, but alas there was no joy. With each passing year it seems that the cause for celebration gets less and less. Indeed, when we look at the state of Wales today—with its ailing economy and mounting unemployment — any feeling of optimism fades away at the dismal prospect before us.
I believe that the Government's faith in market forces is entirely misplaced, and to adopt an attitude of laissez-faire, as they do, towards Welsh problems is thoroughly reprehensible and unforgivable. We need only look at the statistics published in the latest Department of Employment bulletin.

43
Three of the travel-to-work areas in my constituency have unemployment figures of 24·5 per cent., 26 per cent., and 27·6 per cent. respectively. I again make a plea that the top end of Pembrokeshire, Fishguard and part of Carmarthenshire should come under the jurisdiction of the Development Board for Rural Wales. That would be a step in the right direction. I hope that the Secretary of State and his colleagues will again look at the plight of that area.
The travel-to-work area of Aberystwyth, which is also in my constituency, has only 12·4 per cent. unemployment —a respectable figure by today's standards. But there the economy is underpinned by a thriving university college, several other educational institutions and research establishments — a sector that is increasingly coming under threat from the Tory Government's policies. It seems that this Government are entirely anti-education and anti-research—a fact that bodes ill for my constituency and for the whole of Wales.
It is extremely short-sighted of any Government to starve these centres of excellence of much-needed funds. That is the kind of investment that is absolutely necessary if we are to compete in any way with other nations in Europe and throughout the world. Will the Secretary of State scotch the rumour that one of the Welsh university colleges is to be closed?
How safe are the Trawscoed establishment, the Pwllpeiron experimental farm and the plant breeding station at Gogerddan?
I believe that unemployment in Wales, which is already well above tolerable levels, will, before the end of 1986, be at or near 200,000. That is ample proof, if any were needed, that, whatever the Government's claims, their theories and policies are just not working for Wales. Instead of investing money in improving the housing stock, renewing the infrastructure, giving us better roads and easier communications—which would in the long term provide a better environment for job creation—
Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Nonsense. We all acknowledge that we have great difficulties and problems in Wales, but it does not help to throw out three wholly spurious scares, as the hon. Member has done. I have not heard the vaguest suggestion from anyone about the closure of the university college. He knows perfectly well, because he came with a delegation recently to see me, that very firm assurances have been given about the future of the Welsh plant breeding station. The hon. Gentleman should not invent things.
Mr. Howells: They are not spurious at all. These rumours have been floating in Wales and the Secretary of State knows it. There is no need for him to get excited. We know what has happened in Wales during the past few years, and more may happen. We are well aware that the Welsh plant breeding station has lost its status, but I hope that it will remain and be successful. After all is said and done, it has lost its status, and the Secretary of State knows it.
Dr. Marek: I completely agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about education in Wales. Everybody in Wales is aware of the enforced cuts in the Welsh plant breeding station and indeed the cut at the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service at Trawscoed. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will charge
44
farmers for its services. It is a dismal story. The Secretary of State jumped up to deny that the university college of Wales was to be closed. I wonder if he would jump up to deny that Cartrefle teacher training college is to be closed. I understand that it is to be closed. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Conservative Members are denying that. In that case, I would welcome the Secretary of State jumping up now to deny it.
Mr. Howells: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I am afraid that the Secretary of State has by now regretted jumping up and intervening so rapidly.
I doubt very much whether privatising the Welsh water authority will create any employment. Still less will it benefit the consumer or the Welsh economy, and conservation, safety and the general management of our rivers and lakes cannot but suffer. Why on earth give away part of our most valuable natural assets in the pursuit of irrelevant dogma?
While we are scaremongering, in the view of the Secretary of State for Wales, what about the Forestry Commission? Who started that scare last week? I have tabled a question to the Secretary of State for Wales. He dare not give me a reply. He referred me to the reply given by the Secretary of State for Scotland. I wonder what his private views are regarding the Forestry Commission in Wales. We may know later. He may jump to his feet now: who knows?
The Secretary of State is nominally responsible for agriculture. I trust that he will forgive me for emphasising, yet again, how important it is that he should represent Welsh farming interests in Brussels and endeavour to make out a special case for Welsh farmers. Many of us have pressed him to go to Brussels during the past seven years. If my memory serves me right, he went once—in 1979–80—to defend the sheepmeat regime. He has full responsibility for agriculture in Wales. The Welsh nation depends on agriculture. If only to show good will, the Secretary of State should go to Brussels to represent Welsh farmers and to give them more moral support.
Farm incomes throughout Britain have been eroded during the past few years—production costs have risen faster than farm prices. Agriculture in Wales has been especially hard hit. In some areas, farmers have still not recovered from the milk quotas, which affected whole communities with devastating suddenness a couple of years ago, ruining many lives. The Secretary of State said that the Liberals do not favour quotas. I have said that there was no need to introduce quotas when they were introduced. I am sure that the Secretary of State would like to turn the clock back and that he does not favour quotas. Nor do the dairy farmers of Pembrokeshire, Carmarthen or Cardiganshire.
We should examine our marketing system in the EC with a view to getting rid of the surpluses. No Welsh Office Minister has mentioned our doing away with the intervention system and improving marketing. A child could buy a bullock for £500, sell it into intervention, leave it there six months and then sell it to the Russians for £50. That is happening. I do not know whether it is the system that the Government advocate, but it is time for the Secretary of State to go to Brussels and tell them that we want to change the system.
Leaders in Brussels should also be told that we want to keep the variable beef premium. Welsh farmers,

45
especially those who combine dairy and beef production, are worried about the EC threat to replace the premium with a new direct support scheme of headage payments for specialist beef producers. The premium, though not perfect, has been an important and stable influence in Welsh beef production. It has worked much more efficiently than any intervention system on the continent. The Farmers Union of Wales and the National Farmers Union have said that it is vital to retain the premium which store and fat cattle producers consider essential for survival now. We must not have a repeat of 1973–74 when the change in the system made the bottom drop out of the beef market, thus creating instability in the industry.
I remind the House once again that it was the Tory Government of 1973 who abolished the deficiency payments and a guaranteed price for beef in Wales. It was the Labour Government of 1974 who, with the backing of the Liberals and other minority parties, introduced the variable beef premium. I hope that the Secretary of State will do everything possible to ensure that the system continues during the next few years. Welsh agriculture has suffered enough traumas in the past couple of years to last a lifetime. I ask the Secretary of State to fight vigorously for Welsh farmers. Their welfare is vital to the rural economy in Wales.
I should like to quote a press release of the Farmers Union of Wales dated 28 February 1986:
"FUW President, Huw Hughes, told Pembroke farmers at Martletwy on Saturday (March 1) that despite the drop of 43 per cent. in farm incomes last year, Welsh farmers could expect no tangible help from this year's European price talks. He added that the UK Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Jopling, instead of safeguarding the interests of UK farmers, was taking the lead in cutting farm incomes still further."
I wonder whether the Secretary of State for Wales, who has full responsibility for farming in the Principality, shares his right hon. Friend's view that further cuts are needed in farm incomes in Wales during 1986–87. I am afraid that the inevitable will happen and the industry will suffer once again. Let us look forward to the day when a new party will be in government within the next two years, and let us hope that the people of Wales will have a Welsh Assembly within the next five years to look after their interests better than they have been looked after during the last seven years.
5.10 pm
Mr. Ian Grist: The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howell) gave me a nice opening. I remember St. David's day in 1979 which heralded the Tory Government. It turned the key for us. That is a happy memory and I thank him for reminding me of it. If he continues to prescribe his policies for Wales, the Conservative party will remain in government, sure as eggs is eggs. He, the hon. Members for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Thomas) and for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and I—it is fortunate that the names have not changed too much — represented the first major break in the Labour stranglehold on Wales. Indeed, we continue to represent both urban and rural areas.
Those who came to Cardiff on Saturday, whether or not to go to the match, may have seen a steam railway engine proceeding down the street, accompanied by a band, to the Holiday Inn hotel. That is part of the spirit of Cardiff and part of the history of the area. The old and new together show a pride and confidence in the future. I have frequently pointed out the advantages of Cardiff, which is
46
a shining example of how a city can be transformed with the invaluable help of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Cardiff has never had such a good friend in Gwydyr house.
Cardiff is on the verge of being one of the most exciting cities in Europe. We have magnificent shopping facilities, the south Cardiff development, the old docks area, which is being modernised into the 21st century, fine universities, art galleries, museums, live theatre in quantities of which no other city of the same size can boast, new and modernising hotels, first grade national and local sports facilities, the finest conference and concert hall in Europe, an airport now capable of receiving jumbo jets, and communications by sea, air, rail and road to all parts of the United Kingdom and beyond which serve as a platform from which to go forward to the future.
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a great pity that Cardiff, for all its tourist attractions, should be about to lose a major attraction when an important collection of impressionist paintings will go to Japan for almost a year? Does he think that that is good for the tourist industry?
Mr. Grist: The hon. Lady shows the sort of insularity that damages Welsh interests. Those great paintings, which were left in the main by two sisters whose family money came from coal, will go to Japan. We have learnt that the tenth Japanese company is to invest in Wales. Those paintings will spread the name and fame of Wales, and will act as a hook to bring more work to our people. Just as the hon. Lady must have seen great exhibitions from abroad in the United Kingdom, we should be proud to have pictures to send around the world so that others may see them.
This should be one of the hon. Lady's days. Cardiff has served as a focal point for the valleys and hinterland of south Wales and, indeed, to a large extent was built on them. She should welcome the Secretary of State's venture of community investment and initiative in the valleys. I echo the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Sir R. Gower) that it is a chance for people to put forward their ideas, raise interest in their area, and bring pride back to their area, instead of having to rely on the politicians whom they elect and who rarely speak of the glories of the area but always of its dereliction, troubles and difficulties. It is a chance offered to them by the Government to help themselves.
It is absolutely certain that inefficiency, which the Labour party sometimes seems to espouse, and indiscriminate subsidy, which it certainly espouses, have never created or preserved jobs. They merely serve to lose jobs and make the position worse. Inflation, whether of promises or expenditure, wrecks confidence, undermines investment, is socially ruinous, and ultimately spells less work and employment. That is why we are looking forward to the Budget on 18 March and to a continuation of the fight against inflation. [Interruption.] Opposition Members should take note that this year the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development predicts that our unit labour costs will be the highest in Europe, and higher than in Japan and the United States. That is the sort of damaging inflation that we are imposing on ourselves, and that is supported by the attitudes of Opposition Members, which undermines jobs. High unit labour costs are one of the most damaging aspects of our national life.

47
Just as our productivity is improving and we are attracting the investment we need, we are managing to lose jobs because we are increasing labour costs rapidly compared with our competitors.
Mr. Best: Did not the OECD report show that we had been paying ourselves a 9 per cent. increase every year, which is a real increase of about 5 per cent.? The effect of that is that those in work become richer and improve their standard of living at the expense of those out of work. Is it not material that Labour Members always advocate higher wages and side with those who seek to push through higher wages when those policies directly damage those who are unemployed?
Mr. Grist: Indeed; and the figures show that in 1985 hourly earnings in the United Kingdom rose by 9 per cent. compared with a 5 per cent. average in OECD countries, and that this year the increase will be 8·5 per cent. for the United Kingdom and 4·5 per cent. for the total OECD countries. That is at least one of the answers to the question of the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) why we have lost jobs. They have been lost because of the inefficiency, out-of-dateness, uncompetitiveness and unawareness of what competitors are up to in industry after industry, and political party after political party. For many years the Tory party was as guilty as the other parties of being unaware of what was happening outside the United Kingdom.
Within the overriding priority of dealing with inflation, I hope that it will be possible to reduce interest rates. Their present levels are especially damaging to small businesses and to all those with mortgages. Today many more people have mortgages because more people are buying their homes than when we first came to office. I hope that more funds — even more than my right hon. Friend could announce today—can be made available for housing and house repairs. They are essential in constituencies such as mine, which have many ageing houses teetering on the brink of becoming slums, and many ageing constituents in need of specialised safe accommodation. During the past six years a marvellous job has been done in that respect. When I walk round my constituency I can see how many new roofs and windows have been installed, and the effect of the enveloping scheme in Rumney street. Much more remains to be done, and what better way to provide work and socially necessary investment than through housing?
Just as the Government have done so much to further home ownership and bring to reality the dreams of many people, I hope that my right hon. Friends have taken careful note of the opposition from all quarters to the proposals to review the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1972. The need to lighten the bureaucratic and tax burdens on small businesses and enterprises is well recognised by all Conservative Members. Nevertheless, the virtual free-for-all proposed in the use of private houses is not, and never will be, accepted.
Equally unacceptable is the extraordinary, and extraordinarily damaging, proposal of the South Glamorgan county council to raise local rates by 25 per cent. I quote from a letter that I received last week from one of my constituents. He writes:
"Dear Mr. Grist, I have just penned a letter to the Rev. R. Morgan to protest, most strongly, about the proposed 28 per cent"—
48
the figure has gone down to 25 per cent. since then, thanks to my right hon. Friend's actions—
"rate increase by S. Glamorgan. What you can do about it, I really don't know, but I feel I really must let my feelings be known, in the hope that others like me will put on enough pressure to reverse this diabolical situation.
Let me say I am, and always have been, a Socialist, but"—[Interruption.] The fact that I cannot read this properly speaks for former education standards.
"whatever happens next year neither I, nor my family, will ever vote Labour again … I am being used as a political pawn and I object to that.
The Rev. Morgan blames the present Government—and I admit that there is some truth in that."
That is fair enough.
"But I feel there is also a lot of bad management and many crocodile tears being shed. I pointed out to him for instance that much can be saved with a more competent Administration than exists at the moment."
The Audit Commission would agree with my constituent in that respect. He concludes:
"the effect on industry, small businesses and so on could be catastrophic."
My constituent is quite right. I told him that I would be making use of his letter today. There speaks a local resident who understands better than the county council the effect of rates rises on businesses.
We all appreciate that the change in rating support this year favoured cities at the expense of counties to some extent, but it was nevertheless a remarkable achievement that Cardiff city council held its rate steady. It is equally remarkable that the county council should put up its rate by 28 per cent.—a staggering figure and the greatest in Wales. Even now, the 25 per cent. increase that it is now going for will have profound effects. For example, a firm such as Amersham International will have its rates bill increased by £37,000.
Such increases, when applied to all the hotels, shops, and other businesses, firms and manufacturers around South Glamorgan, mean that claims by the county council that making cuts would cost jobs hide the fact that increases in costs mean that jobs go elsewhere. The person who retires is not replaced, the extra hand who could be taken on is not. These effects are not so easily seen, but they are there, and they make the area that bit less competitive than others.
Clearly, money is being wasted, for example in the education system, as schools are run half-empty, and painful decisions about their future are being shelved. That damages not only the economy of the county, but the opportunities for our children, who are consequently robbed of a wider curriculum and better equipment as a result of spending on echoing classrooms and underused facilities.
A further opportunity that is wasted locally, and this applies to county hall, city and local health authorities, stems from the appalling refusal to put out services to tender. Only by doing so can we be sure that local ratepayers are not being asked to subsidise inefficiency. The savings for many authorities have been outstanding and nationally the Government and the National Health Service have saved over £50 million by going out to contract. For instance, Ogwr council, in a slightly different league, has saved over £100,000 by putting out its building and local housing maintenance for tender. Bath city council, a little town in comparison to South Glamorgan, has saved £63,000 by putting out to tender catering in the council and the sports hall. Dudley council

49
has saved over £600,000 on school cleaning and Kent county council has saved nearly £1·4 million on the same service. There is now a long list of such savings. When will local authorities and health authorities in South Glamorgan and elsewhere wake up to their opportunities in this sector?
We should all be looking for opportunities. By their taxation policies, investment schemes and general ethos, the Government are seeking to promote a risk-taking and opportunity-taking state, and a responsible one.
This brings me to the teachers' dispute. I declare an interest as the father of two boys taking their O-levels in a local comprehensive school. Not all teachers are taking part in the dispute, and all credit to them for putting their pupils first. Many teachers, including some now taking action, are first-rate in their jobs, many are perfectly adequate, and some are downright poor. Most deserve higher pay, and, especially where their subject is in short supply, notably higher pay.
However, there must be a pro for this quid. The terms insisted on by the Government of assessment, job definition and increased in-service training are neither remarkable nor onerous. The only remarkable thing about them is that they have not been the norm for years. To deny that and imperil the future of our children as so many teachers have been doing, especially those in the NUT, is a scandal and a shame on the teaching profession. Let us hope that the current talks lead to better treatment for teachers and pupils alike.
We heard little today from the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside about the multifarious and manifold promises that he goes around making in Wales, but even they pall beside the £24,000 million extra expenditure promised by the Labour party leaders. Even if such promises could be kept, which is almost unthinkable in reality, the resultant rise in taxes and inflation would bleed the economy dry. Investment would flee the country, the pound would crash and inflation rocket. What choice then for jobs to maintain all the social expenditure called for by the Labour party? The country's course must be that set by the Government — realistic but imaginative. It must not be the opportunism—or occasionally the dishonesty—built on populism shown by the alliance. It must be built on a coherent, well-tried and deeply-rooted philosophy.
5.27 pm
Mr. Donald Anderson: In these debates, it is easy to go over the Government's global failures in their policy in Wales and look at the massive and increasing unemployment figures that are blighting every part of the Principality, at the increasing dereliction of our housing stock and the increasing waiting lists, and at the effect of public investment in social services, which have caused such misery in the Principality. I propose not to look at the global figures.
The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Sir R. Gower) enjoined us to be, as he intended to be, non-partisan and non-parochial. I shall be parochial and partisan—I make no apology for that—because these debates give us a good opportunity to invert the process of looking just at the overall picture, and instead look at the effects of Government policy in our localities among the people whom we have the privilege to represent.
I came back from my constituency today in a state of anger and shock at some of the things that I had seen and learned. I shall mention only two factors contributing to
50
my state. The first came when I picked up my local newspaper, the South Wales Evening Post, of 27 February. One page has the heading "We Want to Work". It has photographs of 24 people in the local area, whose ages range from 19 to 59. On the left of the advertisement, we are told that the feature has been made possible by generous donations from various companies. What are we coming to when decent people have to go through the humiliation of parading themselves in such a way?
I do not criticise the local newspaper, which is trying, albeit against the odds, to get these people into jobs. I do not criticise the jobcentre or the advertisers who paid for the advertisement. Least of all do I criticise those who are desperate for jobs and who are prepared to suffer the indignity of having their faces put before their friends, relatives and neighbours in a kind of cattle market. Conservative propaganda would have us believe that the unemployed are in some way at fault. That is reflected in the Government's social security policies for the unemployed. If the Government looked at the employment histories of those 24 people, they would say, as I do, "What a waste of talent and training." Decent people are being forced to allow their photographs to be so published in a local newspaper.
The Government were completely unprepared for this avalanche of job losses. I recall that, at the second meeting of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, Sir Hywel Evans, who was then the permanent secretary at the Welsh Office, was imprudent enough to answer a question about the figures that the Welsh Office was working on for the expected ceiling in unemployment. He said that they were working on the basis that unemployment would peak at 125,000. The Government have massaged the figures, but they still show that unemployment is over 170,000.
The Government were completely unprepared for what has happened. Their policies mean that they are ideologically and psychologically ill-prepared to deal with a situation that is largely of their creation. Who can doubt that the policies pursued in 1979, 1980 and 1981, when the value of sterling was high, were responsible for the destruction of so much of the manufacturing base upon which Wales depends? During the last five years, 2 million jobs in manufacturing industries in the United Kingdom have been lost. Wales has lost far more jobs than any other part of the United Kingdom because of the structure of its economy. Wales is dependent upon public investment in the economy as a whole.
I had my second shock over the weekend when I met two trade union representatives from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre at Morriston in my constituency. The traditional theme of this Government has been to cut the public sector, to curb trade union rights and to increase the privatisation of services. The hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist) praised those policies a few moments ago, but let us look at their effects in one place, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre.
In practice, the Government's policies mean that, because a three-year cleaning contract expires on 24 March, the DVLC management has negotiated a new contract with Exclusive Cleaners Contract (Western) Ltd. The old contract was for £287,000. The renewal tender costs amount to £155,000. Therefore the DVLC — in effect, the Government — can say that £132,000 of public expenditure is being saved. The director and the personnel chief at the DVLC are happy and the contractor is no doubt happy; he is keeping his profit margins.

51
But what is the effect on the cleaners—women who are already on low wages of £27 a week gross? The effect will be a reduction in cleaning staff from 139 to 102—a loss of 37 jobs — a reduction in cleaning supervisors from five to four and a reduction in wages—let us, in our comfort, listen to this—from £1·80 an hour to £1·50 an hour. There is also to be a reduction in hours from three to two-and-a-half. Thus, the women employed as cleaners at the DVLC will have to cover a larger floor area, because there will be fewer cleaners, in a shorter time. To add insult to final injury, their holiday pay is to be abolished. They have been told by the contractor that they can take it or leave it. If they do not like the new terms, he will go to the jobcentre, where he will find women who are more than ready, in a high unemployment area, to take their jobs.
Mr. Alan Williams: Does my hon. Friend accept that these figures, appalling and unacceptable as they are in their meanness and in their penny-pinching character, are made even worse when one bears in mind that, over the life of the last three-year contract, there has been an increase in inflation of over 15 per cent.? One therefore has to bear in mind that an increase would be necessary just to keep the wages at their original value.
Mr. Anderson: My right hon. Friend makes an entirely good point. They are miserable wages for women who are at the bottom end of the working sector. Many of these women are from one-parent families, or they are the only breadwinner in the family. The industrial relations legislation does not cover them. The Government have so dismantled the protection that was available to workers that the fair wages legislation has disappeared. This means that they can either take it or leave it. Is this the brave new Tory world? Is this the model for other privatisation contracts in schools, hospitals and Government service?
The unions at the DVLC advise me that the next group of workers whose jobs may be contracted out could be typists and the reprographic staff. In their defence the Government cannot say, like Pontius Pilate, that they were not responsible. They cannot be absolved from their responsibilities. They must have known what would be the effect of the contract into which they were entering. There will probably not even be a public expenditure saving. There are to be job losses which will have a consequential effect upon social security expenditure because the families of those who are made redundant will have to be maintained. Even according to the narrow and petty economics of this Government, it does not make economic sense. They have increased the misery of these miserably low-paid workers in west Glamorgan.
I shall contrast the effect of that policy on these women in Swansea with what is happening in the City. The Secretary of State is personally much more at home there than in dealing with low-paid workers. The investment climate in the City has seldom been more favourable. There has been a bid frenzy in the City and a shares boom.
If they wish, those ladies on slave wages at the DVLC in Swansea can read in the newspapers that during the last 12 months there has been a shares boom of 26 per cent. and that there has been an 8 per cent. increase in the last month. They can read about the City gold frauds. The bullion fraud amounts to an estimated VAT loss of £500
52
million. They can also read about the salary explosion in the City. The Government are doing nothing about that. There is to be a salary explosion in preparation for the "big bang" deregulation which is to take effect in October. The salaries of many young men in their twenties will be increased from £30,000 to £60,000 per annum.
Mr. Best: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Anderson: No.
They toil not, neither do they spin. They are pushing around figures in the City, yet these ladies in Swansea are to have their wages of £28 a week, gross, reduced to £25 a week.
Mr. Best: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Anderson: No, I shall not give way.
That is the direct result of the Government's policy. It is a mean Government who pursue such policies. There is a sour smell of decline about the Government's values. Perhaps the party of the City cannot comprehend the effect of their policies on those ladies in my constituency. Those effects—deliberate in that they arise from Government policy—should shame the Government.
A critic wrote of an earlier state of national malaise in which
"wealth accumulates, and men decay".
Wealth is certainly accumulating as the two-nation divide deepens as a result of Government policies. The Government's priorities are those of the City while men and women decay. Our people are the losers, and the Government should go.
5.40 pm
Mr. Keith Best: I was going to say that the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) was carried away by his own rhetoric, but it was not even rhetoric because much of it lacked any semblance of plausibility. The hon. Gentleman declined to give way to me as is his right, although it does not make for good debate, when he referred to share prices. He will be aware that recent new issues have been heavily oversubscribed if they appear to have any chance of going to a small premium. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if that amount of private money is available in the United Kingdom it should be harnessed to the kind of infrastructure projects that both he and I wish to see?
Mr. Anderson: I see nothing wrong in principle in harnessing every element of private capital to help build the infrastructure in Wales. I heard the appeals made to the City by the Secretary of State in Cardiff, but they were rejected because the prospective profits did not suit the City. If the hon. Gentleman disputes the figures that I gave, I assure him that every one of them was based absolutely in fact.
Mr. Best: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that statement. I shall remind him of it when we debate privatisation of the water authorities. He has now confirmed that, like me, he believes that private money should be harnessed wherever possible, rather than always relying on the public sector. The dinosaur attitude of the Opposition suggests that they are still living in the 1930s and 1940s when it was thought that the only way out of certain difficulties was to use the public sector rather than the more adventurous and successful attitude of the present Government. Why bleed the taxpayer and increase

53
inflationary pressures by creating a heavier public sector borrowing requirement — a method that the Labour Government tried and failed — when there is the alternative that we now see? It is no coincidence that companies going into the private sector invariably do well after privatisation because there is a new sense of entrepreneurial movement forward which was totally lacking when they were in the public sector. I shall give an example of that later.
Mr. Williams: Inadvertently, I am sure, the hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson). My hon. Friend referred to inflation in existing share prices. Those shares represent past investment, so their prices merely represent the price at which existing investment is changing hands. There is no accretion of investment as such. The privatisation of BT is a good example. Within a month or so, shares first issued at 50p were changing hands at £1·90—an increase of £1·40, not one penny of which was added to the investment in BT or received by the Government in extra taxation, but all of which went in windfall profits to shareholders.
Mr. Best: I am sure that the mistake is mine, but that is a different point. The right hon. Gentleman will agree that there are two aspects to this. The first is whether one can harness private sector capital for purposes hitherto regarded as the preserve of the public sector. As I understood it, the hon. Member for Swansea, East agreed that, wherever possible, private sector funds should be harnessed to achieve what in the past has been regarded as a matter for public sector investment. That is exactly what the Government are doing through privatisation, especially in the water authorities.
The second aspect is the movement of share prices. I remind the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) that many people of very modest means throughout the country, probably including a number of the right hon. Gentleman's constituents, who had never owned a share in their lives, took up the BT share offer because they wanted to have a stake in their country, an opportunity hitherto denied them.
Mr. Williams: They already owned BT.
Mr. Best: The right hon. Gentleman digs himself a deeper grave by saying that. The general public did not own BT. The right hon. Gentleman's concept of public ownership is quite different from ours. To him, it means that the state owns the assets. To us, it means that members of the general public own the assets. That is a fundamental philosophical difference between us. The right hon. Gentleman merely digs himself into a deeper hole by making that apparent.
The right hon. Gentleman will be very disappointed by the attitude of the Labour Opposition Front Bench to those assets which have been returned to the general public by the Government. The Labour Opposition Front Bench— I could say, uncharitably, under electoral pressure — knows that it would be electoral disaster to seek to renationalise those assets, to re-acquire them by the state and to confiscate them from the members of the general public in whose ownership they should properly remain. That is true public ownership, and there will be no Opposition commitment to dismantle it.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: The hon. Gentleman talks about ownership by the British
54
public. Does that include the 20 per cent. of BT shares sold on the New York stock exchange in the first week for £180 million? What contribution did that make to development and investment in Britain?
Mr. Best: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is now a convert to the concept of dispersing assets as widely as possible. I look forward to hearing him press the Government for further privatisation to ensure wider share ownership by individuals rather than institutions.
Mr. Rowlands: Answer the question.
Mr. Best: The hon. Gentleman and I will agree on one thing—that, unfortunately, the percentage of individuals owning shares is still in decline compared with that of institutions. I regret that, but I had not realised that the hon. Gentleman also regretted it. I am glad that he has now made it clear and that he accepts my premise that public ownership means ownership of shares by as many individuals as possible.
Mr. Grist: Does my hon. Friend accept that what is happening to shares now is in remarkable contrast to what happened when the Labour party was in power, when savers, often individuals, and pension funds, into which virtually everybody was paying, were robbed blind by inflation, putting money into the Exchequer, not into people's hands?
Mr. Best: My hon. Friend is right. There is an inherent dichotomy in what the Opposition say. I do not think that I have heard one Opposition Member say that pensioners should not have Treasury bonds. What is the difference between having a Treasury bond which fluctuates in price and a share in the ownership of a company at home or abroad? There is no conceptual difference. That is another hang-up that the Opposition must face when considering private ownership.
Listening to Labour Members, one is reminded that the late Sir Winston Churchill said:
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
That can never be more uppermost in one's mind than when one has the misfortune to have to listen to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones). If anybody is capable of sharing misery as widely as possible, he has the greatest voice for that in the House.
I want to concentrate on a matter of critical importance which has been adverted to already — the problem of unemployment. I was interested to read in the National Institute Economic Review:
"Each year that goes by with unemployment at the present level represents additional loss of national output, income and economic well-being. Moreover, both the social and the economic consequences of unemployment may well be cumulative, so that the longer that action is delayed, the worse the ultimate condition of the country will be even after unemployment is reduced."
I do not suppose that any right hon. or hon. Member would dispute that contention. The argument arises over how best to overcome that difficulty.
If we had been having this debate 20 or 30 years ago, it would have been regarded as impossible for a Government to sustain office with the levels of unemployment that are experienced now in the United Kingdom, and in Wales in particular. The fact that the Government have sustained office and the fact that, unlike their predecessors, the Labour Government, they not only

55
won the 1979 election but went on to win the 1983 election, proves two things. I shall be charitable and say that it may well have had a lot to do with the state of the Labour party rather than policy but it also had a lot to do with the public realisation that the answers to unemployment are not as facile as the Labour party sometimes suggests. It is because of that root change in the understanding of the British people that the promises of politicians to overcome the level of unemployment through massive public expenditure are seen to be false. That was why, notwithstanding the high level of unemployment, the British people still voted in a Conservative Government.
Labour Members — I say this to them in all seriousness—must address their minds to why that was so. They must ask themselves how it can be that they are still promulgating the policies of yesterday and still articulating the same remedies now as before the 1983 election and yet they lost that election and lost it overwhelmingly. They must look into their souls and philosophy and wonder whether they have got it right.
It is accepted that the answers are not easy. I fully appreciate that the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside makes up in simplicity what he lacks in academic argument. But his answers are not persuasive. They will not persuade the people of Wales. The hon. Gentleman believes in massive public expenditure. He thinks that is the answer. But I must remind him of what the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) had to say only the other day to the London Business School. He said:
"The days of the Keynesian dash for growth are over, at least for the Labour party."
I do not know how long the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside will hold his place on the Front Bench if he continues to push out what he did a moment ago, because he is at variance with the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook went on to say that a Labour Government would only proceed
"as the inflation constraints allow."
That was an interesting description of the state of the Labour party today, because it was an acknowledgement that the control of inflation must come before expenditure to increase employment. That is an interesting acceptance by some Labour Members of the realities of life that I have been mentioning.
The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside often talks about Holyhead in debates on Welsh affairs and in Welsh Question Time, but it is obvious that he does not often go there. If he did—unless he flew, like some of his ideas in fancy—he would have to travel along the A55 and he would realise that massive public sector investment, in excess of £400 million, is going into roads in north Wales which will have the most dramatic effect on the income and economy of my constituents in Anglesey. Anglesey has a great deal going for it. It has a beautiful environment and a multiplicity—
Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will recall that on the last occasion on which we had a debate on Welsh affairs, several Labour Members were not called because Conservative Members took more than their allotted time. I draw that to your attention, because Mr. Speaker made an appeal for short speeches. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) has
56
been speaking now for 16 minutes. One would have thought that he would have appreciated the appeal from the Chair and at least made a short contribution. If he is to make a contribution, let it be a contribution to the debate.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Speeches so far have been commendably short, and I hope that we shall continue in that way so that we can hear every hon. Member who wishes to speak.
Mr. Best: I shall adhere to your injunction, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I appeal to the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell)—if he is capable of noticing an appeal when it is made — not to seek to intervene from a sedentary position, as is his wont, so that he does not delay me. No doubt he will then have an opportunity to make his contribution.
The improvement of the A55 will have a dramatic impact on the economy of Anglesey, as also will the improvements—
Mr. Rogers: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Best: The hon. Gentleman is delaying the debate.
Mr. Rogers: The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) making his remarks from a sedentary position. In fact, my hon. Friend was standing. I know that he is short, but he was standing.
Mr. Best: I shall not respond to that. I would not want to see the hon. Member for Ogmore having to stand on the Benches in order to prove that he was standing rather than sitting.
I hope that when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary replies to the debate he will take on board my exhortations for bypasses along the A55 on Anglesey. He has been extremely helpful in that predicament that I have brought to his notice. It is largely the result of those representations and my hon. Friend's kind response to them that we have a consultants' report on the bypasses coming about. I hope that the contents of the report will come to fruition.
A nationalised industry, Sealink, cried out year after year for investment in Holyhead, and no investment was forthcoming. However, as soon as Sealink was privatised, there was investment of £2·5 million in a deep-water berth at Holyhead. These matters speak for themselves.
The Welsh Office has provided £220,000 in grant under the urban programme for the development of a fishing facility at Holyhead. Following discussions that I had with a New Zealand company, I am happy to announce that the production of electronic pool tables will begin in Holyhead in the summer. Welsh slate will be used, which I know will be of great assistance to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Thomas).
MEM is making advanced switching gear and Wells Kelo is undergoing restructuring. Anglesey Aluminium has seen an investment of £9 million, which has given it a more secure future than it has ever had previouly, but it will be going ahead with only half its work force. When I was first given the privilege of representing Anglesey in 1979, Anglesey Aluminium had 1,300 employees. That work force has now been halved. No Labour Member in his right mind, however rare that occurrence might be, would blame the Government for a reduction in the work force as a result of a diminution in the demand for aluminium worldwide. As I have said, the plant has a more

57
secure future now than ever before. That is a case of massive manufacturing investment, but a reduction in the work force.
Things are moving elsewhere in Anglesey with the restructuring of Associated Octel at Amlwch and with £500,000 of European money gong to Halal in Gaerwen to enable a packaging facility to be established.
Last week I met the chairman of Pringle, which has recently bought Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrnirobwlrllandysillogogogoch station. The chairman told me that the company is spending £1 million at that site on its manufacturing capability. I met an old Army friend of mine last week whose colleague has developed a vehicle which is being tested by the Ministry of Defence. Apparently it has a one-in-three chance of being accepted. If it is accepted, it will be produced by Laird for both the domestic and export markets.
Much is happening which is good news for Anglesey, but the tragedy of unemployment in Holyhead, which is at 25 per cent., means that no one can afford to be complacent. That is why I began by mentioning unemployment. Indeed, it is the subject on which I wish to bring my remarks to an end.
I suggest that three courses of action should now be taken. First, we should set up task forces in order to concentrate resources on areas in Wales with unemployment rates of 25 per cent. or more. The National Institute Economic Review shows that if we can reduce unemployment by establishing a structure which is related to manufacturing, there will be a direct correlation between a person gaining employment and a reduction in the unemployment register. Secondly, sectoral regional aid should be directed to support manufacturing industry. Thirdly, National Health insurance contributions, the welcome reduction of which was introduced in the 1985 Budget, should be directed to those under 25 years and to the long-term unemployed.
If we were to reduce the cost of employing those who are most in need of assistance and employment—those under 25 years and those who have suffered long-term unemployment — we would not have to talk about reducing wages for those people. Instead, we would be able to ensure that employers found it more attractive financially to employ people in those categories than others. If we can keep labour unit costs down, and, therefore, inflation, we help to combat the pressure for higher wages, which so often reduces our competitiveness.
Mr. Rogers: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Best: If we were to introduce these measures—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) wishes to raise a point of order.
Mr. Rogers: When we last had a Welsh affairs debate, Mr. Speaker, some hon. Members were unable to participate because of the excessive length of certain Members' speeches. You have said, Mr. Speaker, that if our contributions are reasonably short, everyone will be able to participate in this debate. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) has been speaking for 25 minutes.
Mr. Speaker: I am aware of that. I understand that the hon. Gentleman is about to resume his seat.
Mr. Best: I was about to do so, Mr. Speaker. Before you entered the Chamber, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member
58
for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) raised a point of order and delayed the progress of my speech. He has caused that to happen yet again and he must be held responsible for the delay.
I was saying that if we were to introduce the measures to which I referred—I hope that it will be announced in the Budget that they will be introduced — we could make an even greater and more significant contribution to the reduction of unemployment which we all want to see.
Several Hon. Members:rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Many hon. Members wish to participate in the debate. Long speeches will not be helpful if they are all to be accommodated.
6.6 pm
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I shall not take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) — neither their length nor their rambling nature. I believe that the annual Welsh day should have something to do with Wales, and I accept that constituency matters will arise. However, much of what we have heard from Conservative Members has been extremely general and could have been included in almost any United Kingdom-wide debate. The annual Welsh day debate provides an opportunity to take stock of what has happened and what is happening in Wales. It enables us to study the balance sheet to see how things are moving and to examine the gains and losses. Over recent years there has been a saga of losses.
We heard a few moments ago that the hon. Members for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist) and for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells), and my hon. Friend the Member for Merionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Thomas) and I share a 12th anniversary. A seventh anniversary that stands out in my mind is that of the referendum on the Welsh Assembly. I should like to wager that if such a referendum were to take place today, the result would be very different from that in 1979. The people of Wales have experienced the consequences of voting against the creation of an Assembly.
I know that some hon. Members would argue that the first priority is to get the Government out of office as quickly as possible, and I recognise that there is validity in that argument. However, the long-term argument, which is even more important, is that we must ensure that a similar Government are not blown into office by the next ill wind. Such a Government would not be elected by Wales but Wales would have to suffer them although they were voted in by other parts of the United Kingdom. Our priority should be to obtain a system of government that keeps the Conservative party, that lot on the Government Benches, out of office permanently. We must have a system that stops them messing up our country's prospects.
It is worth recalling what happened from 1974 to 1979. In that period, many and varied arguments were advanced by Conservative Members, and regrettably by some Opposition Members, against taking any step towards greater Welsh autonomy. We were warned that it would kill off jobs. We had 80,000 unemployed at that time and we were told that unemployment would be very much worse if Wales gained greater autonomy. There are now 180,000 unemployed. We were told that, in the absence of an Assembly, regional policy and assistance would take

59
off. We know what has happened. It has been killed off in the meantime. There is a great need for a new start for the young unemployed in Wales. That must be a reason for us to put a question mark against those who say that, provided we keep clear of Welsh autonomy, everything will be fine and dandy in Wales and London.
We were told that housing programmes would be cut if we had an Assembly. We did not have an Assembly, and housing investment in Wales has halved since the Government came to office. The people of Wales are suffering from inadequate housing and long waiting lists.
What would have happened to the hospital investment programme if we had had an Assembly? We were told how many hospitals could be built between 1979 and the end of the century if we kept clear of an Assembly. We kept clear of it and we know what happened to the promises. We know what happened to the promises of hospitals being built in Porthmadog, Western Dwyfor, other parts of Gwynedd and many other parts of Wales.
We were warned of what would happen to the road building programme if we had an Assembly. I accept that there is a continuing programme along the north Wales coast, but all parties know what happened to the county roads in Gwynedd, Dyfed and Powys. An increasing number of potholes and less and less investment—yes, we paid in terms of road programmes.
We were warned that splitting Wales from the rest of Britain, even with the minimal devolution talked about, would threaten investment in industries such as coal. Since 1979, the number of jobs in the coal industry has been more than halved. More than one third of the jobs in the Welsh coalfield have gone during the past two years. There were promises of investment in Margam, but they were not fulfilled. So much for the promises that, if we kept away from the idea of autonomy and were good boys, all would be well.
We were told that an Assembly would take money and power from local government but, during the past few weeks, we have seen what has happened to rates. Increases have been necessary because the Government have withheld grants. Yes, power has been taken from local government—it has gone straight to Whitehall, and we in Wales are paying the price in terms not only of lost resources but of lost control and a loss of plans and strategy for Wales. Powers have been centralised not in Cardiff but in London. There has been higher taxation for fewer services and no control.
We were told many things by certain hon. Members during the run-up to 1979. We were told that, if we had a Welsh Assembly, water rates would increase. The threat was that democratisation of the water authority would mean much greater rates. As soon as the Conservative party came to power in 1979, it did away with the Water Charges Equalisation Act 1977 and immediately, at the stroke of a pen, added £4 million to the Welsh water bill.
We were warned what would happen to the Welsh language if we had a Welsh Assembly. We are now living with the consequences of the statement by the tribunal at Colwyn Bay that county council and social services departments in Wales could not employ Welsh-speaking people to look after Welsh residents in old people's homes. The House is not willing to do anything about it.
There has been a long saga of arguments. One hon. Member said:
60
"there is not a single major deficiency in Welsh life or a single major problem in the Welsh economy that will be touched by devolution or any of the proposals in the Bill. Not a single interest of poeple anywhere in Wales — whether it be democratic, cultural or political—will be advanced one inch by devolution in Wales."—[Official Report, 18 January 1977; Vol. 924, c. 147.]
Mr. D. E. Thomas: Who said that?
Mr. Wigley: Good question. The then hon. Member for Bedwellty, who is now the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), said that. We have all made mistakes from time to time. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition has learned from his mistakes and from what has happened since then. I hope that he has learned particularly the lesson that, by playing the game with the Conservative party in the run-up to the 1979 referendum, he gave the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) the keys to No. 10 Downing street. The Welsh people are paying heavily for that folly.
We are not advocating a return to the 1979 model or a resurrection of the arguments used then. I put it to the House that there is a strong need for Wales to have more control over its affairs and for greater foresight than we had in 1979. We have paid economically in terms of jobs, houses, regional policy and agriculture. We have paid socially in terms of the cancer of unemployment and the social depression killing off initiative and hope. It is no use Conservative Members talking about community self-help when the Government have put such a damper on aspirations in Wales. We have seen the effect on a generation of the policy of "Get on your bikes and look for work."
We have paid politically by suffering a Tory Government whom we in Wales never elected and by the lack of democratic answerability of authorities, such as the water and health authorities. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) is trying to persuade the health authorities to save our ambulance services, just as we are. We know that our democracy is such that we cannot get into the same room as the representatives of the health authority and the Welsh Office to discuss this vital problem. That is the skin-deep nature of our democracy. The Welsh Office is totally lacking in sensitivity on planning appeals and similar issues which can have devastating effects on many communities, towns and villages in Wales.
The price paid is, at best, a total collapse of morale and, at worst, a total alienation of young people. A high price has been paid in terms of alienation. People wanted a framework within which they could work to improve the position in their country, but they were denied it. They wanted to put forward ideas, socially, economically and culturally, but the 1979 vote succeeded in killing off the exciting ideas bubbling up in the 1960s and 1970s.
The Secretary of State has said more than once that he is looking for new ideas in Wales and for positive thinking for the future. Does he not realise that the Government have helped to extinguish the flames of hope that burned in the 1970s? We were told that the answer for Wales would be found in a Select Committee. I am a member of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs. Its members strive to do a good job but it is confined to looking at one subject at a time. We need a body that constantly monitors Government services in Wales. The Select Committee deals only with an investigation, when we need a greater

61
power of initiating positive policy. The Select Committee deals with recommendations, but we want a body capable of executive action, not just of talk.
Mr. Keith Raffan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Select Committee has powers to carry out one-day inquiries into a particular crisis, event or organisation, if it decides to do so? The Select Committee has made wide use of that power since the last election.
Mr. Wigley: But when the Select Committee uses those one-day opportunities, its recommendations are voted down by Conservative Members, as happened with the plant breeding station at Aberystwyth.
The Select Committee can certainly do some work, but it is not enough. It is not a replacement for an assembly or for a national parliament motivated to sort out Welsh problems.
What has happened to the Welsh Grand Committee? It has not met since December, and we are almost through this quarter of Parliament. The Welsh parliamentary party—an all-party group—used to meet regularly. It now meets only once in the lifetime of a Parliament to elect people to serve on outside bodies and then goes back to sleep until the next Parliament. Welsh matters are rapidly disappearing from the House and it is nonsense to pretend that all is well and rosy in the garden. We have a total lack of control over our destiny. We have fewer opportunities than we had 20 years ago to discuss matters in an all-Wales forum. Under people such as Huw T. Edwards there was a Council for Wales. It was a non-elected body but at least it could bring thoughts together. It has been chucked overboard and there is nothing in its place.
People with common interests — a rugby club or social club — have an opportunity to elect a body to make decisions on their behalf. Of course the Welsh people can do this locally—at community, district and county council level—and we can do it at Westminster and in Europe, but not on an all-Wales level. There is something sacrosanct about that level. Power has to be kept in the hands of bureaucrats who can foist on the people policies they do not want. In recent years, we have been moving backwards with a vengeance.
I warn friends in the Welsh Office who may be sitting close at hand that, unless they are made directly answerable to Wales, questions will be asked about the justification of the Welsh Office. Unless the Welsh Office acts in an all-Wales context—bringing forward positive policies responding to Welsh circumstances, not just acting as a rubber stamp for the Department of Education and Science, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of Health and Social Security and all the rest—what is the justification for having a couple of thousand civil servants? We need something new and positive out of them, but we are not getting it. There is no point in having a Welsh Office which brings only bureaucratic inertia to Wales. We want something that provides a new dynamism, a Welsh response to the chronic conditions in Wales.
Dr. Marek: I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the Welsh Office. Is not one of the problems of the Welsh Office the fact that it is too small and that it has to cover too many different aspects of work, which means that the quality of decision cannot be as high as it is in Departments in London which have the necessary expertise?
Mr. Wigley: I accept that in many cases the Welsh Office is weak in members of staff and in its range of expertise. None the less, it can gear policy to circumstances in Wales, but that is not happening sufficiently. There are many small countries such as Wales; one thinks of a country such as Norway. We can boo-hoo, but they have far fewer civil servants than we have in London and they are doing a better job of governing their country than our civil servants in Wales. We need a new start, a new dynamism in Wales. We need a new democratic answerability and we need a body which co-ordinates policies on an all-Wales level, bringing policies together in order to answer the needs of Wales, not the needs of the City of London and south-east England, as we heard a few moments ago. People of good will should come together now to accept the need for a co-ordinating body and for new initiatives.
We all accept that mistakes were made by all of us in the 1970s, but let us start looking forward to doing something ourselves to sort out our own solutions, not bleat and moan that London is not doing this or that. Until we do that, no one will do it for us. We need a solution now, after seven bleak years. We need a democratic Welsh Parliament, Assembly or council—whatever it is called—which co-ordinates policy and brings it all together on an all Wales level.
I hope that, when the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Dr. Thomas) replies for the Labour party, he will give us some idea of how the policy of the Labour party works on those lines, side by side with its policy achieving greater democracy in Scotland.
I began by referring to the need for more than temporary palliatives running as far as a piece of elastic which stretches no further than the next election, if we are unlucky, and to the election after that if we are lucky. That elastic will pull us back into the mess we are in today, and whatever alternative Governments build it will be demolished by another Tory Government. The only solution to the problem is an attempt to democratise our lives.
We in Plaid Cymru want long-term solutions. At the end of the day we feel that only in Wales will those solutions be found. It is up to us in Wales to find the machinery of our own salvation — in Wales, not in London. Until we get that, the rest is transient, trivial and temporary. If Wales has any future it must be up to us. The sooner the people of Wales realise that, the better.
6.22 pm
Mr. Gwilym Jones: I find it most interesting to have this opportunity to speak in our annual Welsh day debate immediately after the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). Many hon. Members would say that he is always interesting to listen to and I would often want to take time to hear what he has to say. I felt today that we heard the same passion that is always displayed in his contributions but I am not sure that we heard the same considered tones that we might otherwise expect from him. Perhaps I could forgive him because I believe that Opposition Members feel the need to appear more and more Left to appease the key people behind them at home.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon invited us to contemplate the Welsh debate by looking at the balance sheet of Wales to see how it all adds up. I am inclined to

63
go a little way down the road with him, but much of what he said was projecting a balance sheet of politics and Welsh political life.
When this debate ended last year my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, who will reply tonight, replied then by pointing out that there were more Conservative Members in the Chamber than members of the Opposition. I think that he was right to mention the significance of that as one of the turning points in Welsh political life.
As we look at the balance sheet of Welsh political life, seldom has a Conservative Government had the opportunity to look across the Chamber at so many marginal seats. That is a delicious prospect. Those seats are in all parts of Wales. I look across to where the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) sits. With only 2,000 more votes, that will fall our way. The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) is not in the Chamber but he was here earlier. With a similar number of votes, almost a handful, his seat will fall our way. The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) is in his place. With only an additional 1,300 votes, that constituency would fall to the Conservative party. The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Dr. Thomas), who is replying for the Labour party, will know how closely the Conservative party is breathing down his neck.
Dr. Roger Thomas: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Conservative candidate for Carmarthen in the past two elections who cruised well on the tide of Thatcherism decided to disappear from the constituency with the introduction of milk quotas?
Mr. Jones: I think that the hon. Member for Carmarthen will reflect that he is not right to suggest that. I think that he might agree that our recently selected candidate in Carmarthen will at least prove to be the equal of our previous candidate, if not superior. I predict that when the hon. Member for Carmarthen relinquishes his seat it will be to our new candidate, who will take over as the hon. Member for Carmarthen.
Let us not confine this to south Wales or west Wales. I would like to give the Liberal party full credit for its temporary place in the House. The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) made a contribution earlier. He is not here but he has a small majority that will come our way. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) waves his pen at me and returns to his notes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] I do not think I will. We have been much interrupted and there has been criticism about the length of speeches.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery is a recent gain in the House and I think that at the next election his seat will be a gain for the Conservative party. I do not even hold out as long a tenure for the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey).
I shall return to the Labour party Front Bench. The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) has a majority of about 1,600.
Mr. Raffan: Less.
Mr. Jones: I apologise. That is still a marginal seat. There is the other marginal seat in Clwyd, that of the hon.
64
Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek). The hon. Member for Caernarfon gave me the idea for this political balance sheet. I look forward to travelling to that most attractive mountainous part of north-west Wales. I look forward to the early days when we see the seats of Meirionnydd Nant Conwy and Carmarthen falling to us. When were the Conservative party ever able to look from the Government Benches at so many marginal seats?
A major part of our Welsh debate should be occupied with our great concern about the disastrous actions of the Labour party where it is in positions of elective power in Wales. Traditionally, our debate is held on 1 March or as close to it as possible. In 1986, more so than in any other year, we are very mindful of the rate fixing episodes which take place in every district and county council in Wales. Especially burnt into all our souls must be the various decisions that are being taken by the Welsh county councils. Those councils have conspired to produce what in the words of one of their leaders was described — shamefacedly, I hope—as "monstrous increases". What better description can there be for the way the rates are going up and the prospect now facing the people of Wales?
I am sorry to say that that is nothing new for us in South Glamorgan. We have been in this position before. In 1975 we had a 94·5 per cent. increase in the rates and in 1982 a 54 per cent. increase in the rates. In 1986 we now have a 28 per cent. increase from South Glamorgan county council—or what would have been 28 per cent., as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist) pointed out. It is now down to about 24·5 per cent. thanks to the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. It seems that the percentages that I mentioned are decreasing, but at the same time we must remember the success that our Government have had in winning the battle with inflation, which now makes a 24 or 28 per cent. increase more significant than it would have been in past years.
Lest it be too obvious, I should like to mention the electoral pattern that lies behind the rate increases that we in South Glamorgan have seen at least twice previously, and now all of Wales is seeing. In 1975, when we had the first massive rate increase, it was engineered the wrong way round, because the following year we had local elections — the city council elections — and, hardly surprisingly, the Labour party suffered a defeat. The Conservative party took control in 1976.
The year after, in 1977, the Conservative party took control of South Glamorgan county council. Unhappily for the ratepayers of South Glamorgan, the pendulum swung back the other way in 1981, when Labour regained control of the county council, admittedly by the narrowest of margins, with the casting vote of the chairman. That meant that at every council meeting the Labour party was usually dependent on its Liberal allies to sustain it in office. However, at least Labour learnt in the intervening period that instead of going for such a massive rate increase one year before an election it should go in for a massive rate increase one year after the election. There was a 54 per cent. increase, which included a supplementary rate. Now, thankfully, that is not possible.
When the 1985 elections came, Labour was returned to power in South Glamorgan. Due to the electoral reverses of the Liberals, particularly in my constituency, Labour could cheerfully ignore its Liberal allies. The policy was still the same. One year later there was a 28 per cent. rate increase, now to be a 24·25 per cent. rate increase. It takes

65
no genius to predict that that is motivated by the same electoral considerations. The 9 per cent. budgeted increase in the spending of South Glamorgan county council is not for spending this year. A little bit will be let out in time for the district council elections in May 1986, a little for electoral, party political purposes, but overwhelmingly it is for stoking up the balances. In the same way as in 1985, it will be used in an attempt—a forlorn attempt, I trust —to buy electoral victory in 1989.
That is the cynical cycle of the Labour party in power in Wales, but what is the price of that cynicism so cyclically applied? Where is the caring Labour party, constantly referred to by the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside? He seems to talk about the caring Labour party in every part of Wales but Alyn and Deeside. I wonder whether he has now given up any forlorn hopes of defending his own marginal seat in Alyn and Deeside? Is there still such a thing as a safe Labour seat anywhere in Wales? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] But where is the caring Labour party? What is the answer when a pensioner asks, "How can I pay for a Labour council?" What is the answer to the people who will lose their jobs? I am sad to say that it was in my constituency that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State visited a company and received the unwelcome briefing on how many jobs would be lost through having to meet the rates increase imposed by South Glamorgan county council.
Dr. Marek: This is a point of information. The hon. Gentleman asked whether there was a safe Labour seat in Wales. I draw his attention to the seat of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), who got over 70 per cent. of the vote. That is probably the safest seat in the whole of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Jones: I am not sure whether to be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Is it significant that he did not mention his own seat, or is he starting a rumour that the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) will make room for the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside? I wonder.
I was trying to bring to the House's attention the plight of companies in my constituency. I am sure that it is not just one company. How many jobs will have to go to pay for the cost of all those increases, not just in South Glamorgan? Surely many, if not all, employers are in the same boat.
Mention has been made of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs. I recall it taking evidence in north Wales, when a representative of one of the county councils was before us. We got on to the subject of past patterns of rate increases and the future implications. The representative sought to assure the Select Committee that his council, and, for that matter, all county councils in Wales, were all too well aware of the impact of high rates on jobs and job opportunities. I can remember him even volunteering the further assurance that the hard Left was not in control of the Labour party in Wales. That description was meant to cover places such as Liverpool and the Greater London council.
Mr. Best: No one is in control of the Labour party at the moment.
Mr. Jones: Perhaps the representative meant to add a codicil that the hard Left was not in control at that time. In the few short months that have passed since the Select
66
Committee took its evidence in Flint on Courtaulds, all those assurances and statements have flown out of the window.
There has been a wide welcome for the Green Paper on the reform of rates. While every hon. Member could find imperfections in the Green Paper's proposal of a community charge and the other components, I think that in all our hearts we would join together in saying that, at the very least, it is infinitely preferable to the present system. It seems to be the only answer to the way in which Labour councils are choosing to increase the rates—the only answer for the pensioners, the unemployed and everybody else who will be hard hit.
I can readily understand the calls by business and industry for rate capping as the only answer to the latest savage attack being mounted on their finances, and, more so, their real fears that that is but a trend that will continue, as councils bleed employers to the maximum, perhaps attempting to establish the highest possible non-domestic rate as a prelude to the reform of rates and the levels that councils will have to operate from when that happens. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have to give the closest attention to those fears of business and industry.
Those monstrous increases are not necessary. I ask hon. Members to come to Cardiff to see the example of the council of the capital city of Wales, which levied its rate for this year last Friday. There is to be a nil increase. Effectively that has all-party support. We have two other Left-wing parties on the Conservative-controlled city council. Neither party chose to table an alternative rate for debate on Friday. The city council's rate is being held. It shows that it can be done. Thank goodness that it is being done. There has been a threat of a 28 per cent. increase on the ratepayers of South Glamorgan, but at least with the contribution of the city council the burden on the people in Cardiff, and in my constituency, is only—I use the word advisedly—16 per cent. That greatly benefits the ratepayers.
I particularly welcome the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State earlier that low spenders will receive priority in his consideration when he next examines the allocations of taxpayers' money. I very much hope that Cardiff and other similar councils will benefit not only because they are low spenders but because we can be confident that taxpayers' money will definitely benefit the ratepayers and will not be frittered away or used to stoke up the balances.
In conclusion, I would briefly like to mention what might be the greatest complaint against the Labour party in Wales today. That complaint arises out of the Labour party's contribution to Saturday's rugby defeat. On Friday I was amazed to read the first letter in the correspondence column of the Western Mail written by Mr. J. Vaughan-Jones, the Labour party's research officer. Mr. Vaughan-Jones' letter tried to make a statistical case—and we all know that there are lies, damned lies and statistics—that a Welsh win on Saturday meant the writing would be on the wall for the Tories.
However, as no one would accept that a Labour victory is feasible, even though we are aware that the other Left-wing parties are busy forging alliances to help bring about a Labour victory, clearly all the omens were against the Welsh rugby team as they went out to face France at Cardiff Arms park on Saturday. A veritable pall must have descended on the team. Everyone must have realised what were the implications for the hoped for victory against

67
France in the light of that letter in the Western Mail. It will be a long time before the people of Wales forgive the Labour party for its damaging interference in Welsh sport, Welsh culture or even, as some would describe it, the religion of Wales.
I hope that the hon. Member for Carmarthen, when he replies this evening, will give the House the assurance that this damaging intrusion will not be repeated and that the officer of the Labour party involved will retreat, never again to comment on Welsh affairs.
6.42 pm
Mr. Gareth Wardell: Today was to be a special day for me as a bus full of pensioners from my constituency were to grace the Strangers Gallery. I am pleased that they postponed their visit for another time.
I should like to bring to the attention of Conservative Members the effects that the Government's proposals for the reform of social security will have in a particular area of the life of the Welsh people.
The reform was supposed to be needed to simplify the system and to direct help to where it is most needed. Of course, all of us in the House who advise constituents on welfare rights and maximising income recognise the need for simplifying the regulations. However, it seems that the Government have gone through the yellow book with a red felt pen and slashed thick red calculation lines through the pages referring to the death grant, pension schemes, maternity grants, single payments, hospital fares, widowhood, free school meals, extra heating and diet additions, invalidity benefit and housing benefits, among others. The Government have sometimes added their own mumbo-jumbo so that people will continue to be overwhelmed when they try to find out which benefits they are entitled to claim. The so-called simplification is basically a new way of denying crucial help at times of greatest need.
The new system will also mean that, far from directing funds to people who need them most, those who need extra help will get as much and no more than others in need. For instance, Shelter calculates that some single parent families will lose up to one-eighth of their net income while some couples with older children may gain from the Government's £450 million cut in housing benefit.
Of course, Conservative Members will know that that is what the review is all about—cuts. To reduce public spending, the Government intend to cut massive holes in what we have regarded as being, and paid contributions to support, a safety net of a minimum income to prevent debilitating poverty in times of need.
On the best estimates that we have—the Government have refused to provide official figures — in Wales nearly 21,000 pensioners aged over 80 will lose up to £5 a week in benefits and housing benefit. Over 100,000 pensioners aged 60 to 79 will lose up to £5 a week. Almost 6,000 sick and disabled people, 6,000 low wage earning families, 18,600 unemployed families, and almost 65,000 single people, childless couples and widows will have their benefits—the supposed safety net—cut by up to £5 a week.
In total, more than 250,000 people in Wales will lose about £459,000 of benefits. That is nearly £500,000— an average across the population of £2 a week. In Wales, the pensioners, the sick and disabled, the unemployed,
68
single parents, new mothers, students and their parents, widows and low wage earners will know what the review is about. It is about cutting costs and cutting public spending on public need.
Last week, we were supposed to rejoice at the Government's commitment to the welfare of pensioners by the uprating of benefits by 40p for a single pensioner and by 65p for a couple. If last week Conservative Members could support platitudes about "every little bit helping", they should know that 20p will pay the 10 per cent. Government enforced increase in Welsh water rates. The other 20p will exactly cover the price rise for a bus trip into Swansea for my constituents who still have a bus service. Will Conservative Members remain silent when ordered to vote for cuts of £5 a week for 120,000 Welsh pensioners who are, by definition, the poorest of Welsh pensioners?
Last Thursday the Minister for Social security went to the media to proclaim that the Government were hoping that all DHSS offices would declare February an exceptionally cold month, so that extra heating allowances could be paid. What absolute hypocrisy. First, the fact that the Minister had to make that statement shows that some benefit offices are so out to touch with reality that they have not got the message from the meteorological officers around the country that last month was the second coldest February of the century. By last Friday, only 360 of the 451 local DHSS offices had declared exceptionally severe weather in their areas. So much for local decision-making. That bodes ill for the working of the proposed social fund, which will also operate on the basis of local discretion.
Secondly, the Minister implied that the Government do not understand why people do not claim the extra heating allowance. More than 80 per cent. of those eligible to claim do not do so, and this represents a saving of £25 million a year to the DHSS budget. Claiming the extra benefit is difficult and, according to the welfare benefits handbook, the benefit is difficult to obtain. Claiming means going to the benefit office armed with fuel bills dating back as far as December 1984 and bank statements showing that the claimant has less than £500 in savings. If he has just bought a bed, for example, which takes his savings to less than that figure, he needs the bill for it and other documents to support his claim. Should he prove all this to the saisfaction of the S manual, he may get £1 a week, or less, for as long as long as the severe weather lasts.
Meanwhile, apart from the increase in the more mundane effects of enduring cold conditions, such as pneumonia, heart attacks, chest and other infections, and the proneness to falls and other accidents, the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys reports that this year more than an extra 100 people a day are dying of hypothermia compared with last year. That is despite increased awareness of the problem by caring agencies and volunteers. The House, as the guardian of the nation's well-being, should be ashamed of that. During exceptionally severe weather conditions, there should be an automatic bonus payment to all people on supplementary benefit and supplementary pensions and all those in receipt of housing benefit should be allowed to claim. That would be simple, cheap to administer— records are already kept of all those people — and effective.
Finally, the Minister for Social Security claimed that the Government have "dramatically increased" the payments for heating allowances paid as part of

69
supplementary benefit and pensions. He claims to care about people getting help, yet the extra heating allowance campaign was not mounted by the Government. It has been left to charities and welfare groups to advise people on the availability of help. I am sure that the House will wish to congratulate Age Concern on its initiative in distributing survival packs to pensioners.
The Government should have mounted a campaign in 1982 using, if necessary, the money that was left unclaimed after the exceptionally severe weather spell during that year. By the time members of the public have absorbed the information and realised their right to benefit and how to claim, all the extra allowances for heating will have gone. The new Social Security Bill abolishes them, in the name of simplicity.
The new income support scheme will include premiums for heating. No doubt they will relate closely to the present figures for heating additions, which are paid at three rates. The lower rate is £2·20 a week. A higher rate for a fully centrally heated home is available at £4·40. An even higher rate of £5·40 is paid to those who can prove that their homes are damp, unable to be draught-proofed and exceptionally difficult to heat. Yet coal, which is still the commonest form of heating in Welsh homes, in my constituency costs £14 for two bags, which is the minimum needed for one fire for a week. The South Wales electricity board's standing charge is 60p a week, before one takes into account lighting, cooking and heating for other rooms.
For years, Age Concern and citizens advice bureaux have been reporting that those rates are inadequate and that they result in hardship, physical or financial, by way of fuel debts and consequent disconnections. The rates are miserly and disgusting. Where is the Government's realism? They were quick and keen to increase energy prices as a cheap and easy way of imposing indirect taxation on us all. Where was their commitment and interest in ensuring that the poorest and neediest could cope with such increases without having to choose between debt and warmth?
It has taken the British preoccupation with the weather to bring this issue to the forefront of the public's mind. Now we all know about the problem and we know that improvements must be made. When the Social Security Bill comes before the House again, the people of Wales — especially pensioners—will be waiting to see how much Conservative Members really care about their needs and welfare.
6.57 pm
Mr. Keith Raffan: In contrast to the passionate speech of the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell), I shall be my usual low-key self. I respect the hon. Gentleman's feelings, as I do his chairmanship of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, but he must be aware that the Government have substantially increased heating benefit and supplementary heating benefit. Would that the Labour Government had shown similar concern for pensioners and refrained from stopping their £10 Christmas bonus for two years running. That can hardly have helped pensioners to pay for their heating.
In reply to last year's Welsh day debate, the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) said that it was the "annual general meeting" of Welsh Members of
70
Parliament—the day when we stop and take stock of the previous year in the Principality. The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) echoed that sentiment tonight.
Tonight, I shall look back at and take stock of the part of Wales that I know best—my constituency. The most notable event in Delyn in the past year was not the closure of Courtaulds at Greenfield, our largest factory, but rather the vigorous, effective response to that closure by the local community, fully supported by the Welsh Office. Within hours of the closure announcement, I and the chief executive of Delyn borough council, John Packer, had arranged to meet the chairman and deputy chairman of Courtaulds. Within days, we had impressed upon them the fact that Courtaulds could not simply walk away from the community which had served it for so long and so well, as the company was allowed to do after the closure of the Castle works in 1977, with the loss of 1,500 jobs, after the rundown of the Deeside mill between 1969 and 1980, with the loss of 1,200 jobs, and after the earlier rundown of the Greenfield plant between 1973 and 1981, with the loss of 1,290 jobs.
Within weeks, Delyn borough council had drawn up detailed plans for the future of the Greenfield site and I initiated an Adjournment debate on the closure and the convening of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs in Flint—as an aside, it was the first time, that the Select Committee had met outside Westminster or Cardiff—to take evidence on the closure. Within months, the Government and Courtaulds had announced a package to regenerate Delyn's economy—to bring new industry and new jobs to the area.
Now, little more than 10 months after the closure announcement and seven months after the actual closure, the number one site at Greenfield has been transferred by Courtaulds to Delyn borough council. The site has been cleared of all toxic waste by the company and a former manager of Greenfield, David Watson, a high flier with Courtaulds, has been seconded to run the Delyn enterprise agency — shortly to become the Delyn Business Partnership. Plans are far advanced for new micro workshops on the site. A short distance away, at the former Grosvenor Chater works, the Greenfield young enterprise centre has been set up. This is an exciting project, under the energetic leadership of John Murray, designed to help young people to translate an idea for their own business into the reality of being self-employed.
The old adage applies: "The sky is darkest just before dawn." During the past year, we have begun to see the dawn in Delyn, even if the Labour party cannot. I should also add that the job replacement scheme has been encouragingly successful. Of the 600 people made redundant by Courtaulds at the end of last July, 240 have found new jobs. There are high hopes that the remainder will also be placed in jobs.
It is not only at Greenfield and in the immediate neighbourhood that we are witnessing the rebuilding of our local economy. I mentioned at Question Time today that at Point of Ayr the construction on the coal-to-oil liquefaction plant has begun. Completion is scheduled for December 1987, with the employment of 80 people. At Flint, the Delyn enterprise zone is beginning to make a substantial contribution to the development of a new, diverse and dynamic local economy. In the words of the chief executive of Delyn borough council, Mr. John Packer:

71
"Perhaps the most enouraging features are the developing commitment of the private sector, and the very positive contribution to the formation and development of small companies, which would not have been possible without enterprise zone benefits."
I notice that the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Dr. Thomas) is listening carefully. I hope that the Labour party is also listening carefully. If it had its way, there would be an end to enterprise zones. The shadow Home Secretary, in his former incarnation, said in a celebrated statement that he would have none of them.
I am aware—I say this in my usual generous spirit— that Labour party policy tends to mutate. I will give the hon. Member for Carmarthen a second chance. I hope that, when he winds up, he will tell us exactly what Labour party policy is now, today, on enterprise zones. It may have changed from yesterday. That is quite possible, as we have seen Labour party policy change before within a short time and on an ad hoc basis. I hope the hon. Member will respond directly to the point, but if he does not I am sure he will give way to my intervention.
If the Labour party is still against enterprise zones, I must warn Opposition Members that that policy will be a vote loser second to none in my constituency. As an issue, it will make Sunday trading look like an afternoon tea party. Since designation, 500 new jobs have been created in the Delyn enterprise zone. That is a remarkable achievement when one considers that for nearly 18 months after designation only two and a half acres of development land were available due to the extensive nature of existing industrial dereliction. The council has now completed its reclamation programme and it has carried out a substantial proportion of essential infrastructure works. As a result, during the past year there has been a quite remarkable response to the opportunities now offered by the Delyn enterprise zone — three new factories were completed, two are under construction, four sites are under offer with the potential of 700 jobs and only three sites totalling just over seven acres are not under offer.
I emphasise the words in the Delyn borough council's report on the enterprise zone:
"Enterprise zone benefits have been the critical factor in securing the location and development of each of these companies."
Considerable public sector pump priming has secured significant private sector commitments and new small businesses are beginning to develop. Much has been achieved, and great credit is due to all those involved— particularly to the local borough council, and to the councillors of all parties who have worked so hard together.
The Labour party at the local councillor level seems to have a vision and a far-sightedness not shared by the Opposition Front Bench. I have tried to get them to convert the Opposition Front Bench, and I hope that in time— after another election defeat or perhaps the one after that —they will be persuaded. Great credit is due not only to the borough council but also to the Welsh Office, which has supported it. I am delighted to give way to the hon. Member for Carmarthen.
Dr. Roger Thomas: Will the hon. Member tell us, despite the near-miracle which he has described to us this evening, what has been the actual fall in unemployment in his travel-to-work area?
Mr. Raffan: I will come to the economic statistics later. I shall be quite happy to give these statistics to the hon. Member as I come to them later in my speech, if he will allow me to do so. I have no intention of hiding them. Indeed, I had planned to give them to the House. They are, sadly, very high. There has been a significant increase in employment which would not otherwise have happened but for the determined action of the borough council.
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman by his words seems to imply an attack upon the local Labour councillors. Such an increase in jobs would not have been achieved but for the determined efforts of the borough council, supported imaginatively and effectively in financial terms by the Welsh Office. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not being affected by the disease which afflicts the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside, for his intervention has boomeranged.
Dr. Roger Thomas rose—
Mr. Raffan: No, once is enough—I do not want to mutilate the hon. Gentleman.
Much has been achieved and great credit is due to all those involved. More would have been achieved — I hope the hon. Member for Carmarthen, as he is taking such a close interest in my speech, will support me— but for the tight physical constraints of the enterprise zone. There is a limited area of land available for development. This is preventing the enterprise zone from realising its full potential in contributing to the economic regeneration of north-east Wales.
The problem which the Delyn enterprise zone faces is simply its small size. It extends to only 263 acres, whereas the average for all enterprise zones in the United Kingdom is 360 acres. The amount of land available for development is in fact considerably smaller than 263 acres —only 136 are capable of being developed and only 89 of those are available for genuinely new development. The extension of the Delyn enterprise zone to cover the former Courtaulds Greenfield site would make up that deficiency and add 102 acres. That would bring the zone up to the average size for enterprise zones in Britain.
I know that the extension of the zone is ultimately a matter for the Treasury, but I hope that Delyn borough council and I can count on my right hon. Friend's strong support for the application to extend the zone. We want an average-sized zone—the same size as the enterprise zone in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The redevelopment of the Greenfield site and its inclusion in the enterprise zone will not only create jobs for Delyn residents. The review of the Clwyd structure plan has identified a shortfall of between 70 and 122 acres of industrial land in the boroughs of Rhuddlan and Colwyn. The addition of Greenfield would help make up that deficiency.
We must remember the famed mobility of the local work force in north Wales and the fact that over a third of the former Courtaulds Greenfield work force actually live in the borough of Rhuddlan. The redevelopment of the Greenfield site and its inclusion in the zone would of course principally help the town of Holywell, where one in four of the working population were employed at Greenfield.
I now come to the statistics for which the hon. Member for Carmarthen asked earlier. I always answer his questions; I hope that he will take note of that.

73
In January 1985, the unemployment rate in the Holywell jobcentre area — before the closure — was already 27·1 per cent. The male unemployment rate was even higher—tragically higher—at 30·5 per cent.
As many hon. Members will know, Holywell was at the heart of the industrial revolution in north Wales. But as L and R Leisure Consultants says in the Holywell regeneration study which it has prepared for the borough council,
"Industrial life has drained out of Holywell … Mold has developed as an administrative and cultural centre. Flint is the focus of new industrial activity".
I might add that the fourth town in my constituency— Prestatyn—is established as a seaside holiday resort and retirement area. Holywell is the unemployment 'blackest' spot in an area, which has suffered from massive structural unemployment.
As I am sure the hon. Member for Carmarthen will concede, that has not simply happened since May 1979, when the Prime Minister crossed the threshold of 10 Downing street. The area has suffered from massive structural unemployment during the last 20 years. If the hon. Gentleman wishes, I shall give him the figures for the closures in my constituency during the time of the last Labour Government. I am sure that he will not share the amnesia of his hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) and forget that, during the time of the last Labour Government, unemployent doubled in the Principality.
That massive structural unemployment occurred because of an overdependence on the steel and textile industries. The destruction of our far too narrowly based local economy in Delyn means that we must do nothing less than create a new and much more widely based local economy if we are to make a significant impact upon unemployment in the area.
In Delyn, as is widely conceded by Ministers, officials and Members of Parliament, we have an enterprising and determined local authority. We have a labour force which Dr. Norman Wooding, deputy chairman of Courtaulds, has described as second to none, first class, hard working, highly motivated and extremely flexible. Dr. Wooding has gone further and said that he is personally prepared to recommend that work force to any company that is thinking of moving into my constituency.
All we need is for the land available for industrial development at Greenfield to be given enterprise zone status. When fully developed, Greenfield will have the potential of creating approximately 2,300 jobs, which will go a long way towards tackling the local unemployment problem. I repeat that the borough council deserves every credit for its determination, hard work, and imaginative drive to regenerate the local economy. In response to its straightforwardness, its direct approach and determination, I hope that the Government will continue to give in the future the very strong support that they have given in the past.
I have described developments in Delyn over the past year. I have given the good news—and it is good news —with significant expectations and hopes for the future. The picture that I have painted is true, but it is at variance, in sharp contrast, with the speech of the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside. That does not surprise those of us who have heard the hon. Gentleman's speeches in the past.
74
The hon. Gentleman belongs to the "weeping and gnashing of teeth" school of parliamentary oratory. As the Bible adds:
"Behold he cometh with clouds."
The trouble is that, at the sight of the hon. Gentleman and his clouds, potential inward investors may flee. They do not know the hon. Gentleman with the same affection as we do. They do not hear him deliver his speeches, but merely read reports of his words. If they had to listen to him, they might be less convinced. In Nye Bevan's words, they might realise that he seems determined to make a trumpet sound like a tin whistle. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman's hectoring style is about as convincing as the last balcony speech of President Marcos before he made a quick getaway in an American helicopter.
The hon. Gentleman carries no conviction. We Conservatives know what he is up to. Like Marshal Foch —and Marshal Foch's words are highly appropriate to the Labour party—he says:
"My centre is giving way, my right is in retreat; situation excellent. I shall attack."
The only slight trouble is that the hon. Gentleman lacks Foch's generalship, his style and his infantry.
If I were in the hon. Gentleman's shoes I would follow exactly the same strategy, although—I say this with my usual modesty—I would not make quite the same mess of it. How can anyone defend the last Labour Government, least of all the hon. Gentleman, who served in it, when they made a 20 per cent. cut in total capital expenditure, a 38 per cent. cut in NHS capital expenditure and a 36 per cent. cut in capital and current expenditure on roads?
The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) has suddenly found an attraction in his pencil. How can anyone, least of all the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside, defend that record when faced by a Government who have raised capital spending in the NHS by 12 per cent. in real terms and on roads by 10 per cent. in real terms, and when faced by the Secretary of State who in 1986–87 has increased local authority capital allocations by 23 per cent. and urban programme expenditure by 20 per cent.?
Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Has my hon. Friend noticed the contrast between the correct picture that he has painted of a united area trying to regenerate the district and the characteristic support that the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) gave to a Labour councillor in Alyn and Deeside who said that I and the Welsh Office were not welcome in that district? That is absolutely characteristic of the destructive intervention that my hon. Friend has been describing.
Mr. Raffan: I wholeheartedly agree with my right hon. Friend. Humour apart, it is more than destructive. It is tragic that the Labour party for petty party political purposes, in order to scrounge a few votes, should demean itself by such a totally unacceptable and unjustifiable attack upon my right hon. Friend, his fellow Ministers and the officials of the Welsh Office. The Labour party should at least give credit where it is due, and applaud the. achievements of the Welsh Office and the local authority to which I have referred.
I am a modest man, even though I have a 6,000 majority in my constituency. I do not regard that as safe, although like Churchill I believe that a majority of one is enough. I intend to have a majority of 16,000 at the next general election, and speeches such as that we have heard

75
from the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside will enable me to convert my constituency into a permanently safe Conservative seat. The hon. Gentleman will not give credit to the Government's real achievements. He paints a black picture of Wales, which drives off not only inward investors but also companies from England and within our own community that wish to create new jobs. It is tragic that the hon. Gentleman demeans himself in that way.
I have sympathy—almost amounting to pity—for the hon. Gentleman. After all, he must worry not only about his past, but also about the future. The then second permanent secretary to the Treasury described the first year of the 1974 Wilson Goverment as a period "of collective madness". The madness that the Labour party now has planned would be infinitely longer, more intense and more painful should it ever be given the opportunity to implement its policies.
Generously leaving out one-off promises, at which the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside is so adept, as well as renationalisation—which I know is embarrassing for the Labour party, given that the Leader of the Opposition says that it is not a top priority whereas the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) says that it must be— the Treasury has calculated the cost of Labour pledges to be £24 billion a year. There are only three ways in which to raise the money to pay for that extraordinary bill—to tax, to borrow or to print. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has said that he will not raise the basic rate of tax to pay that bill, although he will increase the tax on those earning more than £30,000 a year. Even a 100 per cent. increase in tax on people earning more than £30,000 a year would raise only £1·5 billion, still leaving him with a somewhat uncomfortably large bill of £22·5 billion. Opposition Members could follow the helpful suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and increase value added tax, but it would have to be to 41 per cent., which might cause them slight problems.
I think that the Opposition will negotiate with Rupert Murdoch, buy his old printing presses, move them to Llantrisant and start printing notes like there was no tomorrow.
I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside is not prepared to defend either his record or his party's policy for the future. If Labour's continuing—
Mr. Wardell: Leave him alone.
Mr. Raffan: I am working very hard, overtime for the hon. Member's promotion. He should be grateful.
If Labour's continuing civil war, and Militant and Mr. Hatton, do not put people off the Labour party, their policies surely will. They carry no credibility. They create only incredulity. Their former leader Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, now revered, considering those who have followed, put it in a nutshell:
"Labour gives a pantomime performance. It is a party of prehistoric policies."
We have had this evening yet another pantomime performance from Labour.
7.21 pm
Mr. Ted Rowlands: I will not follow the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan). That type of supercilious speech ends in electoral defeat.
76
We shall wait for the electorate to decide. I suspect that, after the next general election, my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) will be here and that the hon. Member for Delyn will not.
I want to look forward to a much more interesting and important aspect of the debate and to respond to the initiative that the Secretary of State launched this afternoon in the document "Community Investment: An Initiative for the Valleys". It will inevitably be a first response because the documents needs to be considered with great care. The hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist) said that we come here and run down our communities. I do not believe that we have ever done that. Those of us who represent communities to which this initiative is directed spend our time arguing, fighting and campaigning for the very community investment that the document's title suggests.
I hope that we reflect pride, commitment and belief in our communities. We have lots of problems, and directing attention to them here should not be taken as running down or knocking our communities. We know and understand our problems and we feel angry about them, so we come here and express them.
The document purports to be an initiative on community investment, and to direct itself towards the environmental problems and challenges of our communities. It is not very difficult to identify those environmental problems—they are very easily observed and do not require detailed analysis. We witness them and live among them.
I would categorise the dereliction in three forms. The first is the huge, historic backlog of dereliction left to us by the Victorian coal owners and the iron masters in, for example, Merthyr Tydfil, Dowlais and Rhymney. It is a backlog of blasts, indiscriminate tipping and wasted land down the lines of our major roads, in and out of our communities. Such land overlooks the church that I attend —Christ church Cyfarthfa—and stands cheek by jowl with homes.
The second form of dereliction is to be found in and around urban centres. We have become increasingly resigned to it and accept conditions that would not be tolerated in other communities. The process starts with the decline of one of the traditional commercial properties or retail outlets that cannot keep up with the retailing revolution. The shop falls empty. Sometimes it just remains empty and sometimes it falls into such disrepair that it is cleared, so that only rubble is left. The rubble is almost as bad as the empty property. Such properties are often in the very heart of the town.
We have accepted a third form of dereliction. I still feel angry about it, but I cannot get my own people to feel the same way. It is what I call doorstep dereliction. It is found in ordinary streets. An elderly person dies, for example, and the house falls derelict. The rest of the street might have been redeveloped and have benefited from improvement grants. The problem can arise at the back of houses. The condition of back lanes in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) shook me rigid. Merthyr has done up most of its back lanes, or what we used to call gullies. Unmade lanes still survive, though. They grow weeds, such as those from which we used to make pea shooters. I accepted that as part of life. Derelict fencing might let the sheep in, which makes this doorstep dereliction worse.

77
I hope that I am not painting a picture of a derelict community, for it is far from that. The communities are tremendously vibrant. There is commitment. The money spent on homes shows people's determination to develop and improve. Nevertheless, the problems exist. It is against that background that I consider the community investment initiative to see whether it measures up to our need.
Mr. Stefan Terlezki: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's anxiety about dereliction and the environment. Will he admit that Labour was in power for 15-odd years? The hon. Gentleman was a member of a Labour Government. What has he done about the environment and dereliction in his area?
Mr. Rowlands: I should not have given way to the hon. Gentleman, as I was trying to address myself to the future. If he wants me to accept some collective guilt from the past, I shall by all means take my modest percentage of it, but that is not the argument. We must try to improve matters. There was tremendous improvement under Labour. Perhaps it was unfortunate that we handed the running of derelict land reclamation schemes over to the Welsh Development Agency. I had the privilege to be a Minister in 1969 and again in 1974–75, and I saw what could be done through an expansive derelict land reclamation programme run by the Welsh Office. Each five years we should see progress and development. We are measuring progress and making demands for present and future community investment against that backlog.
I have read the document only since lunchtime, and I find it difficult to understand. It is curious, and I am not sure what to make of it. Paragraph 14 deals with the objectives, and states:
"The Government is anxious, therefore, with the co-operation of local authorities and the communities they represent…to help to bring about substantial"—
that is the key word—
"and visible improvements in the valleys and the environment of town centre areas and the areas immediately leading to them."
The message is that the Welsh Office and the Secretary of State, together with local authorities and community groups, will launch a substantial, visible improvement to our environment, both in the town centres and areas leading to them. I then looked at the document to see how we are to co-ordinate and finance that substantial improvement. Appendix I contains an illustrative list, which includes my constituency. I hope that it is not too parochial to use the illustration of my constituency.
One of the major needs in a community such as mine is to make the access to and from it as attractive as possible. The road built from Treharris Quaker's yard is a fine piece of engineering and, environmentally, a most attractive road as it opens up the valley. If I were driving an inward investor along that road even on a cold day with snow on the hilltops, it would give him a remarkably romantic introduction to our community. The road is designed sensitively, and I pay tribute to the designers for some of the finishing touches. The trouble is that then one hits the bottom of the valley and the next major area connecting Merthyr with the midlands is the slip road. It provides the major access to the Heads of the Valleys. I do my damndest to ensure that no one goes near that slip road if I can help it because it reveals the backlog of dereliction and the consequences of large-scale opencast mining. Virtually half the length of a major access road to our community is a disaster area in reclamation terms.
78
For that reason I turned with eagerness to see how the Government's initiative would address itself to such an area. Paragraph 1·2 of the Merthyr Tydfil illustration states:
"The approach to Merthyr Town Centre … is inevitably influenced by the somewhat bleak scenery and exposed nature of the road. While it is not easy to grow a great variety of trees in these conditions, much could be done by planting shelter belts and removing some of the more unattractive eyesores on the northern fringe of the town."
That worries me, especially as I would like to assist the programme to make it work, because it implies that the scheme is about planting and painting. I hope that the Secretary of State does not want to leave us with that impression. The access problem cannot be about the gentle issues of clearing up eyesores and investing in more tree planting. I am not demeaning or dismissing those ideas. Indeed, they have a place in our town centres, as other paragraphs suggest, and we can certainly produce such projects. However, the environmental access problem of my community requires a significant vision of change to the environment. It must also include the decision whether to allow opencast mining along the line of the road. That could continue the dereliction for years to come.
My worry about the document is that, compared with its objectives, some of the illustrations show an ambivalence to facing up to what are not small projects —although small projects are useful and important—and to substantial investment in the community.
Mr. Nicholas Edwards: We are looking for a combination of big and small. I am listening with great attention to the hon. Gentleman's speech, and I hope that he will recognise that what we have done in Cardiff is beginning to trigger a major change. I hope that by a combination and variety of initiatives we can trigger a similar change of comparable scale. In putting forward suggestions, we are merely giving some direction to stimulate proposals. I welcome the type of proposals that the hon. Gentleman is making now.
Mr. Rowlands: I am grateful to the Secretary of Slate for intervening. As this is an important initiative affecting all our communities I shall spend a few more minutes on it. We shall want to fasten on to the triggering-off concept. The Secretary of State may have to convince us further that the initiative can work in Dowlais and Merthyr, as well as in south Cardiff and the docks. We must first understand the nature and character of the environmental problem with which we are grappling.
In paragraph 1·7 two different propositions about the environmental needs of the community stand cheek by jowl. One is tree planting along the river Taff. The point is made that sometimes jobs are half done and dereliction is not cleared up, even after important investment, such as in the Morlais Brook scheme. A huge slag heap lies behind and overlooks the technical college. We have campaigned for a considerable time for capital reinvestment to do something about that.
The Welsh Development Agency has treated land reclamation schemes which do not produce immediate industrial land as Cinderellas. The figures sound impressive, but matched against the needs and previous programmes in real terms, I am not sure that the WDA has given priority to investment in first-class land reclamation schemes of the type that we have been seeking. I hope that the document will act as a catalyst in bringing the WDA, the Welsh Office, local authorities and local community

79
groups together to ensure that the WDA plays a bigger and more prominent role than it has. During the past few years, the WDA has been less interested in that aspect of its functions.
Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman is making an important point. I think that the WDA would say that it was a priority to prepare the ground for industrial sites in the recent past. However, the chairman has asked me to ensure that the WDA plays a major part in this initiative. It wishes to be involved in it, and regards it as a priority. It will seek to direct the resources for this type of objective.
Mr. Rowlands: I am grateful for that extremely important statement. The investment aspect in the document is extremely important, and the role of the development agency will be vital in making this community investment initiative work.
We have valuable land lying in wait close to, and in, the town centre. The document illustrates the case of the major railway site. I add to that the major Georgetown site, which is super. It is close to the town centre, but at the moment it looks as if it is developing—I hope I am not being critical of the borough council—in a piecemeal fashion. One grabs what one can. If somebody volunteers to carry out a big development on part of the site, rather than wait for a comprehensive and enveloping investment scheme, one grabs the first opportunity, because at least one has done something rather than wait for the grand design, for which one can wait for ever. Many local authorities have tended to go for piecemeal developments on sites such as the one about which I am talking.
We have looked with some envy at the way in which the south Cardiff scheme has got off the ground. Here is an opportunity that we would love to see in our area. We have no political hang-ups about the ideology of private investment combined with public investment to develop the community, as long as the developments are ones that we require and have mutually agreed.
I have been to the director of a major store and pleaded with him to look at the major central site close to the station. It is one of the prize Heads of the Valleys retailing or commercial sites. We have found that it is much harder, being 40 miles north of Cardiff, to trigger off the combination of public and private investment. Rather than say that we know everything, I would be grateful if the Secretary of State would help us to trigger off a Swansea or south Cardiff-type development. That would be ideal and would help us to balance the growing pressure on Cardiff and Swansea.
The director of one of the major retailing outlets told me that the Cardiff and Swansea developments are having a major sucking-in effect, and even the in-between communities such as Pontypridd are finding it harder to get such investment going. I do not say that the Secretary of State has a magic wand, but if he can help us to trigger off such developments and to achieve the success stories of Swansea and Cardiff, Merthyr borough council would, I believe, be the first to welcome it and give four cheers for it.
Mr. Williams: We are proud of what has happened in Swansea, as I expect that Cardiff Members are proud of what has happened there. However, one must recognise
80
that real eyesores — the old dead docks — have turned into assets that are readily convertible and have created premium sites. Therefore, it has been relatively easy to attract private capital. The problem that my hon. Friend faces, for example with the coal tip, is that even when it is cleared, it is by no stretch of the imagination a premium site. Therefore, his area will need a larger infusion of public capital than the coastal strip needed.
Mr. Rowlands: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for underlining my point, which he has made rather better because of his experience and understanding of what happened in Swansea. Any results from the document will be dependent upon triggering off the mixture of public and private investment.
We want this community investment programme to work. We wish to give every support that we can to the initiative. We do not want it to be, and I am glad to understand that it will not and cannot be, a small-time paint and planting exercise. It must be something much bigger and more expensive. In that regard, I should be grateful if the Minister will tell us a little more about the extra allocations set out in the document. For example, £2 million has been allocated for housing programmes. Will we have to bid for six parcels of the £2 million, can all local authorities come in together, or is it to be selectively offered to two or three local authorities? There is also £1 million for urban provision.
I want to believe that this is the beginning of a major community investment programme. It is what we have fought for and will continue to fight for. However, we are worried that in its resourcing and financial provisions, it will fall short and will end up as nothing more than— useful and important as such things are—a rather better version of earlier schemes to clear up eyesores. I hope that the Secretary of State will come to the Heads of the Valleys standing conference and talk about the document. He has declined a general invitation, so let us make a specific invitation to him to come to discuss the document. We need to learn and listen as much as we want to tell him of our views and feelings.
We have seen remarkable developments on the coastal strip. We, as Members representing the communities in the Heads of the Valleys, want to see such exciting new investment in developments in our communities.
7.46 pm
Mr. Robert Harvey: With the exceptions of the speeches made by the hon. Members for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and for Gower (Mr. Wardell) on heating allowances, which will strike a chord with many on both sides of the House, speeches by Labour Members have repeated the depressing and dismal litany of despair and gloom that we have heard month after month, week after week. It is all the more depressing because that litany fails to take into account the fact that Wales has a Secretary of State who has pursued one of the most imaginative industrial and economic policies to be found on the island.
We have seen how it is possible for the Government, by acting as an innovator, not a crutch, for dying industries, to stimulate a whole economy. One would have thought that Labour, instead of decrying this new, pioneering, innovative role for the state, would be learning from it and seeing where the old experience of the wrong kind of state interference has strayed. Instead, Labour

81
Members stick to the old dogmas that today, in the only strongholds that they possess—in Liverpool and in the councils that they still control—are ravaging the lives and well-being of those whom they claim to represent. In Wales, they seek to pull us back into the economic horse and buggy age from which we have emerged.
The strategy of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been straightforward. It has been to stop wasting taxpayers' money supporting dead-end industries producing goods that no one wants, to stop disguising unemployment by this method and to pursue four major objectives. The first is to stimulate outside investment in Wales. Over the past three years, Wales has obtained about one fifth of all inward investment into the United Kingdom, and visits by overseas companies to Wales have been maintained at 300 annually over the past two years. By any standards, that is a staggering achievement. During the last year alone, 25 overseas companies announced that they were setting up bases in Wales, and there were 23 expansions by companies already operating in the Principality. We have heard a great deal about jobs tonight. Taken together, those projects will create some 2,800 new jobs and safeguard a further 1,300 existing jobs.
The second part of the strategy is to channel all available state aid to the task of creating new jobs. During the last year alone, 143 offers were accepted for regional selective assistance, worth more than £35 million. Those offers will help to create 6,679 new jobs and safeguard a further 4,745 existing jobs. In the five years between 1979 and 1985, 49,000 jobs have been created and 24,000 safeguarded at a cost of £158 million, in contrast to the appalling Labour record of 27,000 jobs created and only 8,000 safeguarded, at a cost of £80 million, in the four preceding years.
The third part of the Welsh Office strategy has been to develop the infrastructure needed to provide those jobs in terms of roads and factory development. Last year 282 units were allocated, creating 4,000 new jobs. The vacancy rate at these factories has now fallen to about 12 per cent. Since 1976 more than 9·6 million sq ft of new factory space has been built, 86 per cent. of it under the present Government's policies.
The fourth part of the Welsh Office strategy has been to pursue that dream of Welsh economists through the decades—diversification away from the two products upon which Wales depended for so long, coal and steel, into everything from colour television and vacuum cleaners to car engines, aircraft wings and printed circuit boards. That has been an imaginative, undoctrinaire strategy, using the state not as a burden or as a drag on industrial development, but as a helpful partner to private enterprise in bringing jobs and prosperity to the people of Wales.
In this debate, as in previous debates, the Opposition have made it clear that they reject this approach. They have a duty, though, to tell the people of Wales what they would do instead. Such fragments of an industrial strategy as one can make out from the mushroom cloud of negative gloom that pervades the Opposition Benches suggest the following. No doubt I shall be corrected if I am wrong.
First, from what it has said, I assume that Labour proposes to reopen those collieries and steelworks that it considers have been unjustifiably closed by this Government. The Opposition have a duty to tell us which ones, how much this will cost and for how long they
82
propose to maintain non-jobs in this way. Are the Opposition able to provide an absolute assurance to those of my constituents who were tossed by a Labour Government on the scrap heap of colliery closures during the 1970s, with a pittance in redundancy payments compared with what has been offered under this Government, that that will never happen again?
The second part of Labour's programme will, I understand, be to undertake major public works projects to get people in Wales back to work. The Opposition have a duty to tell us what projects they are considering, in addition to the massive expenditure on new hospitals and roads that is already being undertaken by the Welsh Office, and by how much taxes will be raised to pay for them, or, if the money is to be printed, by how much they reckon inflation is to be permitted to rise.
Thirdly, a Labour Government would encourage greater local authority capital expenditure. Can the Opposition offer a categorical assurance that capital spending will not be slashed again as it was under the last Labour Government when things start to go wrong, as they inevitably will under their kind of programme?
Fourthly, Labour would direct investment into the areas that it favours. Can the Opposition tell us what will happen if the Japanese firms that have found a welcome in our valleys prefer not to be told what to do and pull out instead, or if the domestic investors that Labour wants to direct prefer to spend their money on consumption rather than to be told where to put it by those with the financial management expertise displayed by the Opposition?
Fifthly, as regards the rural economy, the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) has pledged to slash the European Community food surpluses. Again, I shall no doubt be corrected if I am wrong. Will the Opposition tell the House and the nation what effect that would have on the small rural communities of Wales that are already struggling in an increasingly hostile environment? I do not believe that the present farm crisis is being taken seriously enough by the Government. In Wales the effects have mercifully not been felt as badly as in the rest of Britain, which suffered a 43 per cent. fall in farming incomes last year. Nevertheless, the farm management survey, just published for 1984–85, shows that there has been a fall of 10 per cent. in the dairy and livestock sectors over the year. Net incomes in the dairy sector have fallen by 28 per cent.
I am also critical of the decision by the Welsh Office to subordinate justice to administrative convenience in the granting of the otherwise very welcome bad weather payments last autumn. But let the Labour party, for goodness sake, stop pretending that it has the interests of that capitalist class of farmers at heart and tell us how many farmers it intends to put out of business by reducing agricultural surpluses.
I shall end with a word about unemployment. Unemployment in Wales and in Britain is too high. I believe that in the next Budget the problem must be addressed directly, along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for the Vale of Glamorgan (Sir R. Gower). I hope that the unions will play their part in addressing the problem by ending their practice of seeking higher and higher wages for those in work at the expense of those who are out of work. I am convinced that anything like the industrial strategy proposed by the Labour party would have a devastating effect upon the jobs and prosperity of Wales. The Opposition seem to be incapable

83
of learning from experience, but I urge them to take a leaf out of the Government's book and to start putting the state at the service of Wales, not Wales at the service of the state.
7.56 pm
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: No amount of huffing, puffing and posturing by Conservative Members can mask the fact that for Wales this period of Conservative government has been a painful and unmitigated disaster.
I wish to associate my remarks with those of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) who referred to the report that was published this afternoon by the Welsh Office, "Community Investment: An Initiative for the Valleys." He made a passionate case for the valleys, a case that the Opposition have made constantly since 1979 when this Government came to office, and he spoke for all Opposition Members who represent the valleys of south Wales. We feel passionately about the problems that face our communities —the dreadful unemployment rate, the waste of young and middle aged people who want to work but who cannot find work. Day after day they write out applications for jobs. When one has completed 50 or more applications but still has not been offered an interview, one can imagine —perhaps some cannot—the despondency felt by those people. They see no hope.
A man of 35 came to my surgery and told me about his attempts to get a job in Cynon Valley, which has the highest male unemployment rate in Wales and one of the highest male unemployment rates of any industrial area in the United Kingdom. As he went out of the door, he said, "I feel like throwing myself in the river." What does a Member of Parliament say to somebody who feels like doing that? Can one talk about hope? During the almost two years that I have been the Member of Parliament for Cynon Valley, I have seen the unemployment rate climb relentlessly month by month. That is why Labour Members constantly ask the Secretary of State what is to happen about jobs.
I welcome the report as a recognition of the improvements needed in the valley communities, but I must ask, as my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) asked: how many jobs will the proposals in the report produce? I appreciate that that question may be difficult to answer at this stage, but it is one of the most pressing questions in the constituencies that most of us represent. I hope that in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney the Minister will give more information about the £2 million capital allocation for housing and the £1 million urban programme resources mentioned in the report.
I agree that it is important to do something about the environmental problems in the valley areas, especially as we know that industrialists coming to an area look specifically for a good environment. We need to be more scientific about this in Wales, and in Britain as a whole, to discover precisely why industrialists go to some areas and not to others. The Irish Government have carried out a proper scientific analysis. One of the researchers on that project told me how surprised he was that Britain did not carry out similar analyses. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) will recall that
84
when the steel industry in his constituency was decimated the local council carried out its own investigation into why industrialists would or would not come to the area. That type of analysis should be carried out systematically and scientifically throughout the country. I hope that the Welsh Office will give special consideration to that aspect.
One of the worst aspects of the environment in the areas that we represent is poor housing. In the valleys of south Wales there is massive and appalling urban deprivation, which is increasingly unlikely to be tackled in view of the pitiful financial resources at the disposal of local authorities. In a recent study, the Cynon Valley, Merthyr and Rhondda were identified as the three most deprived districts of England and Wales. In the Cynon valley, 92 per cent. of private housing stock—about 40,000 houses —is in an unsatisfactory condition, and 48 per cent. of private houses have been deemed unfit for human habitation. The cost of rehabilitating the housing stock in that one valley is estimated at nearly £105 million. As the Secretary of State knows, the county council has been pressing for extra funds under the urban development programme, but I am sceptical about the likely result. The £2 million capital allocation for local authority housing will not even scratch the surface of the problems of one valley.
I do not wish to be churlish about the report, but I am sure that I speak for all my hon. Friends when I say that we hoped for a lion, but have been given a mouse. To deal with the problems of the south Wales valleys we needed a roar of indignation followed by resources on the scale that those problems require. Instead, we have been given a squeak, although even a squeak is welcome.
The Cynon valley has one of the biggest environmental pollution problems in Britain—the Phurnacite plant at Abercwmboi. The loss of any jobs in the valley is to be deplored, and that plant provides 600 jobs. Since the coal dispute ended, the pollution from that plant has increased, but it is difficult for people in the area to protest because the jobs are so badly needed. Last week 14 members of the Abercwmboi anti-pollution lobby came to my surgery and dumped bags of soot on the table in front of me— the result of just one night's emissions from the Phurnacite plant. When I asked how many of those people worked at the plant or had relatives who worked there, not one hand went up. Yet again, the pollution of the environment had to be balanced against the number of jobs provided.
If the Secretary of State is serious about dealing with the environmental problems of the valleys, and especially of the Cynon valley, he must ensure that the National Coal Board behaves responsibly towards residents in the area. People need the jobs but they do not need the current levels of pollution. Any responsible industry would ensure that people do not have to suffer such pollution just because they need the jobs. It is essential that pollution in the Cynon valley should be properly controlled.
The pollution from the Phurnacite plant is the first thing that people see when they come down the new road. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, I welcome new roads. I only wish that the road to Merthyr came through the Cynon valley, but I am glad that my hon. Friend has such a splendid road in his constituency and that we have the important link road into the Cynon valley. I hope that there will be many more such developments. I certainly do not wish to vie for resources with my hon. Friend in the neighbouring valley, but in the present situation that is almost inevitable.

85
The Secretary of State and I constantly argue about Japanese firms. I should make it clear that we welcome any investment, Japanese or otherwise, in an area of such high unemployment. My only objection to the firm in question was to some of its employment practices. I am sure that the Government and Members on both sides deplore the pressure put on workers to take so-called voluntary redundancy because they had reached the age of 35 and were regarded as over the hill. I hope such practices are not common to Japanese firms generally and that there will be no repetition of a practice which I think the firm now admits to have been a serious error of judgment as well as a serious error in public relations.
The Secretary of State talks about community self-help in his report. We are not short of ideas, and he is well aware of that. My council has applied for money for industrial and commercial development in Aberdare, which is mentioned in the report. It wanted money to develop the commercial sector of Aberdare and various other corridors of land in the older industrial areas. It asked for £210,000. So far it has received £125,000. That is obviously not enough, and it needs the balance. An idea has been put forward which the council would put into action if only it had the money.
The council also wants to reclaim derelict land. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney talked about some of the worst eyesores in his area. One of the worst in my area is opposite the Phurnacite plant. It is a large hill, with black stumps of trees, which is burning underneath. Clouds of smoke can sometimes be seen above the trees. That is an obvious eyesore. It is on the main road and it needs to be removed if it is not to deter industrialists from coming to the area.
My council has put forward a list of schemes to the Welsh Development Agency for the forthcoming financial year. The total sum is in millions rather than thousands of pounds. The basic objective is to clear as many derelict sites as possible for the benefit of industry and the environment. The main schemes are Cmw Cynon and Deep Dyffryn, for which it needs £1·2 million; Aberaman and Cwm Neol colliery sites, Aberaman, for which it needs £1·1 million; and Penrhiwceiber colliery for which it needs £518,000. The council has ideas about clearing those sites, but again it needs the cash to do the job. If the Secretary of State is serious about wanting to clear up the environment in the Cynon valley, he will know that the council has put forward schemes for which it would be pleased to receive the necessary sums of money.
Where people live has important bearings on their health and well-being. Poor housing stock and low levels of household amenities are recognised signs of social deprivation. They increase the difficulties faced by people in coping with illness at home. They also militate against the early discharge of patients from hospital, particularly for families with young children and elderly people.
The south Wales housing officer group produced a report in 1984 which drew attention to the special housing problems in Wales which are compounded by the high percentage of pre-1919 homes compared with the rest of the United Kingdom; the high percentage of houses lacking basic amenities compared with England; the low level of spending per head on housing in Wales; and the particular problems of the elderly and other unwaged groups who tend to be concentrated in unfit housing.
We have heard a lot about severe weather payments, and we know that many elderly, particularly in our valley
86
communities, are suffering because of bad housing. Many of those people have low incomes and are unable to improve their houses, even if they live in private accommodation, because they do not have the income to do so. Many elderly people come to our surgeries and show us how they spend their money, how much they get by way of pension and how little they can afford to spend on heating. Therefore, the improvement of the housing stock is necessary to improve their conditions as well. In 1984 that report concluded that a housing crisis lay ahead unless urgent action was taken to allocate resources for house building and renovation.
The Mid Glamorgan report on deprivation and health drew attention to the particular needs of the Health Service for people in Mid Glamorgan. It talked about the Black report, which drew attention to the association between social class and health, to the increased levels of illness among unskilled workers and to the links between poverty and ill health. The authority's strategic plan highlighted those statements and concluded:
"It will be necessary to exercise positive discrimination to the benefit of those communities in Mid Glamorgan whose social structure implies a greater need for services."
The Royal Commission on the National Health Service, of which I was a member, suggested that community health services are often inadequate in areas of social deprivation and that improvements are ugently needed. The Royal College of General Practitioners' survey of primary care and the Acheson report described geographical variations both in the problems encountered by primary health care teams and in the characteristics of primary care services delivered.
In the past, following the 1971 census, considerable efforts were made to analyse the collected data. Areas of multiple deprivation, broadly defined by the excessive presence of those factors which together show a low level of welfare, have been the target for social planning, particularly in the context of the physical environment in the past. Policies for positive discrimination are already, to a limited extent, present, in the nation's health care strategies and RAWP, SHARE and SCRAW embrace a belief that areas of greater need should receive more resources.
Health care services alone cannot resolve all the problems identified in areas of social deprivation, but adverse social economic and environmental factors affect a disproportionate number of households in Mid Glamorgan. I have previously gone in some detail into the links between unemployment and health, and I shall not do so again this evening. There has been a lot of research into the effects of unemployment on death and sickness among people out of work, their spouses and families.
The work of people such as Harvey Brenner has shown a consistent relationship between depressions in national economies and changes in the death rate. A recent British study compared mortality rates among the unemployed and the employed in the week before the 1971 census. It clearly demonstrated excessive numbers of deaths among the unemployed, even after allowing for socio-economic differences between the groups.
There is, and there has been for 50 years, enough evidence to show that the duration of unemployment is associated with poor health and even death. In 1984 Mid Glamorgan had a higher unemployment rate for men and women who had been out of employment for one year or more than for Wales or for England and Wales together.

87
Long-term male unemployment is particularly high in the Cynon, Rhymney and Rhondda valleys, and the effect of long-term unemployment on the health of men and women out of work and their families has not been taken into account by the Welsh Office in its calculations.
All the evidence shows that Mid Glamorgan, with its large population, suffers disproportionate levels of illness and disability and at the same time suffers high levels of adverse social conditions, greater than other areas in Wales and England, and that is not simply a matter of the environment.
Much as I want to welcome the report—and I hope that I have been positive in my appreciation of some of the problems that it proposes to tackle—the other areas that I have mentioned this evening must also be taken into account and acted upon because they also affect people in the valleys of south Wales who are looking to the Government for an answer to the intolerable situation in which they find themselves.
8.20 pm
Mr. Stefan Terlezki: I shall not take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd). Her speech was long and was not of great substance. She shed quite a few crocodile tears and indulged in a good deal of rhetoric.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist) mentioned Councillor Bob Morgan, the leader of the South Glamorgan county council. I remember Councillor Morgan saying that the Labour party in Wales is a broad church. If it is, it will need a broad churchyard to go with it. It is clear that a shepherd like Councillor Morgan is a leader only of sheep.
There is the presence of the Liberal-SDP alliance on the South Glamorgan county council. Part of that alliance is formed by the semi-desperate people who want Socialist policies as long as they do not impinge upon them personally.
Before I address myself to the South Glamorgan county council and my constituency, I shall make a few comments about the assertion of Opposition Members that the National Health Service has been subject to cuts, cuts and more cuts and that the Government have an uncaring attitude towards the NHS.
Since the 1983 general election, Labour party spokesmen have shamelessly promised the earth to every conceivable interest group. The cost of the Labour party's commitments has been calculated by the Treasury as £24 billion annually. I intend to give the facts and figures clearly so that they will not be misquoted by Opposition Members and will not be misrepresented in the propagamda leaflets which they so readily distribute in their constituencies.
The Labour party has a clear duty to explain how it would finance the introduction of a 38-hour working week, minimum wages and huge council house building programmes that would involve the expenditure of many billions of pounds. It appears that the VAT rate would have to be increased to no less than 41 per cent. to meet indirect costs. If the Labour party does not accept that its programme would lead to the expenditure of £24 billion annually, it must explain to the country generally, to Labour-controlled constituencies and to the House which items of its programme it will abandon. If it decides not
88
to take either course, it will confirm that it has not moved forward from the apology of a programme that it put forward during the 1983 general election.
The Labour shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), has been forced to acknowledge the scale of the Government's achievement. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that the Government are right to say that, allowing for the normal corrections for inflation, health spending during the past six years had increased by 20 per cent. Where are the cuts talked about by Opposition Members, when their finance spokesman has stated categorically that expenditure on health provision has increased by 20 per cent. in real terms? That means that that area of spending is breaking all previous records. Top priority will continue to be given to the NHS and by 1988 NHS spending of £20 billion will mean that this item will be second only to spending on social security.
One of the greatest hospital building programmes ever is under way. The Opposition should realise that 58 major schemes, each costing over £2 million, have been completed. Nearly 150 more schemes are being planned, designed or built. In 1984, over 6 million in-patient cases were treated, which was 800,000 more than in 1978. There were 37 million out-patient attendances in 1984, over 3 million more than in 1978. Over 112,000 more elderly patients were treated in our hospitals in 1984 than in 1978. Kidney transplant operations increased by over 50 per cent. There are 5,000 more hospital doctors and nurses, 3,000 more general practitioners and 58,000 more nurses and midwives working to provide better patient care.
That is the national picture but it alone will not counter the talk of cuts, cuts and more cuts. It is the practical evidence of the results of record spending, especially in the form of new and improved hospitals, that will convince voters in different localities that the NHS is safe with the Conservative Government.
We can go to extremes and talk about expenditure of £24 billion, but where is the £24 billion to come from? Would a Labour Government borrow to finance that level of expenditure? Labour Members should realise that, when money is borrowed, the borrower has to pay interest. We all know that the previous Labour Government borrowed and that the borrowings still have to be paid back with interest. If it is Labour party policy to increase taxation and print money like confetti, how is it to face the nation in advocating such a programme? Does the Labour party want to bankrupt Britain? Does it want to return to the winter of discontent? Does it want to return to 28 per cent. inflation? Does it want to take the country back to the power which was once held by trade union barons? Does it want to take us back to the IMF and to mortgage Britain for generations to come? There is no alternative to facing the facts and to carrying on as best we can with the resources at our disposal.
We are all extremely sorry that unemployment is so high. Nothing would please me more than to see thousands of my constituents rising at 5 am or 6 am, clocking in at 7 am and working until 5 pm five days a week, earning wages unashamedly and being proud of having a job. I want to see that. I am sure that we would all like to see buses, cars and bicycles filling our streets in the mornings with people going to work in industries and coal mines for a week, a month, a year, or the rest of their lives.
There is no magic wand. It does not matter how much rhetoric there is or how much we pull the punches—the

89
fact is that we are part and parcel of the industrial world. Unemployment is worldwide. Unless the shop stewards, trade union leaders, management and work force get together, decide what is good for their jobs and industries and put their backs into the work we cannot expect unemployment to decrease. We must never price ourselves out of work. If we ask for wages in two, three or four figures, we shall create unemployment and, once again, hon. Members will be crying crocodile tears because unemployment has increased.
Unemployment will be sustained as long as we cannot compete and as long as we price ourselves out of employment. Some union leaders — I would call them apparatchiks — stop at nothing but continually demand money on the table before using their tools. Unless we compete, we shall always be in the fourth division and not in the first where we belong.
Mr. Brynmor John: The hon. Gentleman wants to be the new chairman of Cardiff City.
Mr. Terlezki: I hope that the team will be in the second division next year.
I should like to consider my constituency, especially South Glamorgan county council and Cardiff city council. It is intolerable and unacceptable that South Glamorgan county council intends to increase rates by about 25 per cent. As a former member of the South Glamorgan county council, I assure the House that, before the election, Labour party members were politically bribing the electorate, promising anything and everything. They were promising to build bridges where there were no rivers, no highways or railway tracks. They were promising everything just for a vote. Now they have been elected, they are robbing the electorate.
It is true that, if one allows a Socialist a free hand, he will put it in the ratepayer's pocket. Before the ratepayer realises what is happening, £50, £70 or £100 a year will be levied in increased rates. First it is bribery and then it is robbery. That is typical of Labour councillors. The same applies to the SDP—those semi-desperate people. They cannot get out of their concentration camp, so they join the Socialist bandwagon and try to promise everything to everyone without being accountable.
I am sorry that my constituents will suffer because of mismanagement by South Glamorgan county council. I am proud—this has nothing to do with politics, unless the Opposition want to interpret in that way—that the city council, which is a good housekeeper, is not increasing rates. The city council must be commended for its courage and good housekeeping. I am sure that Cardiff ratepayers appreciate the fact that the city council is able to manage properly.
I am perturbed because South Glamorgan county council is deliberately selling playing fields in my constituency, preventing children from my school from utilising those grounds for sports and for annual and seasonal events. It is disgraceful that, for 30 pieces of silver, South Glamorgan county council is prepared to deny children of all ages, their mums, their dads and their grandfathers the right to enjoy participation in sport and other activities in summer and winter. That is deplorable. The county council has said that the Government are forcing the council to sell the land. That is a deliberate lie. The council is misleading the mums and dads. Councillors
90
must speak the truth. If they will not, they must offer themselves for election. We will see whether they will be re-elected.
The South Glamorgan education authority is offering so-called peace studies in our schools. I deplore that. The teaching of so-called peace studies in some of our schools is totally phoney, as it is being used to push Left-wing and unilateralist propaganda at our young people. Our young people should be taught the "triangle" — how to read, how to write and religion. Teaching of so-called peace studies is a blatant perversion of the teacher's traditional role and responsibility. Parents should have the right to withdraw their children from political indoctrination classes. Parents want their children to be given a decent education in traditional disciplines and skills. "Peace studies" are a squalid abuse of our children and should be banned from our schools. That is vital.
I should like to go forward, but at the same time backward to 1985, when Marxism received a decisive rebuff in Wales. Arthur Scargill tried, like many aspiring dictators before him, to topple a properly elected Government, and he failed. His coal strike was planned confrontation on a titanic scale. "Profit" was the word which Arthur Scargill spat out in hatred; and, let us never forget, he drew ecstatic applause from the so-called leaders of the Labour movement for so doing. I was here; you were there — every time Arthur Scargill and his apparatchiks were mentioned, you applauded the name. You were supporting him throughout, and the coal industry—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Member knows that he must not attribute those actions to me.
Mr. Terlezki: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The coal industry is being turned around because the miners are putting their jobs and the welfare of their families above doctrinaire politics. In place of Socialism, the people's democracy has arisen. Two thirds of the people already own their homes. They are now on the way to real ownership of the economy.
Mr. Rogers: Tell us which army you served in.
Mr. Terlezki: The Labour leader, who is starting to give an impression of Lord Wilson as Mike Yarwood, is beginning to realise that. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) behaves in a way that is below his intelligence. He looks like Tom Jones' grass, only twice as green. No wonder he became a Member — the Europeans would not have him.
The voters in Wales will not be fooled when it comes to the next local election for the county council or city council. They certainly will not be fooled when it comes to the next general election.
8.40 pm
Mr. Brynmor John: Welsh day is a curious mixture of the national and parochial but at the end of the day it is a little easier because one concentrates on one's own constituency.
I do not want to follow the relentlessly juvenile pursuit of the South Glamorgan county council elections, like the hon. Members for Cardiff Central (Mr. Grist), for Cardiff North (Mr. Jones) and for Cardiff, West (Mr. Terlezki). You can hardly wait for tomorrow morning, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and, after a debate such as we have endured,

91
particularly the contribution by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West, I suspect, neither can I. When you do recover your composure to the extent necessary to peruse Hansard, I suggest that you peruse the amazing similarity in subject matter between the three speeches of the hon. Members for Cardiff, Central, for Cardiff, North and for Cardiff, West: three minds without a single thought.
I take on board the points made by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best). He made a misguided, but at least thoughtful, speech about the relationship of money in the economy and the effect upon investment in Wales.
I shall look at that with an example from my own constituency. What we are witnessing today is the accretion of money in corporations, to be used not for organic growth in promoting those corporations, but in takeovers.
Just such a triangle—it is almost as rubber triangular as the three hon. Members from Cardiff—is the Argyll, Distillers and Guinness triangle. I shall tell the hon. Member for Ynys Môn how I think Welsh employment is affected by the consequence of an unchecked growth and slopping around of money which is spare and which is not being used properly. Argyll has made a bid for Distillers. That is common knowledge. It is clear that Argyll wants only some of the commercial products which tie in most naturally with its shop activities. That means that a factory in my constituency which makes dry ice, which is badly needed for medical purposes, will be divested by Argyll if it takes over Distillers. It will mean the loss of 60 jobs and the loss of a great facility for the south of Britain.
Mr. Best: I will not detain the hon. Gentleman. I fully accept what he is saying about money slopping around, but I was endeavouring to say that it is a shame that we cannot harness private money for public sector infrastructure work. I do not accept that it is being done at the moment to the extent that I would like.
Mr. John: With respect, before we start wishing good works on the private sector, perhaps the Government should redirect their efforts within the private sector towards creating jobs and a manufacturing structure of which we can be proud and in which we can look forward to the future with some confidence.
The hon. Member for Ynys Môn said that he believed in public ownership. His public ownership involved people going along to buy one to ten shares, perhaps 250 shares, in a company. That is a myth, like the golden age. Even the privatisation measures which have recently been so lauded have been shown on analysis to be heavily biased in favour of large corporations and large institutional investors. Therefore, we have seen a transfer not from a monolithic state corporation to private individuals who represent the country in microcosm, but from what the hon. Member for Ynys Môn might call an impersonal state corporation to equally impersonal financial institutions. I do not believe that that is good. I am not in favour of an impersonal corporation approach, but I do not believe that going to the other extreme and making what is virtually a private monopoly—
Mr. RowlandsIt is a private monopoly.
Mr. John: It is a private monopoly in the sense that the large institutions control the investors. I do not think that that counts.
92
Much has been said about the discussion document issued today about the valley areas. Some Conservative Members seem to think that the valley areas need to have everything done for them. Let me remind hon. Members, certainly those who have little or no experience of pre-war south Wales, that our areas were built upon self-help and self-education. If the hon. Member for Ynys Môn provided the money, he would run out of money before we ran out of energy.
I have no wish to dampen the initiative but I suspect that we will fire our energy once more, in great corporative pride, only to find that another recession has come about, with another financial cut. That will create a cynicism more erosive than anything else that has been done by the Government. If the Government mean what they say, they will take care to have the money to be ready to be spent.
I want to concentrate on the Pontypridd hospital, a symptom of health care in my constituency. I listened to what the hon. Member for Cardiff, West said. I have dealt with him several times but he is more used to talking than listening and more used to standing on his feet than reading Hansard but I would ask him to read what I say again. No one is saying that in absolute terms the Government have cut Health Service provision. The gravamen of the charge against the Government is that, now that medical and surgical techniques have exploded and there is great demand for techniques which were unavailable a decade ago, the Health Service is not matching demand.
I want to refer to my own area. The Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Robinson), has implied, as has the Secretary of State, that the real fault with the Mid Glamorgan area health authority is that it is profligate with its money. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West in part gave the answer to that. He said that we should look at all the extra people being treated. He is right: there has been a 41 per cent. increase in the number of X-ray patients seen at East Glamorgan hospital. There have been 88 per cent. more cardiology patients treated, an 80 per cent. take-up of home prescriptions in the pharmacy, a 66 per cent. increase in the pathology department and at our geriatric hospital, Dewi Sant, there has been a 736 per cent. increase in out-patients and a total increase of 121 per cent.
Hon. Gentlemen cannot have it both ways. I concede that more people are being treated, but the opposite side of that coin is that Mid Glamorgan area health authority must be using its revenue to good advantage to enable that to happen. However, when it runs short of money because of the explosion of medical demand and demand on the Health Service, it is told it cannot manage. It is told that a firm of accountants will look at it and that it is its own fault. So the Government propose to close the Pontypridd hospital.
It is inconvenient for the Government that this morning the Western Mail carried an item that showed that the Pontypridd hospital is the most efficient in Wales because its bed utilisation is 100 per cent. That far outstrips any other area. It is inconvenient for the Government that it is the only hospital in the area where beds are committed to general practitioners and it is doubly unfortunate, at a time when out-patient clinics and waiting lists are lengthening, that 8,000 people are treated at that hospital as outpatients, including rheumatology patients.
I ask the Under-Secretary to give this message to the Secretary of State. When he next makes one of his unmemorable visits to my constituency, will he please tell

93
the people what will happen if that hospital closes permanently to the 8,000 people a year whom it now treats? Are they to go on to the waiting list, lengthening it by another 10 per cent.? Are they to wait indefinitely while the Minister says, "We shall get around to that when another firm of accountants becomes more expert at the subject." Will that be the answer?
If the Government are so confident in their belief, why is it that Ministers failed to answer a request that I made to meet a delegation to discuss the closure of the hospital? This is the Government who brook no opposition, and who can take on all comers, yet they cannot take on a delegation from the constituency to discuss the closure of the hospital. Why is that? Why, in defiance of all parliamentary conventions, was my request for a delegation ignored? Concern has also been expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) and others outside Parliament. That does not give us much confidence in the stewardship of the Welsh Office over health matters, if it can be insensitive to the demands of people who are asking to keep their hospital open. What is it like towards the patients themselves?
Therefore, I believe that Pontypridd hospital is not an optional extra. It is not a cigarette lighter in the motor car of the Health Service. It is a vital service. The county has better economic and social conditions than many of the areas represented by my hon. Friends, but it has a higher morbidity rate and greater suffering. Therefore, it has a greater claim upon the public purse for health reasons than many other counties. Unless the formula for funding reflects that, the people of Mid Glamorgan will be let down at a time when we cannot afford to let people down. Elderly and young people have an expectation of life that their grandfathers and grandmothers never had. To allow them to die wantonly and needlesly for lack of treatment would be the greatest crime of all.
8.52 pm
Mr. Ron Davies: I am glad to see that the Secretary of State is back in the Chamber because I want to address a few remarks directly to him. This is the third time that I have heard him present his address at our annual Welsh debate. It inspired no more confidence in me than on the other two occasions.
The essence of the Secretary of State's remarks was that we have just about managed to survive; we have weathered the storm. The right hon. Gentleman talked about agriculture and said that the Government policy on milk quotas had not been that disastrous. He talked about the National Coal Board, and said that it had not been too disastrous—productivity is up. However, he did not say anything about the new pits and the investment that he talked about in his speech last year. We heard the right hon. Gentleman talk briefly about education and very briefly about the one new Japanese factory, presumably the product of his stewardship at the Welsh Office. We also heard him talk about the new valleys initiative.
It is not satisfactory when all that the Secretary of State can say to us at our annual debate is that we have managed to weather the storm and that things are bad, but it does not matter because they could be a darn sight worse. That is not an encouraging message.
Suggestions that we have weathered the storm or that things might be worse, or the manipulation of statistics to suggest that things are not quite as bad as they could be, are not satisfactory for the people of the valleys. There is
94
only one criterion that has any value to the people of Wales, particularly those in the valleys. There is only one quality that they look for, and that is the quality of life that they enjoy. They are not concerned about the way in which the Welsh Office manipulates, or about the arguments from the Secretary of State and his Ministers about whether we have spent more this year than last year, or whether we are managing to survive. The only issue that is of any concern is the quality of life.
That depends entirely on employment. The only possible hope for our valley communities is opportunities for employment. The only hope for improving our environment is if we have people in work. The only way that our houses will be improved is if we have people in work, the only way to have a decent Health Service or education service is if we have people in work. Not only does that give them dignity and the personal security that they need to organise their own lives, but it gives the community the resources that are necessary to fund cooperative ventures. That central point is not recognised by the Secretary of State. Either he does not understand it or he will not acknowledge it.
In 1979, when we had the "Labour isn't working" election slogan, we heard all the excuses and all the criticisms of the figure of 1 million unemployed. We had all the suggestions of what was wrong with the British economy. We were told by the Tories that they had the answers. We were told that the problem was inflation. Let us concede the Government's success in reducing inflation from 10·1 per cent. in 1979 to 5·7 per cent. last year. We were told in 1979 that the problem was strikes, and that so many days were lost through strikes. Let us concede that we now live in a different era and now we do not lose 30 million days a year as we did in 1979. Last year the total of days lost was 6 million, one fifth of that total. We are told that British industry, was not profitable in 1979. Trading profits have gone up from £39 billion in 1979 to £68 billion in 1985. We were told that the exchange rate was too high. It has come down from $2·06 to the pound in 1979 to $1·37 to the pound in 1985.
Therefore, all that the Government said was wrong in 1979, by their standards, has been put right now in 1985. What do we have as a result? We have 25 per cent. unemployment in Wales. In parts of our valley communities, there is 75 or 80 per cent. unemployment. In my constituency four out of five people in housing estates are dependent on benefits. That is the product of the success of the Government's policies over the past seven years. The reason is that we have not had manufacturing investment. We heard some interesting arguments from Conservative Back Benchers, who said that investment is now at record levels. It is now lower in real terms that in 1979. In 1979 it was £8,230 million and in 1985 the figure was down to £6,780 million, the lowest rate of investment in manufacturing industry other than in Greece and Portugal, out of 18 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries surveyed last year. It is not a record to be proud of. It is at the root of the problem that we have in the valleys. We do not have employment or investment, so there is no cohesion in our communities.
Government spokesmen will tell us, "Do not talk about unemployment figures or about the 200,000 people in Wales who are unemployed. Talk about the people who are employed." Even on that basis, using the criteria that the Government prefer to use, in every county in Wales

95
there are fewer people in employment now than there were in 1979. Every index reveals that there are fewer people in employment than there were in 1979.
In June 1978 there were 837,000 people in full-time employment in Wales. On the latest date for which figures are available, there were 745,000 people in employment. Whichever criterion the Government wish to choose, the figures show that the Government have neglected the people of Wales.
One would have thought that the Secretary of State for Wales, when he sits in Cabinet, would represent the interests of Wales. The Prime Minister and the Cabinet are now isolated from all opinion in the country. The Confederation of British Industry, the Trade Unions Council, the Churches, the House of Lords, the House of Commons, large sections of the Conservative party and large sections of the public all recognise that the Government are a disastrous failure and that the Government are retreating day by day into a bunker. I believe it is distressing that, in that bunker, the Prime Minister has a staunch ally in the Secretary of State for Wales. Instead of arguing the case for Wales, the right hon. Gentleman is encouraging the Prime Minister to believe that what she is doing to this country will be of long term benefit to our people. That is a terrible indictment of the Secretary of State whose special Cabinet responsibility is for the one area in the United Kingdom which has been worst hit by the Government's policies.
The Government say that there is no alternative. I believe that there is an alternative. The Secretary of State has today announced his new initiative. It strikes me as ironic that the Government, who for the past seven years have said that public expenditue is bad and that problems cannot be solved by throwing money at them, are suddenly now saying that they recognise the problem and that now is the time for a community initiative. I am aware that the Secretary of State has made some move and I welcome his new initiative. I welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has now recognised that the Government have a role to play and welcome the new initiative, the new money and the new idea. I will encourage my local authority to make a submission and I hope that the Secretary of State will recognise the value of all the submissions when they are put to him.
I will not pretend that I have any regard for what the Secretary of State has done today. The Secretary of State's initiative is nothing more than a gimmick to divert attention from the real issue which should be the subject of today's debate, which is that, as a direct result of Government policy, one out of four Welsh people are out of work. The Secretary of State will not solve anything by using £3 million of public money to invest in the valleys. To use the Secretary of State's words, that will not even prime the pump. Three million pounds is £15 for every unemployed person in Wales.
The Secretary of State intends to put the money into the valleys of south Wales. If the right hon. Gentleman spent one sixth of that money in each of the six districts of Mid Glamorgan, that would not make a pinprick on the problems there. It would certainly result in some minor improvements but if the right hon. Gentleman spent that money equally in each of the districts in Mid Glamorgan —as he said, to promote employment opportunities— how many jobs will he create?
96
If we assume that £10,000 of public money will provide a job, he will provide 300 jobs. If that money is spent equally in the six counties of Mid Glamorgan, he wil provide 50 jobs. If all the money goes to Mid Glamorgan, the right hon. Gentleman will provide 50 jobs in the Rhymney valley. There are 10,000 people out of work as a result of the Government's policies. No amount of projects or schemes which depend on planting trees, tarting up the local bus station, painting the outside of public buildings — welcome though all those schemes may be — will do anything to solve the deep-rooted problems of the valleys.
We need real investment in new industry as it is only by having new investment and new industries that we will get the jobs we want, and if we do not get the jobs, the valleys will have no prospects or security for the future.
9.4 pm
Mr. Michael Foot: I should like to comment for a few minutes on the new proposals that the Government have made in relation to the valley communities. I follow in the footsteps of many of my hon. Friends who know intimately what has happened in the area and the scale of the problem. It is partly because of the scale of the problem and partly because of the effects that the problems are inflicting on our communities that we welcome almost any proposal that can bring any alleviation whatsoever. I welcome the proposal in the sense that it offers alleviation.
There is a certain irony in that I attended a meeting on Friday in my constituency which represented all the valley ares covered by the scheme and we discussed the matter. Local authorities from all the areas put forward a range of proposals. They had previously suggested that they should meet the Secretary of State for Wales, but he refused to meet them on the ground that he felt that it was better that such matters should be dealt with separately.
A few weeks ago, as soon as I heard about the proposals to assist the inner cities, I wrote to the Secretary of State saying that it would be unfair to leave out the valleys. However, the right hon. Gentleman replied that it might be better to continue with our present machinery. It is peculiar that, after all those refusals, the right hon. Gentleman, in the document that he distributed, should have said:
"These deficiencies can only in part be removed through financial injections."
He is talking about deficiencies in the valley towns. The document continues:
"The conditions arise partially from the industrial dereliction and economic decline; but they also stem from the absence of any co-ordinated action by local communities and the responsible agencies and authorities to work together with sufficient imagination and drive to make the very best use of the potential that exists."
All the democratically elected valley authorities have been crying out for exactly such co-ordination to help them to overcome their problems. It is strange that, at the very moment when the right hon. Gentleman refused to meet valley representatives, he should try to put some of the blame on them. However, we welcome the initiative, small and belated though it is, for the reason that I gave at the beginning of my speech.
I welcome the Secretary of State's reply to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) about the Welsh Development Agency. Some of us have been telling the

97
Welsh Office for years that it is absurd that the WDA, which does such good work, must make painful choices between spending money on assisting new factories or providing new factories and limiting the amount that it can spend on land reclamation and the development of sites. We have asked why the Secretary of State does not go to the Cabinet and ask for more money to enable the WDA and other authorities — I do not say that it can do it alone—to spend more on reclamation and development. To some extent, the right hon. Gentleman's proposals will mean that the WDA and other agencies will receive more money.
I assure the Secretary of State that there will be no shortage of schemes for which we shall need money and assistance under his proposals, but it is a great pity that it was not done years ago when thousands of construction workers first became unemployed. Indeed, in the valleys, many construction workers have joined the dole queue during the past five or six years, and we have pleaded with the Government to spend more on construction. We have a little money now. But if the projects are to work properly, that sum will be insufficient. One need only compare the £2 million or £3 million which the Government propose to spend with the figures which show what has been spent in Merthyr and Aberdare during the past six years, even on Government schemes. The amount is far more than £2 million or £3 million.
If investment is to be effective, it must be on a much bigger scale. We must also ensure that the Government do not remove with one hand what they offer with the other. They have done that many times. The Government who say that they will help us in some areas are the same Government who have removed much larger sums by cutting the rate support grant.
That is why I was so eager to press my question about the training scheme, although I have not yet received an answer from the right hon. Gentleman and I do not expect one now. I welcome the two-year training scheme. It is no good the Secretary of State comparing the present position with what happened under the Labour Government. When we were in office, much more training was provided, there were many more apprenticeships and many more people obtained jobs in industry. We welcomed the youth training scheme from the beginning, but it is completely unfair that a considerable part of the increasing burden of the scheme should be placed upon the local authorities, some of which cannot afford it. We have always been eager—the same could be said of all other valley constituencies and communities—to play our part in the YTS. Whatever our criticisms, we have always wished to encourage them.
What has happened? My local authority and all the other authorities—as the Minister would be aware if he had attended the meeting on Friday—are having to bear a considerable extra burden for the second year of the training scheme and for the years after that. The authorities are having to commit themselves now to this type of expenditure. The expenditure could be more than the proposed expenditure to be given to the authorities for this scheme. When the Government propose extra resources for local authorities—I repeat we are eager to make the best use of all the resources we can get out of this Government—they must also look at the way in which they cut resources in so many other areas.
There is a simple comparison between what happened under the previous Labour Government and what is happening now. We had to face the same problems—a
98
world slump, rocketing oil prices, the consequences of such a price rise and increasing unemployment. We faced those problems. If the present Government achieved the figures which we achieved in the last months of office, they would be regarded as the biggest miracle since the loaves and the fishes. In the period 1979 to 1980, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) was Prime Minister and when the right hon. Gentleman and his friends were placarding everywhere with "Labour isn't working", employment figures — the Government tell us to look at the employment, not the unemployment, figures — were greater than they shave ever been in British history. They were certainly greater than they have been since. Employment has been heavily cut in this period, and unemployment is now greater than ever before. That is the simple comparison.
In the last year of the Labour Government, facing all the problems—and we dealt with all the democratic problems as well — we Increased employment to the highest level ever achieved. This Government have increased unemployment to the highest level in the history of this country. Unemployment is worse in Wales than almost anywhere else.
We will certainly take any small consideration we can get from the Government and which the local authorities can use. We have been crying out for this for years. We shall try to turn this pittance into a real programme for tackling unemployment.
9.12 pm
Dr. John Marek: My right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) has put his finger on the problems from which the country has to suffer under the present Administration. I have listened to this debate this afternoon and the way the Government have misinformed the public and have said that A is A when it is not and that B is B when it is not. It has been their modus vivendi. That has been the Government's policy since 1979.
We have heard a number of speeches from Conservative Members this evening and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) has commented, they were of a similar nature. I hesitate to say that they were from the same brief, although that question springs to mind. What is at stake in the debate is not the Government's policies but the Opposition's policies. The Conservatives have asked what the Opposition will do if we come into government — which we will. The Conservative Members have told us that we will either have to print money or borrow money. The Treasury has worked out that our programmes would cost £26 billion. What Conservative Members did not say and what did not occur to them is that we would place a priority on employment.
If we had the country working again more people would be paying tax and that is where the Government's money would come from. It is no use Conservative Members shaking their heads. The Government are not interested in employment. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent has said, they have raised unemployment to the highest level ever. That is the essential difference between the Government and the Opposition. Consequently, they need taxation from elsewhere, and they have increased taxation to a higher level than I can remember. If a Labour Government get people back to

99
work, those people will be paying tax because they will be earning money. That is what the next Labour Government will do.
Like my other hon. Friends, I welcome this latest initiative, but it is very little indeed. The housing aspect of it comes to £2 million, but the cost of building a council house today is between £25,000 and £30,000. In other words, all the money available this year will build about 80 council houses, yet we have all this trumpeting that at last the Conservative Government have seen the light and intend to do something.
Almost every Labour Member represents a council with a waiting list of about 1,000 people. How far will that sum help? It is an absolute pittance. The newspapers and the media must not be beguiled by the message of millions of pounds. A few months ago a report said that to put right the housing stock in the United Kingdom would cost £20 billion, but that is not mentioned by the Conservative party.
We must never lose sight of that fact, and I do not believe that the Welsh people will lose sight of it. They have had six years of this Government and see hospitals that cannot take patients because they are full and can only treat emergency patients. They see schoolchildren without adequate books, and they see social services crumbling before them.
Mr. Raffan: The hon. Gentleman has espoused a new aspect of Labour economic policy, which I am sure will be listened to with great interest by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley)—perhaps with some horror. How quickly will he get people back to work? He said that he will use revenue from taxation to support this extraordinary programme, which has risen by £2 billion since I spoke. How will the hon. Gentleman support that programme between the time of taking office and getting people back to work?
Dr. Marek: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will excuse me if I do not answer now, but I have only three minutes left. Perhaps next time, when I have half an hour or an hour, I will be able to respond.
Whenever possible, this Government like to govern in secret. They were badly caught out over Austin Rover, and they will be caught out over the closure of the Cartrefle teacher training college. I hope that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary will tell us whether that college is to be closed. If it is, it will mean a couple of hundred redundancies, and it will have a marked effect on the rest of the north-east Wales institute as many of the courses are interdependent. There is much apprehension in north-east Wales, and in Wrexham in particular.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): I know that this matter was discussed last week at a meeting of the Welsh Advisory Board. The hon. Gentleman will know that there is to be a meeting of the committee that rules the board on 4 April under my chairmanship. No decision has been recommended as yet to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong in saying that a decision has been taken.
Dr. Marek: I understand from a telephone call to Cardiff that the working party has recommended to the
100
board that Cartrefle college should be closed. I understand that on the chairman's casting vote—the chairman is a university person, and no doubt his university departments are quite safe — the board will recommend to the committee of the Welsh Advisory Board that the Cartrefle teacher training college should be closed. If the Government do not intend to close the college, will they say so clearly? If they cannot, I am sorry, but that is symptomatic of their treatment of Wales for the past six years.
My final charge is also of incompetence. The Welsh Office has allowed British Rail to single-track the line between Chester and Wrexham. The Welsh Office took BR's advice. How incompetent can the Government be? Now, of course, trains are delayed for two hours every week. The result is that nobody will take the rail service from Wrexham General any more. That is incompetence. The Welsh Office was beguiled. Instead of spending £22 million on the Gresford to Pulford bypass, they had to spend only £21·5 million because the bridges have to go over a single track. How stupid the Government are when they take such considerations into account, thus ruining the transport system in north-east Wales.
The Government are incompetent. They have been in office for six years and done no good. They should go.
Mr. Best: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have no desire to delay the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Dr. Thomas), to whom the whole House always enjoys listening, but I know that you will have noticed that every hon. Member who has been rising in his place has been called. I wish to put that on record only because of some of the interventions in my speech.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The Chair is always very happy — it does not happen very often — when every hon. Member who wishes to speak has the opportunity to do so, as has been the case today.
Mr. Ray Powell: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Some of us deliberately did not rise, in order to give others a chance to speak. If the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) had limited his speech, more Opposition Members would have been called.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I did the hon. Gentleman an injustice, and I apologise to him.
9.22 pm
Dr. Roger Thomas: The Secretary of State must have set some sort of record today. He presented his seventh state of the nation report since attaining his high office. I must add hastily that the senior Under-Secretary of State for Wales must also be the proud possessor of a record. There cannot be many members of the Government who occupy the same post, allowing for departmental variations, as they did in 1979. Conservative Members can draw their own conclusions.
I am sure that I will not be in breach of any secret act if I say that the Secretary of State little thought that his leader would still be expecting him to carry the Wales portfolio seven years on. Moreover, it is likely that he has another two to go as there is every likelihood that this Parliament will run its full course.
It is singularly regrettable that the Prime Minister continues to feel that no other Conservative Member can be entrusted with the overall responsibility of the Welsh

101
Office. A little while ago, there were palpable signs that the understanding methods of the former Minister of State, who I am sorry not to see with us today, would have brought a welcome consensus to Welsh politics. That would have removed the monotony of clash and counter-clash of the past seven years. We fully understand the disappointment of several very able Conservative Members. I am not looking in any particular direction.
We have reshuffle after reshuffle, but no Welsh Tory Member ever appears to come to the top of the pack. It is a remarkable coincidence that there has been only the welcome promotion of the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Robinson). Not only have Tory Members not qualified to go to the Welsh Office, but none appears to have been suitably qualified to be a junior Minister in any other office of state or Department. What can they have been doing wrong? One notices many promotions among their counterparts in Scotland. There have been many changes in the Scottish Office, yet we do not appear to have had changes among Welsh Tory Members. I have often dwelt on that, but it is a matter for the Prime Minister.
The other day I watched a television interview with the Leader of the House. Apparently, he was told at a meeting of the 1922 Committee that one of the Tory Whips with a Welsh name was responsible for the promotion of so many wets into the Cabinet. I cannot understand how a Welshman would not do more for fellow Welshmen, and at least most of them are fellow Welshmen.
Year after year the Secretary of State requests patience and prudence from his critics because just a little more time is needed for Government policies to come to palpable fruition. Each year the tide is about to turn, and each year the unemployment tide obstinately refuses to turn. Our resources keep on ebbing away, and the latest to ebb away is North sea oil.
Thousands of jobs have vanished since 1983, let alone since 1979. How much longer do the people in Wales, especially those now in their second or third year without work, have to wait for Government policies to work? Positive intervention has become imperative. It is not only the accelerated pit closures of the past year that leave people jobless. Joblessness now roams the rural areas as well. Creameries, the backbone of rural viability, now become as desolate as the urban coal mines. In rural areas the spin-off effect of closures can be even more widespread and devastating.
We protest at the inadequacies of NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. It is miserly, if somewhat increased in funding, and it wholly fails to meet the massive pit closure redundancies. That limp scheme appeared late in the day, deceitfully publicised, but woefully short on practical application. Pits close, but coal is now extracted in many of our areas of south Wales by overpowering open-cast methods that bulldoze through much-loved landscapes, human amenities and surroundings. Opposition is cast aside scathingly, as if to oppose such gigantic schemes is a form of treachery and a denial of work by local communities.
I am sure that many Tory Members noticed the article in Saturday's Western Mail. The significance of the St. David's day declaration on the urgent need for powerful Government initiatives to expand the economy, thus ensuring that many who are at present without work are allowed to contribute usefully to society, cannot be overemphasised. I am sure that hon. Members will know the
102
names of those who have signed this declaration—Sir Cennyth Traherne, Sir Brian Hopkin, Sir Goronwy Daniel, Dr. C. W. L. Bevan, the Earl Lloyd-George, Professor Glyn Phillips. They are not notable people in the political life of Wales, not notable Welsh men and women. These people speak over and above party politics and their aims cannot be disregarded. The Conservative party cannot afford to sweep this declaration under the carpet. These people have no political axe to grind or political strategy to exploit.
The Labour party is not alone in emphasising the dire need for direct spending to reduce unemployment rather than rely on the haphazard beneficial effects of tax reductions. The support of the CBI has been further bolstered by last week's National Institute report. It said that tax cuts would have
"a paltry effect upon registered unemployment"
for what spending power is made available through tax cuts is either saved or frittered away upon imports.
Registered unemployment is expected to stay at 3 million well into the last quarter of this decade, the pace of growth for this year falls to just over half of that during the previous year and most economic experts tell us that by 1987 there will be an adverse trade balance, including oil balances. The Government are being deaf to much of their own hitherto loyal supporters, as the latter press for more spending on roads and infrastructure—that is what we heard from the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Sir R. Gower) — with warnings that frugality in this sector will lead to an even more helpless position in hard-pressed regions such as Wales and particularly the more inaccessible parts of Wales.
There is much to commend in a building improvement programme primarily aimed at finding work for the long-term unemployed young who are itching to work. The Select Committee on Employment feels that a scheme could reduce unemployment totals by over 300,000 over the first two years of its implementation. Such urban regeneration and the tackling of substandard housing provision would be of particular benefit to Wales because our valleys have long been left stranded by such neglect of a basic human provision.
Government policy, as exemplified by years that do not immediately precede an election, make no inroads. Such cynicism will linger long in the minds of the electorate, but I do not propose to give such a list of Tory marginal seats as the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) gave of Labour marginal seats.
The Government's complacent inaction, as the teachers' industrial action continues to damage the prospects of thousands of children, has been lamentable. The more caring and informed Government supporters such as the right hon. and learned Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Carlisle), the previous Secretary of State for Education and Science, have pleaded for the setting up of a review body prepared to take full recognition of the position of teachers compared to similar and allied professions. Teachers, irrespective of union representation, feel that their training, qualifications and responsibilities are far from adequately remunerated and that their contribution has been taken for granted.
We have listened in this Chamber to teachers being accused of the worst form of hypocrisy and of aggressive self-interest, but the Secretary of State concedes that many teachers will leave because of poor wages and conditions

103
and that many potential teachers of high calibre quit prematurely during training because their future in the profession is so bleak and will be so deeply unappreciated.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State said that spending on education in Wales is at a standstill and that, with falling school rolls, this should mean, arithmetically, that greater provision can be made for each child. However, this is a false argument. No allowance is being made for providing greater choice and catering for more variable and diverse interests, let alone contending with more widespread parental expectations. Comparative education costs should not be confined to years gone by, or even, for that matter, to years ahead. Comparisons should be made with the amounts being spent by our main industrial and technological rivals. During the last six years, our efforts have failed lamentably.
In his wind-up speech last year during the debate on Welsh affairs the Under-Secretary of State for Wales said that the National Health Service was advancing on a broad and variable front, yet it is remarkable how few people express complete satisfaction with it, particularly when there are problems over admitting the elderly to hospital and when the social reasons for such admissions outweigh the medical reasons. There appears to be general unease about the frequency with which expert opinion and subsequent treatment has to be sought outside Wales.
The National Health Service was debated recently in the Welsh Grand Committee, but I make no apology for discussing it in this debate. To quote annual increases over the rate of inflation and increases in staff and increased out-patient attendances can be a very unsatisfactory and deceitful method of assessing advancement. Patient expectations may be difficult to quantify, but whatever area of medical activity one studies, investigations and treatment appear to be in greater demand as facilities become more widely available.
I shall quote one example. The costly medical advance of five or six years ago soon becomes regarded as old-fashioned and second best when the general public realise that something better is available elsewhere. The clever, sophisticated, and technically expert removal of fluid from around the developing baby in order to detect foetal abnormalities which meant that desquamated cells could be examined for chromosomal and other biochemical abnormalities was costly from the standpoint of training surgeons and pathologists.
However, it is now possible to obtain a specimen of the placental cells. Therefore, what appeared five or six years ago to be a remarkable advance has lost its technical glamour now that this new and even more costly method of examination has taken over. The latter technique is infinitely more costly, but the community demands that this technique should be provided. Abnormalities in developing babies can now be detected not at 19 weeks but at 10 weeks. This is a great advantage in case management, but it accounts for the escalating costs of the National Health Service. That is why a 2, 3 or 4 per cent. increase means that the NHS is merely standing still.
Similar examples can be found throughout the NHS. I have quoted only one example out of 30, 40 or 50 examples. When the additional costs are considered, a purely mathematical basis of year-to-year expenditure or
104
year-to-year staff availability — as happened in the remarkably bland and anodyne Conservative party broadcast last week—completely loses its relevance.
Mr. Raffan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Thomas: No, I have only one minute left.
We cannot afford to ignore the warnings of such bodies as the Alliance for Science of the effects of under-funding projects undertaken by such bodies as the Medical Research Council. That has led to a serious loss of expert staff and to the closure of units essential to our medical research capability.
Conservative Members may approve and even revel in privatisation, but the community as a whole suffers when Treasury frugality causes a shortfall in the public funding of medical research, with resultant over-emphasis on private funding which ignores the less important and more mundane sectors of research such as preventive medicine. The people of Wales know that the Health Service is not safe in the Government's hands.
9.40 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): I am glad that the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) and other Opposition Members in their various ways have welcomed the concept of the valleys initiative launched by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State today. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) was particularly constructive, and we shall carefully consider his helpful suggestions. The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) was also most constructive, and I apologise for not having been in the Chamber to hear her speech.
It was entirely predictable that some hon. Members would complain about the level of resources allocated to the initiative. To them, I make two points. First, proposals are to come forward by the end of June and work on approved projects will not begin until the autumn. The additional £3 million initially being made available in 1986–87 is in respect of anticipated expenditure in six months only. The level of additional resources in future years will reflect the quality of the projects which come forward.
Secondly, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear, this is a pump-priming exercise aimed at triggering investment by the private and voluntary sectors. Community investment means just that. Moreover, these resources are additional to what is already being spent. I do not think that that point has been fully appreciated.
We are looking to local communities to come forward with ideas, energy and resources. Experience in Cardiff, Swansea and elsewhere has shown what can be achieved through public sector support for revitalisation in projects involving a partnership between the public and private sectors. The initiative is an exciting challenge to the valley communities to join central Government in an environmental programme which will transform the appearance of valley towns, making them more attractive places in which to live, work and invest. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) missed the point entirely. It is by adding to the attractiveness of the valleys that one creates work in the valleys.
Concern about unemployment has been at the heart of today's debate. That so many of our fellow countrymen

105
and women are out of work in Wales is a most regrettable fact, and we all wish that it were otherwise. Nevertheless, there are some consolations. The remaining 82·3 per cent — the majority — are in work, and those in work have been doing well. As my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist) and for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) pointed out, one of the basic problems in the past year has been that the rate of earnings is still rising faster than the rate of productivity. Those in work must understand that their high pay rises are keeping the unemployed out of work.
We are doing our utmost to increase the number of people in work, and we have had some success. The total number in civilian employment in Wales rose by 2·1 per cent. between 1983 and 1984 — from 1,028,000 to 1,050,000 — mainly as a result of an increase in the number of self-employed and those working in the service industries.
Wales is part of the United Kingdom economy, and between 1983 and 1985 the United Kingdom economy topped the growth league of major EC countries, despite the coal strike. Over the previous decade it was bottom of the league. In 1985 the United Kingdom is expected to have been the fastest growing economy in the EC and to have grown faster than the United States.
The Government's policies will continue to be directed towards a sustained and sound economic expansion, founded upon an efficient and competitive economy and a viable and strong economic base. Those policies represent the only practical way forward for improvements in the prospects for industry and employment. They are backed by realistic and comprehensive measures designed to deal with the net causes of the problems affecting the economy — measures to contain inflation, encourage enterprise, industrial diversification and growth and large-scale programmes of training and measures to promote employment.
I have heard nothing in today's debate which persuades me that those policies are wrong or that other policies hold out better prospects for Wales. The best hopes for Wales still lie with those policies, and when the time comes the electorate will show its faith in them and in us, too.
Many Opposition Members put their faith in increased capital spending, except for the hon. Member for Caenarfon (Mr. Wigley) who took us back to the referendum on devolution, and we had a resurrection of that elephant on our doorstep in this Chamber. He pleaded for new ideas, but I was not aware that he offered a single one.
Let us be clear that capital spending is not necessarily labour-intensive, so it is not the easy cure for unemployment that the Labour party thinks. But let us look at the Government's record.
Mr. D. E. Thomas rose—
Mr. Roberts: Under the Government, gross capital expenditure within the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has averaged over £743 million a year at 1984–85 prices. That represents an increase of almost 6 per cent. in real terms over the average annual spend over the last two years of the previous Labour Administration.
Mr. D. E. Thomas rose—
Mr. Roberts: That was £703 million per annum.
106
On roads we have spent an average of £185 million, an increase of 24 per cent. in real terms over similar spending in the last two years of the Labour Government.
Mr. D. E. Thomas rose—
Mr. Roberts: For industry, the average spend runs at about £80·5 million, an increase of 13 per cent., and for health and personal social services the annual spend is more than £54 million, an increase of 9 per cent. over the previous Labour Government's spending.
We have heard a great deal about housing. There was a large underspend by local authorities in 1981–82 and 1982–83. The facts are well known and I have rehearsed them before in the House. But over the past two years, total gross housing capital expenditure has averaged almost £250 million at 1984–85 prices, an increase of 6 per cent. in real terms over the average of the last two years of the previous Labour Government. So who are they to lecture us on housing?
All in all, our gross capital expenditure has totalled more than £4,460 million in Wales over the six years to last March. That represents a massive level of investment by any standard. There is silence on the Opposition Benches.
Mr. D. E. Thomas rose—
Mr. Roberts: Do Labour Members suggest that they could have bettered that record? No, they do not.
Mr. D. E. Thomas rose—
Mr. Roberts: Although I have heard much in the debate about the need for even more spending than the Government propose—my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) outlined the Government's expenditure plans extremely well — no one has said a word about how much money is to be raised and only little about where it will come from. Is it to be borrowed, raised by taxation, or possibly both? My hon. Friends realise that there is some confusion in the upper crust of the Labour party on this issue. There is talk of using accumulated local authority receipts, which amount to about £250 million to £300 million in Wales and £5 billion in the country as a whole. That cannot be enough to do anything but send local councillors on a grand slam of a spending and borrowing spree.
The source of the £24 billion, which was added to by the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Dr. Thomas), that the Labour party is dreaming of for Britain as a whole is taxation.
Mr. D. E. Thomas rose—
Mr. Roberts: No, I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman.
The source of the £24 billion that the Labour party has in mind was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central in a powerful speech and by my hon. Friends the Members for Delyn and for Cardiff, West (Mr. Terlezki). I do not expect Labour Members to be able to say what part of that sum is attributable to Wales. Some tax boffin — probably the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley)—said that it could be creamed off those earning £30,000 a year or more. When it was pointed out that the yield would not be enough, the Leader of the Opposition lowered his sights to those earning £20,000 a year, and that would produce £3 billion.
Mr. Ron Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to present to the House exactly the same speech that has been made by five of his Back-Bench colleagues this evening? Is this not an abuse of the procedures of the House?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a point of argument, not a point of order for me.
Mr. D. E. Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I ask you to rule whether the Minister's speech amounts to tedious repetition of the speeches of Conservative Back Benchers.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Minister is in order.
Mr. Roberts: I know that Opposition Members do not like to hear about the £24 billion that would be expended by a Labour Government. That goes for the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Thomas) as well.
Mr. D. E. Thomas rose—
Mr. Roberts: As I understand it, a Labour Government's purpose in spending that sum would be to boost employment. I must tell the Labour party that it would produce only a temporary boost. At the same time, it would destroy incentives to earn. In the longer term, jobs would be dissipated as inflation and interest rates rose. The truth is that a massive reflation would destroy jobs.
The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside is prone to present the gloomier side of life in some of my hon. Friends' constituencies, especially that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn, of which he seems to be especially fond. Let me picture for the hon. Gentleman the brighter side of life in his constituency. Since May 1979, the Welsh Development Agency has completed 77 factory units in the district. There is another 50,000 sq ft factory under construction. Currently six units are vacant and available for letting.
During 1984, 15 units were allocated to firms forecasting about 360 jobs. In 1985, seven units were allocated with a promise of 120 jobs. So it is not all gloom and doom, even on Alyn and Deeside. Obviously, it is not the same dawn as we have in Delyn, so wonderfully described by my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn.
The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside referred to the recent report of the Select Committee on Employment. He suggested that the Government should spend £165 million in the next three years in Wales and that this should provide work for 37,500 people. We are considering the Select Committee's report. However, we must be careful in talking about expanding programmes that we do not take jobs away from those already in employment.
Mr. Ray Powell: Ha, ha.
Mr. Roberts: Projects under the community programme must provide work that would not otherwise be undertaken. I do not think that the union friends of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) would like his laughter about the community programme taking jobs away from people. We must be extremely careful. The last thing anyone wants are schemes, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster General and Minister for
108
Employment put it, of the lamp post counting kind. These are not of benefit to the community, nor do they provide any kind of satisfying work for the unemployed.
Mr. Rowlands: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Roberts: I have many points to answer.
The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) has referred more than once to the two-year youth training scheme. The transitional funding arrangements for the two-year YTS are to be reviewed later this year. The Manpower Services Commission is confident that there will be enough places available for this year's school leavers. Indeed, a large number of providers showed a willingness to take up additional places had Mid Glamorgan county council reduced its YTS commitment.
The hon. Members for Alyn and Deeside and for Gower (Mr. Wardell) referred to the plight of the elderly in this severely cold weather. There were two speeches on the subject. The supplementary benefits scheme provides for extra help for claimants in periods of exceptionally severe weather when heating bills are higher than they have budgeted for. The DHSS has written to each of its regions emphasising that the severe weather payments should be given priority and that all appropriate steps should be taken urgently to publicise the arrangements to provide advice to all who need it. Supplementary benefit heating additions amounted to £400 million in the last financial year—about £140 million more in real terms than was spent in the last year of the Labour Government.
I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Sir R. Gower) that the Government are committed to ensuring first-class crossing facilities of the River Severn. The fact that we have commissioned a study into a possible second crossing is proof of that commitment, and it is nonsense to suggest otherwise. Work on strengthening the existing bridge is well under way. There is no reason to doubt that, when these works are completed, the crossing will be capable of operating at its full capacity.
It is clear from the debate that Wales needs firm Conservative government and strong leadership now more than ever. Britain's needs are the same. In the past few weeks, we have seen the Socialist alternatives preening themselves for office and the alliance parties grooming themselves for a supporting role. Most of us have recoiled at the prospect. Such a Government would be abysmally weak and indecisive and would quickly succumb to pressures. Inflation would flare up, wiping out the value of people's savings and making our industries uncompetitive. All the gains made during the years of Conservative rule would be lost and the chance, which we still have, of creating worth while and lasting jobs would disappear. The closer one looks at the Socialist-alliance alternative, the more determined we become that it should never become a reality. We on the Conservative Benches all share that determination and shall fight to win people's hearts and minds to our cause. This Government have a clear view—
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed without Question put.

European Social Fund
10 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Ian Lang): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 7711/85, a Commission Decision on guidelines for the management of the European Social Fund in the financial years 1986 to 1988; 9901/85, a Commission proposal to amend Council decision 83/516/EEC and Regulation (EEC) No. 2850/83 on the tasks of the European Social Fund, in view of the accession of Spain and Portugal; and 9854/85, Thirteenth Report from the Commission on the activities of the European Social Fund (financial year 1984), and welcomes the contribution to employment and training schemes made by the European Social Fund.
I should like to begin by thanking the members of the Select Committee on European Legislation for having provided us with the opportunity to debate the activities of the European Social Fund. The last time its activities were debated at length in this House was in 1983, and we should clearly have been remiss had we allowed much more time to elapse before we debated the fund again.
We shall, of course, want to consider during the debate the specific Commission documents set out in the motion before the House, which cover the fund guidelines for 1986 to 1988; the amending regulation following the accession of Spain and Portugal; and the Commission's own annual report on the fund's activities in 1984.
Before doing so, however, it would perhaps be as well to remind ourselves why the fund is in existence and what its objectives are. It was established in 1957 under article 123 of the treaty of Rome, which defined its main purposes as:
"to improve the employment opportunities for workers in the Common Market and to contribute thereby to raising the standard of living … by rendering the employment of workers easier and … increasing their geographical and occupational mobility."
The fund is thus essentially concerned with employment and training measures and provides financial support for schemes to help people who are unemployed, threatened with unemployment or under-employed.
There can be little doubt that those activities can never have been more relevant than they are today. In our debates in the House there is often a tendency to believe that unemployment is a uniquely British phenomenon. In fact, if we look — as we must tonight — at the Community as a whole, we see that it is a problem that besets the entire Community. Unemployment in the member states has risen from 2·4 per cent. in 1973 to 11 per cent. today. Indeed, since 1980, unemployment in the Community has doubled, reaching 13 million in 1985 — or 16 million if Spain and Portugal are included. Within these overall totals both youth and long-term unemployment have continued to increase. Between 1981 and 1983 long-term unemployment in the Community increased as a proportion of total unemployment from 25 to 39 per cent.
It is true that if we look at employment as opposed to unemployment we see a slightly more encouraging picture. In 1984 — the last year for which complete figures are available—there was an increase of 0·3 per cent. in total employment within the Community. In the United Kingdom in that year the increase in employment was 1·7 per cent. and our overall employment has continued to rise since then, as the House will be aware.
Mr. John Prescott: Does the Minister accept that in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, Britain's unemployment was always the average of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development European level? Since 1979 it has risen to about 2 per cent. above the average, which is equivalent to 1 million more people unemployed in this country due not solely to the world recession.
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman will have to bear in mind that the work force in Britain has been growing at a faster rate than in most European countries and the percentage of unemployment in the past four years has increased by less in the United Kingdom than in France, Spain or Germany. It is also worth pointing out that the United Kingdom has 65 per cent. of its working age population in work. That is 7 per cent. above the OECD average.
Clearly, no fund can hope to solve the problem of unemployment in Europe. That problem has too many deep-seated causes for it to be capable of being removed simply by more spending—whether that spending be at Community or national level. The reality is that for too long all over Europe we forgot that jobs are created only when businesses produce goods and services that people want at prices they can afford. That in turn requires a stable economic framework in which both inflation and public expenditure are kept under sustained control, not least so that business can plan with confidence in the future. It also requires a concerted attempt to introduce greater competition; to encourage enterprise and remove unnecessary burdens; to reshape our education and training policies to ensure that they are relevant to tomorrow's world; and to work towards a more flexible labour market that encourages small firms, the self-employed, part-time and temporary work and the removal of outdated working practices. It is now very notable how those priorities are shaping the policies not just of the United Kingdom Government, but of the Community and the member states as a whole.
Within that overall framework, however, it is clearly necessary at the same time to take more direct action to remedy the immediate and pressing problems of unemployment. The European social fund is a major instrument to that end, and I should like, without the slightest hesitation or qualification, to express the Government's appreciation of the contribution that the fund has made for some years past to both Government and non-Government programmes of employment and training in this country.
Last year the United Kingdom's total allocation from the social fund was some £300 million — that is approaching 25 per cent. of the total funds allocated in that year.
Mr. Eric Forth: Is my hon. Friend yet able to tell us what he estimates will be the impact on the United Kingdom's share of the social fund of the accession of Spain and Portugal to the Community? He may recall that during the debate on the accession no one was able to give an estimate of that impact. Is my hon. Friend now able to tell us how he believes our share of the social fund will be affected by the entry of the new members?
Mr. Lang: There is no doubt that our share is likely to decline, not just because of the entry of Spain and

111
Portugal, but because several other countries are making increasing applications to the fund. However, the fact remains that we have derived substantial benefit out of proportion to our contribution to the Community over the past few years, and we continue to do so.
The United Kingdom is thus among the leading beneficiaries of the fund, and it is one of the most clearest and tangible benefits of our membership of the Community.
Among the major programmes to which the fund made a substantial contribution last year were the youth training scheme, the training opportunities scheme, the community industry scheme and training programmes for the disabled and for women. As from this year, as a result of decisions taken at last December's meeting of the Heads of Government of the Community, the fund will also be helping us to expand the enterprise allowance scheme— which, as the House will know, is proving enormously successful in encouraging the unemployed to set up new small businesses or to become self-employed.
At a different, but no less important, level, the social fund administration last year approved applications from the United Kingdom for support in respect of 1,500 projects being run by local authorities, charities, training institutions and private companies. There is no doubt that, without that support, the many programmes and projects in question would have had to be drastically curtailed and, in many cases, abandoned altogether.
So the importance of the fund to the United Kingdom is clear. It will be obvious from what I have said that the United Kingdom Government are naturally concerned that we should continue to secure the substantial benefit from the fund in the future that we have obtained from it in the past.
Of course, no situation is ever static, and the entry into the Community of Spain and Portugal — which we greatly welcome—means that there are now two more countries with major problems of unemployment bidding for the available funds. That is as it should be, for the fund is there to help alleviate problems of unemployment in all member states. Nevertheless, it is extremely important that the fund should continue to reflect the clear and undoubted needs of the older industrial areas of northern Europe alongside those of the Mediterranean regions when it comes to setting priorities for its future support.
I would also hope that the fund might be able to give a somewhat higher priority in future to the needs of the long-term unemployed. As I said, long-term unemployment in the Community — by which I mean those people who have been unemployed for over a year — has risen dramatically throughout the Community in recent years. In most member states of the Community it is now more than a third of total unemployment and in many it is closer to, or even above, 50 per cent. In the United Kingdom, some 40 per cent. of those unemployed have been without work for over a year. That is roughly in line with the Community average.
It is now, I think, generally accepted that the longer a person is unemployed the more difficult it becomes for him or her to get back into employment. That is why I should like to see a somewhat greater degree of priority given within the rules of the fund to support for measures
112
in member states which are helping the long-term unemployed, whether through work experience, training or participation in work of benefit to the community.
As a Government, we should also like to see—as we have made known to the Commission—some redrawing of the priority areas boundaries which effectively set which areas of the United Kingdom are likely to benefit most from the fund. As with all decisions on boundaries, inevitably some arbitrary lines have to be drawn. There are, none the less, some clear anomalies, such as the exclusion of Powys and the Western Isles from the list of priority areas, which we should like to see the Commission look at again. We shall continue to urge the Commission to re-examine its present guidelines in this respect.
I turn now to the specific documents which the Select Committee has drawn to our attention. The first concerns the Commission guidelines for the management of the European social fund in the financial years 1986 to 1988. As the Committee noted in its report of 23 October last year, there is no doubting the importance of the activities which the fund supports which are in turn largely determined in any one year by the fund guidelines. The guidelines, adopted annually for a three-year programme, say which types of scheme will be given priority in different regions of the Community. I should make clear at the outset that they are adopted by the European Commission on its own responsibility, though the Commission naturally takes account of such views on the guidelines as member states may put forward.
Because of the heavy demands on the fund, the Commission proposed stricter limits on the types of scheme to be given priority in 1986. In slightly more detail, the guidelines gave priority to substantial training schemes involving at least 200 hours training. They also required training to contain an element of introduction to new technology, recognising the vital importance of this to people's future work prospects. Priority was also given to training in small firms adapting to new technology, and the existing priority for schemes for women, migrant workers and the disabled was reaffirmed.
The second Community document before the House contains the Commission's proposals for accommodating the needs of Spain and Portugal within the fund's budget following their entry into the Community. Before their entry, 40 per cent. of the fund was devoted to a number of regions within the Community judged to have special priority status. These included the whole of Greece and the Republic of Ireland, the mezzogiorno region of Italy and the whole of Northern Ireland. The Commission proposals were to extend these special priority areas to include the whole of Portugal and a number of regions of Spain. The Commission also proposed an eventual increase from 40 per cent. to 44·5 per cent. in the proportion of the fund allocated to these special priority areas.
At the December Social Affairs Council, which was attended for the United Kingdom by my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General and Minister for Employment, there was pressure from a number of countries to raise the percentage of the fund devoted to these areas to 50 per cent. While mindful of the needs of Northern Ireland, we were at the same time also conscious of the needs of the rest of the United Kingdom, and I am pleased to say that the eventual decision to raise the percentage of the fund to 44·5 per cent. but with immediate effect, was one which we judged to be a fair balance between the differing interests involved.

113
The third document before the House — the Commission's annual report for 1984 — has inevitably become a little dated with the passage of time. This was the first year of operation of the fund after the 1983 review. It was a particularly good year for the United Kingdom, since we secured some 32 per cent. of the available commitments, and 38 per cent. of the payments made were to our schemes. We cannot expect to do so well every year, but the outline of the type of projects supported makes it clear that, as a nation, we are both imaginative and persistent in the variety and scope of the schemes we are putting forward to help the unemployed. The United Kingdom is very much in the lead on this aspect of Community policy, and we are pleased to see other countries following our example and getting support from the fund for similar programmes.
One statistic that emerges from the report is the increase in the applications to the fund—an increase of about 90 per cent. in 1984 compared with 1983—to a total of about 3,300. That figure rose again in 1985 to nearly 4,800 —a further increase of about 40 per cent. It is fair to say that the fact that this volume of applications is processed within the Commission by relatively few staff is a considerable compliment to those concerned in the Commission. At the same time—as they will know only too well—the continuing increase in applications has heightened some of the administrative problems associated with the fund's operation — not least the fairly long delays that can occur between applications and payments. These are matters which my Department continues to take up with its counterparts in the Commission with a view to identifying ways in which the administrative process might be made easier, and I hope that some useful changes may emerge as a result.
I hope that I have said enough to demonstrate the importance that the Government attach to the European social fund and to the clear benefits that it has brought to the United Kingdom. As well as leading to numerous local initiatives, it has helped us to mount at Government level several major programmes—such as YTS—which have much to offer not only within the United Kingdom but, by way of example, to the Community as a whole. At the same time, it is clear that the social fund, in attempting to ameliorate some of the worst problems of unemployment in the Community, has an especially valuable role to play as a positive expression of the Community's commitment to many of the less fortunate members of our society. Therefore, I welcome tonight's debate and I look forward to listening to the views of other hon. Members.
10.15 pm
Mr. John Evans: As the Minister said, it is almost three years since the House debated the European social fund. That shows that the Government do not wish to debate the many problems that exist in Britain and the rest of the European Community. The social fund was designed as part of the strategy to correct the regional imbalances of the EC. Originally, it was a two-pronged attack, with a regional fund to stimulate the growth of employment in the underdeveloped and depressed regions, and the social fund to assist with vocational training, and retraining for the young, the under-25s, the long-term unemployed — those who have been unemployed for more than 12 months — the disadvantaged, women, ethnic groups and the handicapped. No one denies that it
114
was a fine principle—the idea of a Common Market in which the rich nations and regions would contribute to the well-being and welfare of the poorer nations and regions.
However, what has happened in practice? Has the gap between the richest and the poorest regions widened or narrowed? In 1975, when the European regional fund was established, the gap between the richest and the poorest regions could be measured on a ratio of 5:1. The poorer regions were five times poorer than the richer. In 1975, Britain had 1·25 million people unemployed and our trade in manufactured goods with the EC was roughly in balance. Since then, unemployment in Britain has trebled and the gap between the poorest and the richest regions has widened to a ratio of 7:1 or 8:1. The richer regions have become richer and the poorer regions, including much of Great Britain, have become poorer. Britain's deficit in manufactured goods with the EC has increased to an incredible and frightening £9 billion. That is a measure of what has happened to Britain since it became a member of the EC.
Mr. Forth: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the increasing disparity between richer and poorer regions is a fairly widespread phenomenon? For example, Athens is much richer than the rest of Greece, while Milan and Turin are much richer than the mezzogiorno in southern Italy. Is not the disparity a fairly constant phenomenon in every Community country? Therefore, does the hon. Gentleman agree that any Community wide attempt to reduce the disparities will run up against the fundamental laws and effects of economics?
Mr. Evans: That is the phenomenon of capitalism.
Mr. Forth: Yes, absolutely.
Mr. Evans: That is why the Labour party is opposed to the phenomenon of capitalism and to allowing capitalism to run rampant, so that the richest regions develop and grow rich whereas the poorer regions decline. The original concepts of the regional and social fund were to attempt to stem that tide. It has failed abysmally and later in my speech I shall give some of the reasons for that failure.
The backdrop to the debate is the massive growth of unemployment in the EEC. In the original 10 member states—we are now 12, of course, and we will discuss the accession of Spain and Portugal and its impact— there are more than 13 million people unemployed, 11·1 per cent. of the total work force in the original 10. With the advent of Spain and Portugal, the figure is over 16 million. I am sure the Minister will agree that one has to be cautious about the statistics issued by the various EEC countries. I have great difficulty in believing unemployment figures which tell me that the total in Greece is 5·8 per cent. whereas in the Netherlands the figure is 15·2 per cent. I suspect that the Dutch include everything in their unemployment statistics, whereas the Greeks are apparently measuring something else altogether.
Britain can hardly complain about figures and the way they are used, because the Government have repeatedly fiddled the unemployment figures and they are currently under-measuring the figure by about 750,000 people.
Mr. Colin Moynihan: Nonsense.
Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman says it is nonsense, but I wonder how he would describe the fiddles which the

115
Government have got up to over the past six years, the effects of which have been to under-measure unemployment by 750,000.
The amount of EEC money that is spent on the social fund is a relative pittance. It is also a pittance for the regional fund. According to the statement on the 1985 Community budget presented to the House in October 1985 by the Minister of State, Treasury, the payments for the social fund were £832 million and the expenditure on the regional fund was £950 million. That is the two-pronged attack on correcting the regional imbalances in the EEC — £832 million, when we have unemployment levels of over 13 million. It is hardly surprising that the social fund has had virtually no impact on ameliorating the problems of unemployment.
The figures and the categories that are covered by the remit of the social fund show that more than 5 million of the 13 million people were under 25 years of age. More than 4 million were classified as long-term unemployed—the very categories that the social fund was designed to do something about. As the Minister has pointed out —though not in the way that I would look at it—the applications for aid from the social fund far outweigh the funds available. In a debate of this nature it is always worth while to compare expenditure on the social fund to the expenditure under the common agricultural policy.
In 1985, the expenditure on the social fund was £832 million. The expenditure on the CAP was 12·148 billion. I put it to the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) that that is one reason why the social and regional funds have had no impact on the distribution of wealth and prosperity in the EEC. The CAP has certainly succeeded in extending and expanding the wealth of the EEC but generally to relatively few pockets. The EEC spends 14½ times more money on growing food that nobody wants than on assisting and training the unemployed.
In that context, it is worth looking at the statement of the then Minister who is now the Prime Minister's PPS. Referring to the amount spent on the social fund as opposed to the CAP, he said:
"This situation provides further vindication—if any were necessary—of the Government's firm view that there should be a shift in Community spending away from agriculture and towards activities meeting other needs of high priority such as are covered by the regional and social funds." — [Official Report, 28 April 1983; Vol. 41, c. 1071.]
Those words mock today's unemployed, because there has not been a shift of a penny from the CAP towards either the social fund or the regional fund.
What of the future? From a British point of view it is somewhat bleak. Document 7711/85 gives the guidelines for the management of the social fund and document 9901/85 relates to the accession of Spain and Portugal. Document 7711/85 outlines three categories of regions or areas that will qualify for assistance under the social fund. The first relates to "absolute priority" areas. The second relates to the "industrial and sectoral restructuring" of certain areas, which mainly relate to areas in which there has been considerable rundown and redundancy in coal and steel, and these are assisted by the ECSC.
The third relates to
"areas of high and long-term unemployment".
In that context, about half of Britain qualifies. It is a depressing list of the areas that now qualify for assistance
116
under the social fund—areas that have been decimated because of the Government's policies over the last six years. They are:
"Central, Cheshire, Cleveland, Clwyd, Cornwall, Derbyshire, Dumfries and Galloway, Durham, Dyfed, Fife, Greater Manchester, Gwent, Gwynedd, Hereford and Worcester, Highlands, Humberside, Isle of Wight, Lancashire, Lincolnshire, Lothian, Merseyside, Mid Glamorgan, Northumberland, Nottinghamshire, Salop, South Glamorgan, South Yorkshire, Staffordshire, Strathclyde, Tayside, Tyne and Wear, West Glamorgan, West Midlands, West Yorkshire; Workington (Cumbria), Coalville (Leicestershire), Corby (Northamptonshire)."
That is a measure of what has happened under this Government. Those once-prosperous areas now qualify for payments under the social fund.
But a different picture emerges from document 9901/85, which amends Council regulation No. 2950/83 on the tasks of the social fund. That document relates to the accession of Spain and Portugal. As we are all aware, these two largely impoverished Mediterranean countries have very high unemployment, and they have been added to the list of "absolute priority" areas. That applies to much of Spain and the whole of Portugal.
None of us would quarrel with that. Those areas have substantial problems, and in my view they will have a lot more now that they are in the Common Market. I welcome the advent of Spain and Portugal to the EEC. It just might help to bring the CAP crashing down around the ears of those who have benefited from it over a long period. That would be very good. If absolute priority areas are extended, that must be at the expense of other areas. The rate of assistance paid to absolute priority areas has been raised from 50 to 55 per cent. There has also been an accelerated rate of depreciation in the cost of training centres. The amount of assistance paid to projects that qualify under the social fund will be raised from 50 to 55 per cent. The amount available to the regions from the social fund will be increased from 40 per cent. to 42·5 per cent. in 1986, to 43·5 per cent. in 1987 and to 44·5 per cent. in 1988.
Mr. Forth: I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's logic. If his party supports Spain and Portugal's accession, which he says it does, and if his party believes in the redistribution of wealth to the less well-off, which I believe it does, will he support the redistribution of wealth from a country such as ours to Spain and Portugal? Does he agree that, with that very accession, the likelihood of reforming the CAP and reducing the share it takes of the EC budget becomes less likely? While welcoming the accession of Spain and Portugal, the hon. Gentleman and his party have reduced the opportunity to reform the CAP and reduced the take from the social fund for Britain.
Mr. Evans: I was a member of the European Assembly for three years and I have spent the past 12 years listening to 'stories about how we will reform the CAP. I have yet to see it happen, in spite of all the fine talk from a variety of sources. I said that the accession of Spain and Portugal might have the welcome side effect of bringing the CAP crashing down because of the contradictions that have been built into it.
If there were a substantial increase in the social fund, we would be able to meet the commitments which I assume that the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire wants to achieve as much as me. The Commission has stressed the importance of keeping the right balance

117
between relatively underdeveloped regions and those with serious unemployment. The words are fine, but where does the money come from to ensure that areas such as Spain, Portugal, Greece and the mezzogiorno receive help? It must come from areas such as St. Helens, which I represent, and Merseyside, although the problems there are growing almost weekly because of the Government's policies.
Page 36 of the 13th annual report tells us about applications under point C1 of the fund, which covers young people leaving full-time education. It says:
"In the case of the other regions in the Community, the United Kingdom obtained over 67 per cent. of approvals (61·84 per cent. overall) followed by France with 14·51 per cent. (14·21 per cent. overall). The Youth Training Scheme (YTS) accounted for the lion's share of United Kingdom approvals under point C1. Four applications presented by the Manpower Services Commission made up the entire amount requested (423·49 million ECU). Priority was accorded to three of these (232·97 million ECU and 309,000 beneficiaries) of which one bore the whole of the entire weighted reduction for the United Kingdom".
What impact will the reduction in the social fund moneys to Great Britain, flowing from the accession of Spain and Portugal, have on youth training scheme funding? Will the EEC provide less funding for it? Has the EEC responded to the new proposal for a two-year YTS? I understand that no agreements have been reached on funding from the Commission, but I would be grateful for information because it will affect the viability of the scheme as many employers are unhappy about signing people on for a two-year scheme.
Page 35 of the 13th annual report refers to certain types of practical training, such as that given by the Übungsfirmen or practice firms in the Federal Republic of Germany, or in the information technology centres, the ITECs, in the United Kingdom, which are regarded as work experience. I have an excellent ITEC in St. Helens, and I hope that the Minister can assure us that in future ITECs will get a fair share of whatever funds are available from the social fund.
I read a newspaper report about questions raised by a former colleague, Mrs. Barbara Castle, who for many years served in the House with such distinction. She asked at the European Assembly many questions about the social fund which require answers from the Government. Apparently, there was little response from the Commission. According to Mrs. Castle, the social fund is facing bankruptcy, and unless more money is allocated to it from member states, it cannot meet its commitments. There is considerable danger that the social fund will scrap assistance to such important groups as voluntary organisations that deal with the mentally and physically handicapped. Is there to be a supplementary budget? According to the report, a commissioner has said that that may be necessary. If there is a supplementary budget to ensure that the social fund has the correct amount of finance, what will the Government's attitude be? Even if that solves the crisis, will it not simply recur every year?
At present the common agricultural policy takes up 72 per cent. of the Community budget. Apparently, the CAP budget is growing remorselessly, and will grow even more because of the agricultural problems of Spain and Portugal. I have listened for 12 years to people saying that they would reform it, but it goes marching on. If we withdraw from the CAP, it will release hundreds of
118
millions of pounds which we can spend on solving some of the problems in our regions relating to unemployment, training and retraining.
The vast majority of the British people can see no merit in spending so massively on crazy agricultural policies, while at the same time spending so little on employment and social policies which have merit and are worthwhile. The British people are right.
10.40 pm
Mr. Richard Livsey: We welcome the debate on the European social fund. It is an important subject, which addresses itself to the problems of managing a mixed economy. The Europeans have more faith in the running of a mixed economy than the Government, who have tended to follow monetarist lines and neglect the public sector. We must achieve a balance between the public and private sectors, and in the new fund there is bias towards public sector and small and medium-sized undertakings. That is a good mix for improving the economy not only of this but other European countries.
The objectives of equipping the work force and reducing regional imbalances in the labour market must be regarded as extremely important, and recruitment and wage subsidies are indicative of job creation. We know that geographical mobility is difficult to achieve, with many people not prepared to move from their communities. However, with services of advice and job creation, there are great opportunities within the European social fund to improve our economy.
As we have already heard, unemployment is a major problem that confronts us all, and particularly the hard-hit regions of Europe, not least those of Britain. In welcoming Spain and Portugal into the Community, we must not forget the problems in northern Europe. It is significant that the post of Commissioner for the social fund has been transferred from an Irishman to a Spaniard. This may have some influence on the policies operated in the social fund, which may concentrate more on the Mediterranean regions.
Mr. Forth: Is it not interesting to observe that Socialist Spain has an unemployment rate that has just gone up to 22 per cent.? One is left wondering what contribution a Spanish Commissioner, coming from a Socialist country with such a high level of unemployment, can make to improve the employment position in the community as a whole.
Mr. Livsey: Although Spain has such a high unemployment rate, it has suffered over many years from the ravages of dictatorship and Fascism. The accession of Spain will assist greatly in helping its stability and will create more co-operation in Europe and less likelihood of extremism in that country. I am not entirely convinced that Socialism will solve the problems —I agree with the hon. Gentleman there—but, none the less, it is a vast improvement that Spain is in the Community.
The authorities in the United Kingdom involved in the European social fund are the, local authorities, the Welsh and Scottish Development Agencies, in my part of the world Mid-Wales Development and the MSC. It is interesting that, where the latter operates, there could be competition between the MSC and the local authorities where there is not enough agreement about the types of schemes that are adopted.

119
However, it is worrying to note that some journalists who observe the scene believe—it can be seen from the figures—that there is an austerity drive in the European social fund and there may be a crisis in its funding, too.
It is believed that the new rules could hit Britain hardest. Concentration upon new technologies is very important, but in some of the poorer regions the new technologies have hardly blossomed. A very great effort is needed to introduce schemes of that type in those areas. The previous Commissioner, Commissioner Sutherland, said that the European social fund is ill-equipped and inadequate for achieving its objectives. More resources are required overall, yet the new guidelines are more restrictive.
About half of the United Kingdom is affected by European social fund aid. I ask the Government to give special priority status to regions other than Northern Ireland. Scotland, Wales and the north of England are areas of extreme deprivation. They should be included on the same basis as Northern Ireland. Since 1979 there has been an increase of 95,000 in the unemployment figures for Wales. In addition, together with Italy, Portugal and Spain, we are at the bottom of the incomes league.
Mr. Forth: And Greece.
Mr. Livsey: Yes, I take the hon. Gentleman's point. We are very poorly off, compared with the richer members of the European Community. Additional funding is needed. Efforts are being made to assist redundant workers through the urban aid programme. In-company training schemes are being provided in the textile industry. However, the old mining areas face a huge problem. Large numbers of miners have lost their jobs in the last 15 to 18 months. In south Wales alone during that period 6,000 miners have lost their jobs. I trust that the European social fund will be used to try to overcome some of the massive problems that have been created by these redundancies.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment referred to the fact that there are delays in receiving moneys that are due. This has caused some cash flow problems for firms that benefit from the European social fund. I make no excuse for mentioning my own area, Powys, which has been excluded from the European social fund. Reference has already been made to many of the areas that surround Powys. Powys is an island that does not receive aid from the European social fund. It is the only Level II region that has been excluded, even though it faces severe regional problems.
Phoney statistics have been used. Separate data were provided for the unemployment and gross domestic product figures. According to the Central Statistical Office, they were not officially available. In fact, they were not reliable. Powys and Dyfed were combined for GDP purposes. The result was that areas of south Powys were not included in the statistics, in particular those for unemployment. This has caused severe problems for Powys.
I hope that the Minister will look carefully at the problems faced by Powys. Since the last application in 1984, the Powys data show an increase in unemployment of 2·1 per cent. which means that unemployment in Powys is higher than the United Kingdom average. A study is being undertaken covering Dyfed, Gwynedd and Powys which might lead to integrated action under the European
120
social fund for those areas. Wages in rural areas in Wales stand at 86·9 per cent. of the average wage for Wales as a whole. That is a very low figure in terms of British and European wage levels. That again underlines the need for special consideration to be given to Powys. It is a travesty that Powys and the poorer regions of Britain should not be included. They should undoubtedly have priority status.
10.49 pm
Mr. Don Dixon: My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) covered most of the points that I wished to raise, but I wish briefly to follow the comments of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) about high priority areas.
It is disgraceful that the northern region is not a high priority area, as it has the highest unemployment in mainland Britain. I shall not give percentages because these are people who are unemployed. In Tyne and Wear 100,582 people are unemployed, of whom 46,000 have been unemployed for more than 12 months and 20,767 for more than three years. That is the extent of unemployment in my area under the Conservative Government, so goodness knows why it is not a high priority area for the European social fund. I hope that the Minister will put the northern region forward as a high priority area.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North referred to the CAP. It is nonsense to compare the social fund with the CAP. Most male unemployment in Tyne and Wear is in heavy industry such as shipbuilding. Yet farmers are being paid to grow produce that no one wants. The Conservatives always complain about subsidies to the mining, steel and shipbuilding industries, but never about the huge subsidies to farmers under the CAP. It is like telling the Tyne's shipbuilders to build as many ships as they like because as soon as they get out of the Tyne we can scuttle them and build some more. That is how the CAP works for the farmers. That is the kind of nonsense that we get from the EEC. I hope that the Minister will deal with the points raised about that by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North and that he will take forward my plea that the northern region be a high priority area.
In Jarrow, one in three of the male population is out of work. The last ship repair yard closed two years ago, the last pit was closed more than three years ago and the last steel plant is being phased out this year. That is the level of unemployment faced in Jarrow this year, the 50th anniversary of the Jarrow march when 200 men marched to London to bring the problems of the regions to the notice of central Government. I do not like to use percentages, but I have to take this figure from the history books. At that time, unemployment in Jarrow was 79 per cent. Those 200 men marched to London not to get a crust of bread and a bowl of soup but for the right to work— the basic right of people in this country to go out and fend for their families and to have the dignity of a pay packet. It is a pity that we cannot get it through the thick skulls of Conservative Ministers that people want to work— they do not want to dodge it or run away from it. They want to do a useful day's work to fend for their families. That is what it is all about.
The Minister talked about training, but the Government closed the skillcentre at Killingworth, so there is now no skill centre north of the Tyne until one gets to Edinburgh. The Government say that we get more training under the

121
social fund, but a great deal of the social fund money that comes to this country is used to substitute for money that the Government are taking away from the regions.
I hope that the Minister will take on board the points that I have made in this brief contribution.
10.55 pm
Mr. Lang: I have listened with interest to the points made by hon. Members during this short debate. Whatever problems there may be, the House is, if I do not put too high a gloss on the remarks of the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans), agreed on two things. The first is that the considerable support given by the European social fund to schemes of various kinds is valued and appreciated, and the second is that we must continue our efforts to secure support for those schemes in future.
We need to play our part in ensuring that the fund is an effective means of helping unemployed people throughout Europe. At the same time, no one can pretend that this type of support will solve all the problems that face us. It has a part to play but we will not help the unemployed by spending more than we can afford as a Community on such help. That is why it is vital to concentrate help where it is most needed. That is recognised within the Community but the problems arise when the hard choices have to be made.
The hon. Member for St. Helens, North agreed with the two priorities that I emphasised in my opening speech, that of youth unemployment—which is now falling in the United Kingdom — and that of the long-term unemployed. That, too, is an important priority which we have emphasised to the Commission. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the many initiatives that we have recently introduced to try to help the long-term unemployed make their way back into work, particularly the Community programme and the introduction of the job start scheme.
The hon. Gentleman made the comparison between the money spent on the common agricultural policy and the social fund. We are working towards eliminating the costly surplus under the agricultural policy and we want to see a higher proportion of funds contributed to the social fund. However, if we had been in the Community earlier on in its formative years and had the support of the Labour party for membership at that time, we might have been in a better position to influence the development of the Community during those earlier crucial years.
It is churlish of the hon. Gentleman to underrate the importance of the European social fund which brings benefit to many hundred of thousands of people.
Mr. Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that I did not underrate the importance of the European social fund? Will he accept that I have tried to get across that I would like to see the expenditure reversed and more being spent on the social fund than on the CAP?
Mr. Lang: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that clear.
The hon. Gentleman welcomed the entry of Spain and Portugal to the Community, but again I was sad that he did so in the hope of bringing the CAP crashing down. That is a somewhat negative approach to the matter. It might have been more appropriate to have welcomed the entry of those two countries, not just because they provide us with a larger market for our goods, but because we see the
122
entry of two ancient European countries which are now two developing democracies and which deserve to be welcomed into the Community in their own right.
The hon. Gentleman asked about YTS funding following the entry of Spain and Portugal. The Commission has yet to make a decision on that or funding for other schemes for 1986. We expect that it will continue to get a good level of support in this, the first year of a two-year scheme. The support expected is taken into account in setting levels of funding for the scheme as a whole. At the same time, that does not mean that other small schemes such as information and technology centres cannot be funded. If a small scheme gets priority it will still be fully funded despite more of the budget as a whole going to Spain and Portugal.
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point when he says that any increase in the proportion of spending going to the special priority areas will reduce the total proportion of the funds available to other areas but it is equally the case that within the special priority areas is the whole of Northern Ireland and we should acknowledge that the United Kingdom stands to benefit from both sectors of the fund.
I also took note of the special points made by the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) in pleading the case of the north-east.
We have discussed tonight the current priorities of the fund as set out in the management guidelines, its record as shown in the latest annual report and the new demands which will come with the accession of Spain and Portugal. The decision on how to allocate the limited resources will not become any easier. The Commission has a difficult job in trying to balance all the interests concerned. We may not always agree with all of its decisions but we recognise the pressures and difficulties which it faces.
If we look at the fund's priorities it is clearly right that a large proportion should go to the worst-off areas both in terms of under-development and unemployment and structural change. It is right that some of the available resources should go to projects in the less hard-hit areas for the purpose of helping especially disadvantaged groups.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) suggested that more parts of the Community should be designated as special priority areas apart from Northern Ireland. I am sure he understands that that is a matter for the Commission. I would merely say that if there are too many special priorities, the benefit of being one and the advantages that ensue are diluted.
I am in complete agreement with the remarks of hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor about Powys. The 1983 gross domestic product and the unemployment figures at that time were the bases on which the Commission drew up its boundaries. I believe that they were wrong and that inadequate consideration was given to boundaries and some low-population areas. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government will continue to press the interests of Powys and those of the Western Isles. We believe that they deserve a better rating than that which the Commission has given them.
It is important that the fund should try to target support on measures that encourage change and growth rather than on the bolstering of inefficiency. We welcome the present emphasis on training for new technology and small firms. Tonight's debate has served to reinforce the view, which I expressed earlier, that there is scope for a higher degree of priority to be accorded within the fund to the long-term

123
unemployed, who represent throughout the Community an increasing proportion of the unemployed. The fund could do much to encourage the provision of programmes for them as it has encouraged programmes for the young unemployed.
We are pleased to have support from the fund for programmes such as the enterprise allowance scheme for those who are setting up on their own. Almost every other member state is following Britain's lead in this direction. Support from the Community has been a major factor in enabling us to develop these programmes on their current scale. I am sure that the same is true for many projects at local level.
The European social fund represents one of the most tangible and visible benefits to the United Kingdom of our Community membership. We shall continue to press on behalf of all hon. Members and those whom they represent, for efficient and adequate support from the fund for schemes to encourage employment. The issues which have been raised in this debate will help us to ensure that we do so effectively. Meanwhile, I hope that the House will agree to take note of the documents.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 7711/85, a Commission Decision on guidelines for the management of the European Social Fund in the financial years 1986 to 1988; 9901/85, a Commission proposal to amend Council Decision 83/516/EEC and Regulation (EEC) No. 2850/83 on the tasks of the European Social Fund, in view of the accession of Spain and Portugal; and 9854/85, Thirteenth Report from the Commission on the activities of the European Social Fund (financial year 1984), and welcomes the contribution to employment and training schemes made by the European Social Fund.

Printing Dispute (Wapping)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Durant.]
11.2 pm
Mr. Ron Leighton: For 28 years before coming to the House I worked as a printer on the News of the World and later on The Sun in Bouverie street. I am sponsored by the largest printing union, SOGAT '82.
Rupert Murdoch's callous and malevolent sacking of his entire work force of 5,500 without a penny of compensation or redundancy pay is an act of savagery unparalleled in British industrial relations. It is an affront to justice and ordinary human decency.
I shall begin with what the dispute is not about. It is not about new technology. That is something that the unions accept, and already operate on other newspapers. The truth is that in the Wapping machine room there is no new technology. The machinery there is secondhand. It is 16 years old and it has been in store. It is the same as that which was running in Bouverie street and Gray's Inn road. It is old letterpress machinery, with no facility for printing colour. The new technology in Wapping is in origination, in computerised photocomposition. This already exists and it is being worked with union agreement at the Daily Mirror and The Mail on Sunday. Let no one say that the unions are Luddite. Technology cannot excuse the barbarism that has occurred.
One of the most offensive aspects of this squalid story has been Murdoch's lies, the conspiracy of deceit, over months and years. One example is his cynical pretence of negotiating the transfer of staff to Wapping while all the time working deliberately and cold-bloodedly to eliminate the staff completely. One myth is that the company tried to negotiate for six years and could get nowhere. That is the opposite of the truth, as I shall show.
The staff at Gray's Inn road were not involved in negotiations because it was told that it was not going to Wapping. All the members of the clerical staff on all the newspapers were told that they were to stay put when the printing moved and that as a consequence they were not to be involved in the negotiations. The chapel and the department where I worked was the News of the World machine section. I have documents which show that what were called preliminary discussions were proposed by Mr. O'Neill for the company on 3 May 1983, when he invited chapel officials to tour the new building and then to fly to Finland to visit a modern printing plant. The management at that time gave clear, firm, categoric guarantees that there would be no compulsory redundancies.
On 2 January 1985, discussions had reached the stage where Mr. Britton could write the chapel a lengthy letter setting out all the areas of agreement and the company's proposals. He again reiterated:
"The company has given assurances that no regular employee need make himself available for voluntary redundancy."
These management proposals were accepted by a chapel meeting in January 1985.
On 12 January 1985, Mr. Isaacs, the father of the chapel, wrote, as he put it, "with pleasure" telling the management that relations appeared good. At the last meeting with the management, Mr. Isaacs stated that the chapel would

125
"accept all the constrictions laid down by management, and are prepared to move forthwith into Wapping to print the News of the World."
But all this was a blind; it was bogus; it was a cheat —for all along, behind the smokescreen of these phoney negotiations, Murdoch was advancing his secret strategy to provoke a dispute and sack the entire work force. All talks were broken off by the management in the spring of last year. The management said that Wapping would not be used for the News of the World or the Sun but for an entirely new title, The London Post. Despite the attempted secrecy and repeated denials, information leaked about people being bussed in from Southampton and about electricians doing production work. The talk of a new title was a further deception covering the final preparations for the production of the four Murdoch newspapers at Wapping and simultaneously throwing the entire work force into the street without a penny.
These 5,500 British workers, our fellow citizens, have been the victims of a disgraceful, cynical and carefully laid plot to deny them their basic entitlements under British law. The Government should explain whether they approve, whether this is the sort of industrial relations practice that they want to encourage. These thousands of people have in many cases given a lifetime of service to these publications, often predating Murdoch's ownership. They are not just statistics, but people, flesh and blood with lives, families, futures, hopes and feelings. Are they to be callously discarded and thrown without a moment's thought on to the dole queue?
By this brutal action, Murdoch saves more than £40 million, and possibly £60 million, in redundancy pay and gloats about it. But who picks up the tab? The answer is the taxpayer, in state benefits. So the Government are subsidising Murdoch's barbarism with millions of pounds. Are they happy about this? Do they approve? I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will tell us.
If Murdoch makes even bigger profits from his British operation by this shabby injustice—he told the New York Times that he expects a 75 per cent. increase in profits next year—what will he do with them? He will export them to America to finance his media empire there. Is this what the Government want to encourage and reward? Murdoch owns 95 newspapers worldwide, yet his four United Kingdom newspapers make more profits—some £50 million last year—than the rest put together. The thanks that the British staff got for producing those profits was the sack from an unscrupulous proprietor who has just sold out his citizenship to become Americanised so as to own more newspapers in America. A former British Conservative Prime Minister once described a business man as the "unacceptable face of capitalism". Is not Murdoch's the ugliest, most repellent, unacceptable face we have seen? Will the Government dissociate themselves from it, or endorse it?
Few would not now recognise that in Brenda Dean and Tony Dubbins the printing unions have two of the most reasonable, measured, temperate and realistic of leaders. They have leaned over backwards to reach an accommodation. The most far-reaching concessions were made to Murdoch to obtain union recognition: an unprecedented offer of no disputes without ballots; binding arbitration triggered by either party; a profitability, efficiency, productivity and job flexibility commitment; joint union comprehensive schemes; and fewer bargaining units—all this, plus direct input, both
126
editorial and advertising. Let no one say that the unions were dinosaurs—not willing to change, to negotiate, to reach agreements taking on board new conditions and working practices. What more could the unions offer and still remain trade unions?
But Murdoch does not want, and is determined to destroy, free, independent unions. Instead he wants a single, tame, domesticated, client, yellow dog union, rather like the staff association at Government Communications Headquarters. He wants all industrial action, however minor, whatever the provocation, or circumstances, even at the end of disputes procedure and after a ballot, banned completely. He goes further than General Jaruzelski. He wants servitude. His lawyer's definition of industrial action includes refusing voluntary overtime and attending unauthorised meetings. For those offences, under the special form of legally binding agreement he wants, individual workers could be sued for damages and stripped of their homes and personal possessions. He deliberately and calculatedly laid down impossible conditions to engineer a strike.
A letter from the law firm of Farrar and Co. of 20 December 1985 to News International, advised on "the cheapest way" of
"dispensing with the present work force".
It explained:
"The idea is to catch as many employees in the net as possible."
It even advised:
"there may be some merit in having piles of dismissal letters at exit doors".
That was in case the industrial action was of short duration. They wanted to ensure that they caught everyone in time. The lawyers reminded the company:
"We talked of this some months ago".
In other words, they had been conspiring and planning it for a long time. Has anyone heard of anything more despicable and shameful in industrial relations? It is a form of industrial terror.
New technology should be welcomed by all. It should be a boon to all. Its introduction should be by negotiation, handled sensitively, in a humane way, especially for people who have given years of service. All sorts of calumnies have been spread about printers, even by the present Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, previously the Secretary of State for Employment. He alleged on the BBC television programme "Question Time" that he had personal experience 10 years ago of SOGAT Saturday night jobs at the News of the World being ballotted around the country and that they were paid £300 for one night. As I worked at the News of the World 10 years ago, I told him that he had grossly misled millions of people. I sent him evidence in writing which showed that pay for a long 14-hour Saturday night in. 1979, seven years ago, including all the overtime, was around £50. Ten years ago it would have been considerably less. In other words, the Secretary of State, in his gross and crude exaggeration, was about 1000 per cent. wrong. I gave him that information in writing on 15 February, but I am still waiting for him to correct the falsehood and put the record straight.
Many of those sacked were women — clerks, telephonists, librarians, cleaners, sales staff and circulation representatives—by no means excessively paid, but all victims of the same brutal treatment. Will the Government stand up for them? We should not forget the journalists, or "journos" as Murdoch disparagingly calls

127
them, who were told, without consultation, to be bussed ignominiously behind the razor-wire fortifications at 24 hours notice, or be sacked. Those who honourably refused were dismissed with standard letters addressed "Dear Sir/ Madam". So much for press freedom and so much for the integrity and independence of the press. No wonder 108 journalists have left The Times since Murdoch took over.
We must all look at the grotesque operation of the law. If workers undertaking a strike after a ballot with an overwhelming majority can be dismissed, where is the right to strike? That could not happen in any other democratic country. Elsewhere, a contract of employment is suspended during a strike and reinstated afterwards. That must be rectified in this country.
What has been the effect of this Government's legislation? Within days of starting a lawful dispute following a ballot, SOGAT found itself snarled up and enmeshed in a dozen legal actions, its funds sequestrated, with a firm of chartered accountants controlling every penny the union owned. Was that the Government's intention? The union did not set out to break the law, ignore it, or be in contempt of it or to hide its funds. The union has been open and honest in its attitude. However, the law is geared to make it impossible for British workers to engage in a dispute and not be ensnared by it. Many hon. Members voted to restrict union activity, not to abolish it, but that is what has happened.
The legislation stopping secondary action was supposed to protect innocent third parties. Action was restricted to the workers' own employer and the employer's immediate first supplier or customer, but who is the employer if Murdoch sets up a maze of fictitious and allegedly independent companies? If former employees of Times Newspapers, or News Group newspapers knock on the door at Wapping where those newspapers are now printed, they find that the employer has disappeared and now calls himself something different. He calls himself London Post (Printers). It would be secondary action. Is that what was intended? The wholesaler would be the first customer, but not when Murdoch sets up a company between the papers and the wholesaler. Then any action becomes secondary.
To implement this chicanery, Murdoch set up six separate companies in the year before the dispute. Murdoch has exploited, twisted and manipulated the new laws to render trade union or collective action legally impossible. That cynical spectacle is causing a groundswell of public opinion against him. Even his own Wapping-produced Sunday Times of 16 February talked of
"the legal ring-fence that now forbids or cripples many traditional forms of industrial action."
The paper quoted Eddie Shah as saying that the dispute is being "suffocated by the law." Murdoch's own paper actually goes on to say:
"There is little doubt that so far in this dispute the law has operated almost entirely to corral and circumscribe the unions, to a point where some are wondering whether the balance of worker-employer power may have shifted too far."
An editorial in The Guardian talked of the
"shock on learning that 6,000 well-paid jobs can be junked overnight, without warning and without compensation or redundancy pay."
The trade paper, Printing World, talked in an editorial on 19 February of
"the unfairness of the position. Mr. Murdoch may well be congratulating his lawyers on the subtlety of their machinations, but others are aware that the employment laws are being twisted
128
… For a company to divide itself into associated companies solely as a means of invoking the law against secondary picketing is a cynical manoeuvre. If that is the law then the law needs to be changed."
Do the Government agree with that? Will they now change those unjust laws? Does the right to withdraw labour still exist in Britain? Do workers have any rights at all?
The Labour party is clear about those anti-union laws. It will scrap the lot and start afresh, with workers' rights. But the existing laws are the Government's. Theirs is the responsibility. Are they prepared to restore some balance, fairness and justice? Will they give an assurance that they do not have yet another anti-union Bill coming along? The present laws not only permit, they positively incite, injustice, strife, division and bitterness and situations such as Wapping. Is that the Government's idea of "caring capitalism"?
What the House and the country will want to hear tonight is what the Government are going to do to promote a settlement. For the staff and the unions are not going to go away. The dispute and the picketing will continue until there is a settlement. A settlement can come about only by negotiation.
The electricians and the journalists at Wapping still have to live in the community. They will not want to work in those appalling conditions for ever. Already they are complaining to management. Engineers have refused to maintain the machines. The London press branch of the Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunications, and Plumbing Union who staff the Fleet street papers were not consulted or balloted. On 29 January this year they sent a resolution of protest to their union. The present situation with its unfairness, hardship and confrontation cannot endure for ever. There must be a resolution. I ask finally: will the Government use their influence to get the parties together, and encourage proper negotiations to end this evil situation?
11 . 19 pm
Mr. Peter Shore rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Does the right hon. Gentleman have the consent of both the Minister and the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) to speak?
Mr. Shore: Yes, Sir.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) for raising this scandalous matter in the House and giving me the opportunity to say a few words about it.
It is utterly deplorable that 5,500 print workers, men and women, should have been sacked by Mr. Murdoch. It is even worse that the circumstances should have been deliberately engineered so that they forfeited their redundancy pay and that their pension rights should have been put at risk.
It is a disgrace that the journalists employed on News International papers are compelled to work in an industrial complex surrounded by razor wire and security guards.
It is equally unacceptable, though so far little noticed, that the more than 3,000 people who live in Wapping— which I represent—should have their lives increasingly disrupted by a dispute in which they are not engaged and which they cannot influence. That disruption is happening in two principal ways.

129
First, convoys of heavy lorries leaving News International, escorted by police cars—sometimes with their sirens blaring—are being diverted away from the Highway, which is the natural route, and taken on a circuitous route through narrow streets in the heart of residential Wapping.
The noise of these heavy vehicles, the grinding of gears as they change down, and the speed with which they are driven, are a major disturbance and source of danger for the people who live in Wapping. That continues from mid-evening until well into the early hours of the morning. Minor accidents have already occured and more serious ones have been avoided by a whisker. The worst incident yet happened in Thomas More street on Saturday night, 1 March when a TNT lorry driver drove straight at a group of local people and demonstrating print workers. The road was very icy and slippery and the driver hit Mr. Tony Flint, a sacked switchboard worker, on the site and he was knocked unconcious and had to be taken to hospital.
My second point is that Wapping is being turned, for several days of the week, into a prison for the people who live there. It is now the most heavily policed area in the United Kingdom. People are constantly being stopped and questioned and asked for proof of identity when on foot. Residents driving home have had their cars turned back. That is a gross interference with the normal and lawful rights of free access to one's own home in one's own community. I have had many protests by letter and telephone from constituents and from such collective bodies as the Wapping tenants association, the Wapping parent action group and the trades council.
Clearly, no complete remedy will be found to these problems until the dispute is resolved. These are powerful and additional reasons why the Minister should abandon the "hands-off' and passive stance of his Department and lend his weight to securing an early and negotiated settlement.
11.23 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Trippier): I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) for giving me notice that he wished to intervene in the debate. I shall certainly consider the two specific points that he has drawn to my attention and if necessary I shall draw them to the attention of my colleagues in the Government.
I can tell the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) that we all want to see a swift and peaceful solution to this dispute. I am not here this evening to give advice either to News International or to the print unions about how they should conduct their business. I am certainly not here to talk about personalities. I must challenge the assertions made by the hon. Member for Newham, North-East about the fairness of the laws that the Government have introduced on industrial relations and I make no apologies for speaking about the law for which my Department is responsible.
Let me briefly remind the House what was left by the Labour Government when we came to power in 1979, as the changes that were subsequently made have a direct bearing on the dispute at Wapping. In 1979, trade union officials had immunity for the organisation of all sorts of excessive forms of industrial action, such as for example, indiscriminate secondary action, strikes—mainly about political matters—picketing at other people's places of
130
work and secondary action to enforce the closed shop. In 1979, trade unions had almost complete immunity from legal action to recover the cost of the damage they had caused and at that time union balloting practices included balloting at inconvenient branch meetings and indirect block voting systems for union elections and strike votes by a show of hands at mass meetings.
The aim of the legislation that we have introduced step by step since 1979 has been to redress the balance of power in industrial relations, which had been shifted greatly in the unions' favour by the legislation of the Labour Government. Not even the hon. Member for Newham, North-East could deny that. We have given employers legal remedies against unreasonable action taken by trade unions in several situations. First, there must be a trade dispute between employees and their employer which is wholly or mainly about industrial matters. That means that unions can no longer organise political protests, which can greatly damage employers who have no control over the issues involved.
For all industrial action organised by a union, we have made immunity conditional on the holding of a properly conducted secret ballot in which the majority of those voting must say that they wish to take part in the action. It is important to stress that every person asked to go on strike must be given the chance to vote, and that is especially relevant to Wapping. They must be reminded that, by taking industrial action, they will be breaching their contract of employment that by taking strike or other industrial action, they are putting their jobs at risk. That is what our law requires, and that is again especially relevant to Wapping.
We have also limited the circumstances in which employees may take lawful secondary action. Where secondary action interferes with the performance of commercial contracts, or threatens to do so, its organisers must satisfy—
Mr. Leighton rose—
Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman has already had a fair crack at the debate, and I agreed to allow the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney to intervene, so I have been left with only a short time in which to answer the debate.
If the secondary action is indiscriminate in its effects — for example, if its main effect is to disrupt the business of employers not involved in the dispute—its organisers have no immunity. The requirement, which is now most familiar, is that secondary action should take place at a customer or supplier who has a commercial contract with the employer in dispute, and be aimed at the supply of goods or services between them.
There are special provisions to cover the case where, because of a dispute, the employer in dispute transfers work normally done by his employees to an associated employer such as a subsidiary company. We did not, as some urged at the time, and some people seem to think now, outlaw all action in those circumstances. A reacting of section 17 of the Employment Act 1980 will show that we gave unions the right to take action against any associated employer to whom work is transferred because of the dispute.
However, immunity for secondary action is subject to further conditions. Inducement to break a contract of employment has no immunity if it interferes with the

131
supply of goods or services and the reason, or one of the reasons, for the industrial action is that the supplier does not recognise, negotiate with or consult trade unions or union officials, or because he employs members of a certain union or non-union members.
Mr. John Prescott: Another management brief, just as in the Silentnight debate.
Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman would be amazed. I wrote most of it myself.
The law on picketing is also important. Where pickets interfere with the ability of employers to fulfil their commercial contracts, they and their organisers normally have immunity from civil law proceedings only if the picketing is at or near the pickets' place of work and the purpose of the picketing is peacefully to obtain or communicate information or peacefully to persuade a person to work or not to work.
Mr. Prescott: What about Murdoch?
Mr. Trippier: I have to tell the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) that daubing cars with paint is not peaceful persuasion by anyone's standards.
It is important to remember that picketing which is not peaceful and which, for example, leads to violent or abusive behaviour, intimidation or obstruction of the highway, is likely to involve offences under the criminal law. There is no immunity for people who commit such offences while taking industrial action, and they may be arrested and prosecuted by the police.
All this means is that the industrial relations scene to which the hon. Gentleman refers is light years away from the one that we inherited. I am pleased to admit that the number of strikes is at a post-war low and that the number of days lost shows a substantial decline.
Mr. Leighton: What about Murdoch?
Mr. Trippier: I said at the beginning of the debate that I would not refer to personalities.
This decline has been made possible partly by our laws, but our laws alone cannot take all the credit. They would not have succeeded if they had not reflected and kept pace with the views of ordinary working people. Ordinary working people do not want to be called out on strike without first being asked for their views, and that means not just a car park show of hands but a properly conducted secret ballot. Ordinary working people do not want to be dragged into somebody else's dispute.
132
I do not want to go back over old ground, but I think that the Labour party suffers from a peculiarly short memory. They were, after all, swept from power in revulsion against the wholesale spread of secondary action and secondary picketing that gripped the country in the winter of 1978. Our aim has been to see that never again will there be such wholesale damage done to employers, trade unionists, non-union members and the community at large by the spread of someone else's quarrel.
We have done all that we can to open the doors of new technology. The hon. Member for Newham, North-East said that that was not relevant, but I think that it is extremely relevant. So often in the past secondary action and mass picketing with its bully-boy tactics have been used to stop the implementation of new production techniques.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: What about Murdoch's bully boys.
Mr. Trippier: Standing out against new technology does not preserve jobs, it destroys them. Of course, not all the jobs that disappear in this way in the United Kingdom are lost for ever. Many of them are alive and well and living in our competitor countries, where there has been a longer tradition of shared objectives between management and work force. I have said before that I do not work to advise either of the parties in this dispute—
Mr. Prescott: What about Murdoch?
Mr. Trippier: I do not wish to get involved with personalities, as the hon. Member for Newham, North-
East has sought to do, by referring in emotive language to one individual.
I want to end simply by noting that a new realism is developing in other industries and indeed, thanks to Mr. Eddie Shah, elsewhere in the printing industry. I hope that that realism will one day take root in Fleet street.
11.32 pm
Mr. Dennis Skinner: I think that the Minister has disgraced himself tonight. He was asked important questions about Murdoch by my hon. Friends and he has not had the guts to reply to them or to state where he stands on Murdoch's role in this affair.
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Monday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty-eight minutes to Twelve o'clock.

THE ARTS
  Sadler's Wells Theatre
  Sadler's Wells Theatre
  Museums and Galleries, Merseyside
  Museums and Galleries, Merseyside
  East Midlands
  East Midlands
  Metropolitan County Areas (Funding)
  Metropolitan County Areas (Funding)
  Arts Funding (GLC Area)
  Arts Funding (GLC Area)
DUCHY OF LANCASTER
  Merseyside (Estates)
  Merseyside (Estates)
CHURCH COMMISSIONERS
  Sunday Trading
  Sunday Trading
  "Faith in the City"
  "Faith in the City"
  1–3 The Sanctuary, SW1
  1–3 The Sanctuary, SW1
TRANSPORT
  Thames Crossing, Dartford
  Thames Crossing, Dartford
  British Airways Helicopters
  British Airways Helicopters
  Radio Officers
  Radio Officers
  Cabotage
  Cabotage
  Aircraft Noise
  Aircraft Noise
  Motor Trade (Licensing)
  Motor Trade (Licensing)
  Commissioners of Irish Lights
  Commissioners of Irish Lights
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Johnson Matthey Bankers
  Johnson Matthey Bankers
  Fraud (Prosecution)
  Fraud (Prosecution)
  European Community (Budget)
  European Community (Budget)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Prison Population.
  Prison Population.
EMPLOYMENT
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Health and Safety Executive
  Health and Safety Executive
  Batley and Spen
  Batley and Spen
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Hormones
  Hormones
  Co-responsibility Levy
  Co-responsibility Levy
  EC (Food Prices)
  EC (Food Prices)
  Export Rebates
  Export Rebates
  EC (Surplus Food)
  EC (Surplus Food)
  Opium Poppy
  Opium Poppy
  EC (Butter Exports)
  EC (Butter Exports)
  Liquid Skimmed Milk
  Liquid Skimmed Milk
  Unfit Food
  Unfit Food
  Intervention Stocks
  Intervention Stocks
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Spain
  Spain
  Costa Rica
  Costa Rica
  South Atlantic Islands Development Corporation Ltd.
  South Atlantic Islands Development Corporation Ltd.
  Seismic Detection Stations
  Seismic Detection Stations
  Test Ban Treaty Negotiations
  Test Ban Treaty Negotiations
  El Salvador
  El Salvador
ENERGY
  National Coal Board
  National Coal Board
  Oil Statistics
  Oil Statistics
  Combined Heat and Power
  Combined Heat and Power
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  National Seed Development Organisation and Plant Breeding Institute
  National Seed Development Organisation and Plant Breeding Institute
  Educational Welfare Officers
  Educational Welfare Officers
  Freedom of Speech
  Freedom of Speech
  Creches
  Creches
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
  Secondary Education
  Secondary Education
  Overseas Students
  Overseas Students
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  India (Westland Helicopters)
  India (Westland Helicopters)
  Nicaragua
  Nicaragua
WALES
  Tourism
  Tourism
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  European Regional Development Fund
  European Regional Development Fund
  Welsh Water Authority
  Welsh Water Authority
  Cynon Valley (Unemployment)
  Cynon Valley (Unemployment)
  "Better Schools"
  "Better Schools"
  Welsh Development Agency
  Welsh Development Agency
  South-West Wales (Cancer Treatment)
  South-West Wales (Cancer Treatment)
  Agriculture
  Agriculture
  Housing Repairs
  Housing Repairs
  South Glamorgan County Council
  South Glamorgan County Council
  Roads
  Roads
  Cervical Carcinoma
  Cervical Carcinoma
  Noxious Substances (Disposal)
  Noxious Substances (Disposal)
  Public Woodland
  Public Woodland
  Breast Cancer
  Breast Cancer
  Intervention Stocks
  Intervention Stocks
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Staff Inspector
  Staff Inspector
  Living Standards
  Living Standards
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Business Expansion Scheme
  Business Expansion Scheme
  Manpower Statistics
  Manpower Statistics
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  European Community (Budget)
  European Community (Budget)
  Budget Documents
  Budget Documents
  Taxpayers
  Taxpayers
ENVIRONMENT
  Communal Heating System
  Communal Heating System
  Sewerage and Water Supply
  Sewerage and Water Supply
  Direct Labour Organisations
  Direct Labour Organisations
  Water Companies
  Water Companies
  Urban Housing Renewal
  Urban Housing Renewal
  Radioactive Pollution
  Radioactive Pollution
  Local Government
  Local Government
  Northamptonshire County Council
  Northamptonshire County Council
  Nuclear Waste
  Nuclear Waste
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  London Residuary Body
  London Residuary Body
  Nature Conservation
  Nature Conservation
  Noxious Substances (Disposal)
  Noxious Substances (Disposal)
  PRC Homes Ltd.
  PRC Homes Ltd.
  Yorkshire Water Authority
  Yorkshire Water Authority
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Cornish Houses
  Cornish Houses
  Housing Defects Act
  Housing Defects Act
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Company Mergers
  Company Mergers
  Ship Propulsion
  Ship Propulsion
  BL (Privatisation)
  BL (Privatisation)
  Wine Sales
  Wine Sales
  Daya Nuclear Power Plant
  Daya Nuclear Power Plant
  Tractors
  Tractors
  Cammell Laird
  Cammell Laird
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Prison Officers
  Prison Officers
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Prisoners (Legal Aid)
  Prisoners (Legal Aid)
  Prison Employees (Security Clearance)
  Prison Employees (Security Clearance)
  Suicides
  Suicides
  Prisoners (AIDS)
  Prisoners (AIDS)
  Police (Disciplinary Action)
  Police (Disciplinary Action)
  Satellite Broadcasting
  Satellite Broadcasting
  Prisoners (Discharge Grants)
  Prisoners (Discharge Grants)
  M25 (Surrey)
  M25 (Surrey)
  Leeds Prison
  Leeds Prison
  Animal Experiments
  Animal Experiments
  Mr. R (Reference No. R266303/2(S))
  Mr. R (Reference No. R266303/2(S))
  Fraud
  Fraud
  Crime
  Crime
  Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
  Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
  Print Dispute (Wapping)
  Print Dispute (Wapping)
  West Yorkshire Fire Service
  West Yorkshire Fire Service
  Fire Brigade Officers
  Fire Brigade Officers
  Prisons (Yorkshire and Humberside)
  Prisons (Yorkshire and Humberside)
  Mr. Norman Davis
  Mr. Norman Davis
  Immigration Control
  Immigration Control
  Afan Valley
  Afan Valley
PRIME MINISTER
  Working Population (Statistics)
  Working Population (Statistics)
  Civil Service and Local Government
  Civil Service and Local Government
  Managers (Qualifications)
  Managers (Qualifications)
  Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme
  Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme
  State Retirement Pension
  State Retirement Pension
  Cabinet Office Staff
  Cabinet Office Staff
  Sunday Trading
  Sunday Trading
  Medical Equipment Industry (Report)
  Medical Equipment Industry (Report)
  Overseas Aid
  Overseas Aid
SCOTLAND
  Highlands and Islands Development Board
  Highlands and Islands Development Board
  Community Service
  Community Service
  College Closures and Mergers
  College Closures and Mergers
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Disabled People (Representations)
  Disabled People (Representations)
  Limited List Prescribing
  Limited List Prescribing
  Pharmacists (Remuneration)
  Pharmacists (Remuneration)
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Cambridge and Huntingdon Health Authorities
  Cambridge and Huntingdon Health Authorities
  Severe Weather Allowance Claims
  Severe Weather Allowance Claims
  Pensioner Households
  Pensioner Households
  Hip Replacement Operations
  Hip Replacement Operations
  Special Heating Allowance
  Special Heating Allowance
  Private Health Services
  Private Health Services
  Smoking
  Smoking
  Tobacco Advertising
  Tobacco Advertising
  Heating Allowances (South-West England)
  Heating Allowances (South-West England)
  Supplementary Benefit Claimants
  Supplementary Benefit Claimants
  Maternal Deaths
  Maternal Deaths
  Blindness (Disability Premium)
  Blindness (Disability Premium)
  Cost Improvement Programmes
  Cost Improvement Programmes
  Hospital Closures
  Hospital Closures
  Correspondence
  Correspondence
  Departmental Office, Barnsley
  Departmental Office, Barnsley
  Drug RU 486
  Drug RU 486
  Hypothermia
  Hypothermia
  North-West Thames Regional Health Authority (Sales)
  North-West Thames Regional Health Authority (Sales)
  State Retirement Pension
  State Retirement Pension
  NHS Expenditure
  NHS Expenditure
  Health Authorities (Efficiency Savings)
  Health Authorities (Efficiency Savings)
  Maternity Units
  Maternity Units
  Health Authorities (Departmental Advice)
  Health Authorities (Departmental Advice)
  Hospitals
  Hospitals
  Social Security Reform
  Social Security Reform
DEFENCE
  RAF Personned
  RAF Personned
  ROE, Radway Green
  ROE, Radway Green
  Plastic Bullets
  Plastic Bullets
  Ammunition Purchases
  Ammunition Purchases
  RAF Upper Heyford
  RAF Upper Heyford
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  Nuclear Explosions (Monitoring)
  Nuclear Explosions (Monitoring)
  Strategic Defence Initiative
  Strategic Defence Initiative
  Helicopter Pilots
  Helicopter Pilots
  Queen's Flight
  Queen's Flight
  RIMPAC Exercise
  RIMPAC Exercise
  Finance Office (Transfer)
  Finance Office (Transfer)
  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Royal Air Force (Clothing)
  Royal Air Force (Clothing)
  Nuclear Waste
  Nuclear Waste
  Service Personnel
  Service Personnel

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ripon.

Lord Chancellor's Marriage: Congratulations
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I am sure that it will be the wish of the House, before we begin today's business, to congratulate the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on his marriage. Everybody is delighted at the news, both in this House and outside it. The photographs at the weekend of the smiling noble and learned Lord and his bride with Spot the terrier in her arms really brought us all good cheer during that cold weekend. We wish the Lord Chancellor and Lady Hailsham every possible happiness in the future.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Maryle bone): My Lords, I am very deeply grateful to you all.
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has very properly pre-empted me and I fully understand that. But I should like to be associated with the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, about my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. I am sure that everyone on this side of the House would like to be associated with those words, which we much appreciated. It is appropriate that the remarks were made by my noble and learned friend's predecessor, the previous Lord Chancellor. Perhaps it is also appropriate that the person who can respond on behalf of this side of the House has now been a very close friend and colleague of the Lord Chancellor in Cabinet and Shadow Cabinet for, I think, over 20 years.
If I may add one comment of a more frivolous nature, I was delighted to read that the Lord Chancel-
2
lor looked "dapper" at his marriage ceremony. Whether that is something that normally could be ascribed to the Lord Chancellor, I am not sure. It clearly was on that occasion. If he were to take offence at that, I think a similar comment could be made about myself at any particular moment. May we all offer our very considerable congratulations and happiness—and I really believe happiness—from all parts of this House to the Lord Chancellor.
Lord Aylestone: My Lords, may I on behalf of my colleagues on the Alliance Benches also add our very hearty congratulations to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on his marriage? We who are on these Benches have the privilege of being almost his near neighbours in this House, which gives us the advantage of hearing asides, and I can assure the whole House that those asides over the past few months have been very happy. We congratulate him on his marriage and wish all possible luck to himself and his good lady.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: My Lords, may all the Back-Benchers be allowed to associate themselves with the Front-Benchers on this occasion?
Baroness Hylton-Foster: My Lords, I am sure that Members sitting on the Cross-Benches would not want to be left out of this very happy occasion. We, like the others, should like to wish the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor many happy congratulations and with them go our very best wishes.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, as, I think, the only Peer who was born on the same day as the noble and learned Lord, may I add my congratulations?

Channel Fixed Link: Financing Guarantees
2.40 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what Treasury guarantees will be made available in the financing of the Channel fixed link.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, there will be no Government guarantees of any kind, except of course the guarantee against interruption or cancellation for political reasons.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his response, which does indeed echo the terms of the White Paper. In the event of commercial failure of the project from whatever cause—and one can think of many that might intervene—would the Government let the project go as normal into liquidation, would there be no Government bail-out and would we therefore be left with perhaps two or four holes in the ground?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there will be no Government bail-out, as has been made clear right from the beginning of this project.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, does the noble Earl recall that when we last debated the matter in your Lordships' House I referred to a statement by his right honourable friend the Secretary of State in the other place that, in the event of money drying up before the project was completed, anything erected by then would be removed? Can he say whether that is also the view of the French Government? Also, what will be the position in regard to expenditure incurred by local authorities, by British Rail and by other developers of the infrastructure?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not believe that there is any disagreement on this matter between the French and ourselves.

NHS Eye Tests for the Elderly
2.42 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what reduction there has been in the number of elderly people applying for eye tests and spectacles since the changes in National Health Service provision.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, information is not available about the demand for National Health Service sight-tests by particular age groups. However, I can say that the overall demand has not been reduced by the recent changes. I have no information about the general supply of spectacles since most people obtain them privately and not through the National Health Service.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that I agree that, so far as the average person is concerned, there has been no drop whatever? On the other hand—I have this from professional sources—the number of elderly people seeking tests and treatment has dropped considerably.
4
Unfortunately, also, the number of people on supplementary benefit who are entitled to tests has also dropped. This is a very worrying matter, because elderly people need eye treatment more than any others in order to detect diseases arising from defective eyesight.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, many of the elderly simply need reading glasses and they will be among the main beneficiaries of the more competitive private market. For people requiring the most powerful lenses, NHS spectacles are available at controlled charges as a hedge against fears that were expressed that private prices for these lenses would shoot up. NHS glasses are still available free of charge or at reduced charges to people on low incomes, and of course sight tests remain available to all free of charge.
Lord Rugby: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Minister very much for that reply, especially with regard to reading glasses. Is she aware of the fact that a European company is now marketing reading glasses and has been doing so for about a year? It has sold in the region of 30,000 pairs, and this figure is now escalating. That is very economic and this must surely be of very great benefit to those who can select their reading glasses and also to the Exchequer in being able to do away with sight tests for those categories of glasses.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, while agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, that the EC regulations permit the sale of ready-made glasses (and, indeed, these glasses might be helpful to my noble friend the very, very elderly Lord Long!) perhaps I may say that the Government attach importance to the continued link between the sale of glasses and the sight test at which eye diseases can be detected. Therefore while there is nothing to prevent the sale of ready-made glasses as such, their sale by unregistered retailers must be in accordance with a recent prescription for the customer. These arrangements have not prevented many budget ranges of glasses coming onto the market—indeed, I am wearing a pair myself.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell the House whether any help is being given to people after cataract operations when they may need replacements for their glasses two or three times within a year?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, after cataract operations patients may require frequent changes of glasses until their sight stabilises. Such patients can benefit from what is known as the "technical non-tolerance" arrangements operated by the hospital eye service. Under this arrangement the patient pays only for the glasses which he finally keeps and the cost of the others is borne by the hospital authority. The usual low income remission arrangements would apply to a patient who was unable to meet that charge.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware of the fact that at my fairly advanced age one of my eyes is weaker than the other? Can I get a monocle supplied on the National Health Service?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, nobody can get spectacles on the National Health Service now except for the very elderly and children.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, may I support my noble friend Lord Wallace? Is the noble Baroness aware that the Association of Optical Practitioners, which has information on these subjects, says that many poor people are not attending for eye tests because they fear that they will not be able to afford the spectacles which will then be prescribed, and that poor people who may not actually be exempt from payment have been deterred from obtaining spectacles, especially complex ones, because of their price? As with heating allowances, does it not seem that the elderly and the poor are the people who suffer particularly under this Government?
Baroness Trumpington: No, my Lords. As the noble Lord will know if he is suggesting that free glasses should be provided for the elderly, it has not been the policy of any government since 1951 to give free glasses or help with glasses on grounds of age except, of course, for children. Help has always depended on the ability to pay. The long-standing arrangements for helping those on low incomes are still available. If the noble Lord does not have a copy of the appropriate leaflet, I have a spare one with me in my folder and I shall happily give it to him.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that charging for glasses was introduced by the Labour Government in 1950?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for reminding us all of that fact.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that I am not grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter? Is she further aware that I would accept that there is a cheaper range of glasses—I know that the noble Baroness has acquired a new pair recently—but that these are known as budget spectacles which have been introduced by the profession in order to assist people to get a cheaper type of spectacles? Is the noble Baroness aware that I am very concerned about the elderly person who is not on supplementary benefit and whose income is insufficient to meet the cost even of the budget spectacles? Being honest as elderly people are and wanting to avoid unnecessary expense, they are not having the treatment that they should have simply because of the present procedure.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, as I have said, no Government have ever provided pensioners with help for spectacles on the basis of age alone. Naturally we sympathise with those who have difficulty in paying and that is why there are long-standing arrangements giving help. Pensioners who are on supplementary benefit and certain other benefits are automatically entitled to free NHS spectacles. Others whose income is somewhat above the supplementary benefit level can also get NHS spectacles free or at reduced cost through the remission arrangements. For instance, a single pensioner whose weekly income is about £39 after essential outgoings or a couple whose income is about £60 after outgoings might well qualify for help.

Unemployment Figures
2.49 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what are the annual unemployment figures for 1978–85 inclusive.
The Secretary of State for Employment (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, as the reply contains a statistical table I shall, with permission, arrange for the full reply to be published in the Official Report. The average number of unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom in 1985 was 3,271,000, and the corresponding estimate for 1978 was 1,383,000.
Following is the statistical table referred to:
The annual average numbers of unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom from 1978 to 1985 are as follows:

1978–1,382,900

1979–1,295,700

1980–1,664,900

1981–2,520,400

1982–2,916,900

1983–3,104,700

1984–3,159,800

1985–3,271,200

Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Will he confirm that in the first year to which my Question relates—that is, the last year of the Labour Government—unemployment was decreasing? Is he aware that all his endeavours to call the figures in a different way do not take away from the agony of the family of someone who has been on the dole for a year or two? This is not merely a question of statistics, for there are many cases of absolute agony in the homes of millions of British families. Is that a fact which the Minister also takes into account?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, of course I take into account the facts that the noble Lord points out. However, I take into account also that, while we are an island, we are today part of the greater European Economic Community, and that in the period in question unemployment in the United Kingdom has increased by a factor of 2.4 times. That is regrettable, and I am sure that everyone in your Lordships' House regrets the increase in unemployment. Nevertheless, I am impelled to point out that in France unemployment has increased by a factor of 2.1 times; in Germany, by a factor of 2.3 times; and in Spain, by a factor of 3 times. It is necessary and, I suspect, sensible to bear in mind the general effect of unemployment, which has become the European disease.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister honestly believe that a family in which the breadwinner has been on the dole for a few years, and which has suffered the anguish which that brings, will be filled full of joy about the figures for Europe that he has just read out, and will be ever so happy? Will the noble Lord reply to the first part of my question, which he has failed to answer? Is it not a fact that in the final year of the last Labour Government unemployment was decreasing?
Lord Young of Graffham: No, my Lords; but I do not believe that the noble Lord's response will give a shred of comfort to anybody who is unemployed in this country. What will do so is the simple fact that for the last two years employment in this country has increased by 3 per cent. In Japan it increased by 1.7 per cent., and in France it actually fell by 1 per cent. We all feel emotional about unemployment. What is required is action, and action that works.
Noble Lords: When?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is it not a fact that, outside Italy, the unemployment rate in this country is the highest in the Western industrial world? Is it not also a fact that since the last general election 1,801,000 jobs have been lost? In other words, there are 1,801,000 fewer people at work than there were in 1978. May I once again ask the noble Lord to ensure that he puts the point of view to the Government before the budget that what we want is not individual tax cuts but action on unemployment—direct action?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, what we need, of course, is for Government policies to be sustained and continued. When I pointed out the way in which unemployment has increased throughout the whole of Western Europe, I took as examples both Germany and France, where the increase has been comparable over the same period; but I did not mention that those countries have conscription—a course that I would not advocate for this country but which has a bearing on youth unemployment at the very least.
In the last two years, employment in this country has increased (as everybody in your Lordships' House is no doubt tired of hearing me tell) not only faster than in any other country in Europe but faster than the whole of Europe put together. If we are to do anything about unemployment—and I ask everybody in your Lordships' House to think for a moment sensibly and seriously about unemployment—then the only way that we can reduce unemployment is by increasing employment. In giving the figures that I have, I have not pointed out that in France the workforce is falling, whereas in this country it increased by 510,000 last year.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is it not true that this country provides a higher percentage of jobs than any other country in the European Community outside Denmark? Is it not equally true that if we can sustain even a modest 3 per cent. growth in GDP we shall eventually start getting people back to work? Is it not the case also that everybody on these Benches is concerned every bit as much as those on the Benches opposite about idle people and about people having nothing to do? The devil makes work for idle hands, and it is in nobody's interests that that should happen. The Government's policies of growth should be supported, and tax cuts that promote growth should equally be supported.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am happy to confirm that, of all adults of employable age in the United Kingdom, 65 per cent. are in paid employment. The figure for France is 60 per cent. and for Germany it is 59 per cent. The average for OECD
8
Europe is 58 per cent. On that gound alone we have cause for congratulation. I, for one, and all on these Benches, shall not rest until the number of unemployed has come down.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House how many of the long-term unemployed are married women?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, that is another question. I am not sure whether we have that particular information. To my knowledge, all married women are fully employed.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, bearing in mind that the present Prime Minister fought and won the last two general elections using as one of her main planks a promise to reduce unemployment, and bearing in mind also that the statistics show that during her period as Prime Minister of this country unemployment has in fact trebled, when will the Minister be able to tell the House that the Prime Minister and the Government will achieve the objectives that they set themselves at those two general elections?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, in my main Answer to the Question I showed that although unemployment has increased by 2.4 times in the United Kingdom, over the same period it has increased by 2.1 times in France and 2.3 times in Germany. When one takes into account the way in which the economy was left for those on this side of the House who came into government with a legacy of 10 years of overmanning, one will see that we have done remarkably well to maintain the present position.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I acknowledge the Minister's tenacity in trying to find an answer to this question of grave unemployment, but he has been totally unsuccessful. The Minister mentioned other efforts that we could make. Would it be possible for the Government to consider the situation as it once existed in America, where, when pared to the bone and finding themselves in a terrible situation with unemployment almost worse than we have today, a Scottish economist and Keynes worked out a system that was accepted by the President of the United States (and I hope that this Government do not dismiss Franklin D. Roosevelt)? They provided an answer based on "spend and prosper". Does the Minister not agree that that was a much better response than the ridiculous banality that we were offered by the present chairman of the Conservative Party when he was Employment Minister—that if there were 3 million bicycles then 3 million jobs could be found by people travelling around this country on their bikes? Will the Minister give the House an assurance that such total nonsense will not be entertained by him?
Lord Young of Graffham: No, my Lords.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, is the Minister able to give the House a breakdown of the figures, so that we may know how many jobs have been lost in manufacturing industry? How many more unemployed are there in manufacturing industry? Is it not a fact that hundreds

9
of thousands of jobs in manufacturing industry have disappeared for ever? Although unemployment is bad enough, the fact that there are no job opportunities for youngsters in manufacturing industries is even worse.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, that is another question. However, it is worth while pointing out to all your Lordships' House that the United Kingdom still exports 30 per cent. of her GDP and that exports per capita are higher than that of France, Germany, the United States of America and Japan. In those circumstances, where is the industrial desert that I keep on reading about?
Lord Ennals: In the North, my Lords.

Westland plc: Share Ownership
2.58 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they now know the identity of each of the six shareholders owning some 20 per cent. of the shares in Westland plc referred to by Lord Bruce of Donington in his question of 12th February 1986 (col. 197) and whether they are now prepared to name them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth): My Lords, I understand that Westland's investigations under Section 212 of the Companies Act have identified the beneficial owners of one of the six shareholdings as TNT Limited, an Australian company. The beneficial owners of the other five shareholdings have not yet been identified and the company is pursuing its inquiries.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his noble friend Lord Trefgarne, when he was questioned by me about this matter on 12th February last, dismissed as fanciful my allegations that there were at least two Swiss banks interested in the shares to which I have referred? Will he agree that at a conference that took place in his department on 19th February it was, in fact, revealed that there were at least three Swiss banks which had purchased shares? Will the noble Lord make quite sure that the correction is made?
Will the noble Lord explain why, in view of the fact that Section 442 of the Companies Act gives his department full power to appoint an investigator to ascertain the beneficial ownership of shares, the Government have not taken action? What does the noble Lord have to hide? Why are the Government so coy on the whole matter? Why do they not come clean?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, in so far as the exchange between the noble Lord and my noble friend
10
Lord Trefgarne on 12th February is concerned, my noble friend said:
"I am not certain from where the noble Lord gets his information. I understand that Westland say that there are no Swiss banks registered as holders of their shares."—[Official Report, 12/2/86; col. 197.]
That position still applies in that there is no Swiss bank which is holding shares in its own right.
In so far as the powers under Section 442 of the Companies Act are concerned, since the company is energetically pursuing its investigations there seems little point in the Government running parallel investigations.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, are the Government really unaware that the Rothschild Bank, Zurich, holds 4.4 per cent. of the shares; the Gulf Occidental Investment Company of Geneva holds 1.4 per cent. and the Sterling Trust, Geneva, holds 4.9 per cent. Will the noble Lord now seek to correct the matter? Will the noble Lord convey to his right honourable friend that for so long as these names are kept quite unnecessarily secret there will be some suspicion that the Government have something to hide?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, as the House will probably be aware, on 24th February as a result of the company's 11th February issue of notices, there was a press statement which showed, in Actraint No. 34, that the Company of Canberra held 4.99 per cent. of total equity; Sterling Trust, Geneva, on behalf of nominees, held 4.89 per cent.; Rothschild Rank, Zurich, on the same basis, 4.76 per cent.; Bank of Dreyfus, Switzerland, 3.65 per cent.; Gulf Occidental 1.38 per cent.; and the Bank of Dreyfus, with others, 1.18 per cent. The company then issued further notices under Section 212, again to ascertain further the beneficial owners. The company is continuing its investigations.
As to the point the noble Lord made regarding suspicion, I believe that the suspicion lies only in his own mind.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord nevertheless explain why the Government have not invoked the powers they have under Section 442 of the Companies Act?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, as I have already said, it is because the company is energetically continuing investigations. Until those investigations are completed there is no point nor necessity for the Government to embark upon another series of investigations.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, as this is a matter of considerable public importance, can the Government tell the House when they expect the investigations to be completed? If the investigations are not completed reasonably soon—after all, they have been going on for a month—when will the Government take the powers which they possess under that section to find out for themselves?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the investigations were first announced by Westland on

11
11th February. It is now but the 3rd March. Noble Lords will also know that investigations of this nature take a considerable amount of time. I have said that the company is energetically pursuing its investigations under the powers available to it.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, but why did the noble Lord have to wait until the fourth supplementary question before giving his answer to my noble friend's Question? That seems very odd.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I do not know that I waited for any particular period of time. I always, and at all times, try to answer to the best of my ability questions put to me by noble Lords.
Lord Morris: My Lords, has it not occurred to my noble friend that it is quite clear that noble Lords on the Opposition Benches fail to understand the distinction between de jure ownership and beneficial ownership? Even when it is discovered who are the apparent beneficial owners of shares, it is often very difficult to ascertain who are the real beneficial owners.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, that is exactly what the company is attempting to do. At the same time, the Stock Exchange is carrying out its own investigations to ensure that there has been no breach of its regulations.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, in the light of the supplementary question from the noble Lord, Lord Morris, and the reply from the Minister, do the Government not feel a little worried that vital defence industries might be falling into hands that are so difficult to identify?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, must in his own mind distinguish between there being minority shareholders who perhaps do not reside in this country and control of a company, which has defence interests, changing hands. In the latter case we are quite satisfied that the Government have ample powers to deal with that matter.

Highways (Amendment) Bill
3.6 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Industrial Training Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Outer Space Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Museum of London Bill
3.8 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Composition of Board of Governors]:
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 15, leave out ("first").
The noble Baroness said: With the agreement of all concerned, Amendments Nos. 1 to 11 have been grouped together and I shall be speaking to all these amendments.
This series of amendments deals with a simple point—the composition of the board of the Museum of London now that the GLC is about to be abolished. Noble Lords will be aware that until now the governors of the museum have come from three separate sources—the GLC, the City of London, and Prime Minister's nominations. There are altogether 18 governors, and with the abolition of the GLC it has so far been decided in the Bill that the six nominees which will be lost once the GLC goes should be made up by the Prime Minister's nominee's and the City of London. It is felt that once the GLC has gone there will really be no democratically elected London body to appoint board members, and Clause 1 as it now stands does not do anything to solve this problem, which has caused a great deal of concern not only to people outside the museum but among the members of the board themselves, including the chairman, to whom I have spoken. Merely adding three nominees to each of those which the Prime Minister and the Corporation nominate does not make up for the loss of the GLC nominees who were drawn from a wide spectrum geographically, politically and in the context of their interests and experience.
I am well aware that both in another place and on Second Reading here the Minister promised that these nominees would come from a wide spectrum; but in fact that does not really cover the point in the same way as it would if it were embodied in the statute. It is for this reason that this carefully worked out amendment is being moved today.
I am not proposing that a body which does not fund the museum should be entitled to appoint to the board, but inherent in this amendment is a system for the filling of vacancies which were formerly taken by GLC appointees, and this system would mean that the London boroughs may nominate prospective board members to either the Prime Minister or the City of London, who will then make appointments. The six places will still be split between the Prime Minister and the Corporation; but as a result of this amendment there will be seen to be a determination that these six board members enjoy wider London interests.
In each London borough there are a number of enthusiastic and well qualified people involved in arts groups, local history workshops or other community activities. They are likely to be well known to the elected councillors of that borough who are closely in touch with their own area. The special nature of the Museum of London as a social history museum, which has both permanent and special exhibitions serving an educational purpose in showing how Londoners have lived through the capital's long history, should be recognised when appointing the additional board members. Earlier periods of London's history are likely to be represented mostly by artefacts originating in the City; but later periods will offer examples of London's expansion, as is so well illustrated by the painting of suburban life on the cover of the museum's latest annual report. This series of amendments will give the museum's board a wide range of interests and experience on which to draw, as each borough submits for consideration the names of the most able people in its locality.
I must point out that there is a protection built into the system to ensure that it will work properly. All nominees could not come from one borough as this would leave the Prime Minister and the Corporation unable to achieve geographical balance, so we have limited each borough to one nomination at any one time. Because this amendment does not compel boroughs to send in nominations, we have taken into account the possibility that the boroughs will not be able to find a suitable person willing or able to sit on the board when a place becomes vacant, and in this case the additional appointees will have to be chosen by the Prime Minister or the City from their own lists.
In the unlikely event of the system being abused and boroughs nominating people who are not suitable either personally or because their particular interests do not embrace the particular period of time necessary for the needs of the board, the Prime Minister or the City may choose not to appoint any of the borough nominees, though this situation should not ever arise with the wealth of suitable experience that is available London-wide.
3.15 p.m.
Finally in subsection (2,D) of this amendment the Prime Minister and the City are directed to take into account the kinds of board members who should be appointed to the six additional places. Nominees who have "knowledge or experience of Greater London" as a whole could be persons who have experience of the arts, history or specifically museums catering for the whole of London, as the Museum of London does. It may be that they would be former GLC nominees to the board whose experience and knowledge is unquestionable. As I mentioned on Second Reading (at col. 796 of Hansard for 20th February), the Minister for the Arts in another place made that point himself, that he could see no reason why there should not be ex-GLC members who would be considered suitable to be nominated to the board of the Museum of London.
Other borough nominees could have experience or knowledge of just a part of London, perhaps through local community involvement in their own area of residence, and this would be valuable experience to
14
bring to the board. Alternatively, boroughs may identify a person with experience in public administration in a wider context than history and educational museums, and in certain circumstances this qualification too would be an asset to the board.
This amendment is intended to be helpful as it ensures that the two funding bodies are supplied with a wide choice of nominees from areas they might otherwise not have thought to search when considering the six additional vacancies. It ensures that the boroughs, which inherit many of the GLC's functions and which are democratically elected, will have the opportunity to use their own leisure and educational administrative experience and at least to have a voice in the running of a London-wide service.
I shall only add that the chairman of the board of the Museum of London has authorised me to say that if an amendment were to be introduced in Clause 1 it should indicate that the three ministerial appointees and the three City appointees and those appointed in succession to them should be persons having particular knowledge of Greater London or experience in the administration of London. The chairman of the board has told me that both he and the other members of the board are very concerned about this once abolition is seen to be very much on the cards—in fact a fait accompli.
He is very appreciative of the point that, though he accepts and believes that both the City and the Prime Minister's nominees will take this into account, it is not anything like as good as having it written into the statute itself, so that not only is it done but it is seen by everybody to be done. I beg to move.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I think that the noble Baroness has made a good case for doing something which, on the face if it, seems very sensible, and unless the Minister has the usual string of deliberate and strong objections which convince me that this is not a right development, I feel inclined to ask my party to support it.
The London Museum is a particularly good local museum of its own type. I suppose that really it is the best museum in the country of any which represents a particular area. By giving such bias to the City as it has now and leaving to the Prime Minister the bias for the whole of the rest of London, one has something which on the face if it could be perfectly all right if the right people were appointed but could be rather bad if they were not. This is a useful effort to try to ensure that the people who fill the vacancies that were filled by members of the GLC, who I know were devoted to the museum and took a great deal of trouble to help it on its way, are at least interested and local. Unless the Minister has an unanswerable argument against the amendment, I think we shall be obliged to support the noble Baroness.
Lord Belstead: I listened with care to the noble Baroness speaking to this string of 11 amendments. I very much share one idea behind them; namely, the importance of the Museum of London being seen to be a museum for all London. That is a point that the Government had very much in mind when drafting the Bill. As I mentioned on Second Reading, it is provided for in Clauses 2 and 4. Clause 2 lays down

15
that one of the central duties of the board of governors is:
"to promote understanding and appreciation of historic and contemporary London and of its society and culture".
Both Clause 2, and Clause 4 on the funding of the archaeological service, make it quite explicit that "London" is to be read as including:
"all Greater London and the surrounding region".
The last subsection of Amendment No. 11 makes the point that the Prime Minister and the City should have regard to people's knowledge and experience of Greater London in making appointments. I think we can achieve that in the way the Bill is at present drafted. In addition to the point I made about the explicit mention in Clauses 2 and 4 that "London" means:
"all Greater London and the surrounding region",
there is the fact that the task of the two authorities making appointments to the board will be to choose individuals who are best placed by knowledge, experience and enthusiasm to carry out the duties placed upon them by the Bill.
It has already been made clear, and I repeat it, that both the Prime Minister and the City will take full account of the London-wide nature of the museum in making their appointments. They will take into account some of the matters that the noble Baroness mentioned as well. She says that people with administrative ability and a knowledge of public administration will need to be looked for; and so they will. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the City will want to bear in mind the educational aspects of the museum's work. They will want to ensure that the archaeological responsibilities of the museum are catered for, and so on. The list is long and almost open-ended. I believe that it would not be appropriate for a museum of this sort to try to spell it all out in detail. The point is that the main functions and duties of the board are laid down in broad and flexible terms in the Bill, and they include the duty to promote the understanding and appreciation of historic and contemporary London. The job of the two appointing authorities will be to find the very best people to carry out those duties.
Of course, I acknowledge the interest of the London boroughs in the museum, and I very much hope that in future the relationship with the boroughs will be even closer and more fruitful than it is now. I assure your Lordships' Committee that if borough councils wish to put forward nominations either to my right honourable friend or to the City authorities, those nominations will be given serious consideration and will be taken into account when the board members are chosen. I believe that those commitments, taken together with what is already clearly written into the Bill, fully meet the concern that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, have expressed. The gap between what I am saying and what they have said is narrow.
There is another point that nobody has mentioned. The machinery proposed in the amendments is not helpful. If I may say so, it is a cumbersome one to meet a point that I think is already covered. The mechanism implied in Amendment No. 11 is that 32 London
16
boroughs will each need to be consulted every time that an appointment is made. The noble Baroness shakes her head, but there it is on the Marshalled List:
"Subject to subsections (2C) and (2D) below, each additional Ministerial appointee shall be a person suggested to the Prime Minister by the Council of a London borough".
Nothing could be clearer than that. With respect, I do not think much of that as a mechanism, particularly bearing in mind that the wording in the Bill covers the point and I have now said that any recommendations given on an informal basis, or a formal basis if the London boroughs wish, will be taken seriously into account.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: We are told that when appointments are considered at a high level in the Government only one question is asked: "Is he one of us?" The point is that GLC appointees would be precisely not "one of us" in that sense. In putting down the amendment I think my noble friend seeks to ensure that the disappearance of the GLC will not have the consequence of trustees who are not "one of us" disappearing. One wants people who are "one of London", and people representative of London are not necessarily "one of us" in the narrow sense in which I have used the term.
I think my noble friend seeks a little more than the Minister has felt able to give us. I cannot read her mind entirely, but I do not think she is wedded to the exact wording of the amendment. If the noble Lord can say that he recognises that we in the Chamber need a little more than general assurances; that we need a provision in the Bill to give the assurance that there would be greater width in appointing trustees than the narrow limit that might be thought to exist when one thinks of the Government, on the one hand, and the City of London, on the other, we might be content. What will happen to the GLC appointees? I am realiably informed that some of them have given good service to the museum. Will they rank for reappointment? If the Minister can give us a further assurance or tell us that he agrees with the sense of the amendment, I think my noble friend may not wish to press the amendment at this point. If he is unable to do so, he places her in some difficulty.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Lord who has just sat down is making rather heavy weather of this. With respect, I do not think that he has faced up to the rigidity of what is proposed in the amendment. In particular, the passage to which my noble friend referred in Amendment No. 11 prevents appointment to those vacancies by either the Prime Minister or the City of London of anyone who is not recommended by a London borough. The noble Baroness shakes her head, but if she looks at her amendment she will see:
"each additional Ministerial appointee shall be a person suggested to the Prime Minister by the Council of a London borough".
The noble Baroness looks surprised, but that is the amendment she has put down. And if it is carried into law, that will be the effect.
3. 30 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: What is the noble Lord's objection to that effect? It seems to me thoroughly desirable that the boroughs of London

17
should be given the opportunity of suggesting someone from among their expert members—they know who they are—to be put on this council. What is the noble Lord's objection, if I may address him through the Minister, to that?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: As we are in Committee, through the Minister, the noble Lord can have the privilege of having it direct. The objection is simple. It limits the choice solely to people proposed by the London boroughs, many of whom have other things to do. It prevents these vacancies being used in the discretion either of the City or of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister for the most suitable person. We are not here concerned, although one might almost have thought so from what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, said, with political appointments. We are concerned with people suitable for being museum trustees. It may well be the case, either because some of the boroughs are not sufficiently interested or because their field of choice is limited, that they do not put forward suitable people. Indeed, in the extreme case, under this amendment, if no borough put forward any names it would be impossible to appoint anyone and the vacancies would remain.
Lord Howie of Troon: The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has a strong point. We should think about what he said in the latter part of his remarks. But the Museum of London covers London as a whole. It is not concerned solely with the City; it covers the entire area of London. Whether or not the amendment is correctly worded, it is right, or so it seems to me, that the views of Londoners outside the City and outside the Government should be borne in mind in dealing with a matter of this sort. This is perhaps an area where we can seek the largest and widest area of consensus and ask that the views of Londoners outside the City—that is, in the boroughs—be taken into account and also that the Government should consider the arguments that have been made and come back with a proposal that is in line with the intent of my noble friend on the Front Bench. If that happened, the Committee would, I think, be very satisfied.
Lord Belstead: It might help if I were to add one further word before the noble Baroness decides what she considers best to do with the amendment. I quite understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howie, about the need for the trustees to have representatives who have a London-wide view. But, with respect to the noble Lord, this is gone about in a way that is rather different from the way of the amendments. It is nonetheless dealt with within the Bill in a perfectly clear way. Clause 2 lays down that one of the central duties of the board of governors is,
"to promote understanding and appreciation of historic and contemporary London and of its society and culture".
Clauses 2 and 4 make explicit that when the Bill refers to London it is talking about all of Greater London and the surrounding region. I am not talking off the cuff. Those are the words in the Bill.
Obviously the job of choosing appointees to the board of governors by my right honourable friend and by the City would not be properly discharged if they
18
did not select trustees who together were able to discharge those responsibilities. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, when he intervened helpfully, in this short debate, was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, what was his basic objection to the amendments. In addition to having to discuss with, or take account of, 32 separate London boroughs, my noble friend put his finger on the fact that the amendments would limit the choice solely to people recommended by the London boroughs. It would not therefore be possible to see in a wider manner who was best suited (and, goodness me, there is a tremendous reservoir of talent in London) to fulfil the appointments, always bearing in mind the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howie, that the board is responsible to the whole of London.
I have a feeling that the noble Baroness will say to my noble friend and to myself that we have not looked at Amendment No. 11 over the page of the Marshalled List and seen that there is a proviso in subsection (2C)(b) that the Prime Minister and the City would not have to appoint—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: May.
Lord Belstead: May appoint—I am so sorry. The proposed subsection states:
"The Prime Minister may appoint as an additional Ministerial appointee, and the Corporation of the City of London may appoint as an additional City appointee, a person not suggested by the Council of a London borough if"—
and this is the proviso—
"insufficient suggestions have been made"—
and—
"such suggestions as have been made are not considered suitable persons to be members of the board in the opinion of the Prime Minister or the Corporation of the City of London, as the case may be".
I know that these amendments are intended to be helpful and they are indeed on a serious point. But, my goodness—the noble Baroness will forgive me for what I say here—that is really a recipe, and would be legislating, for major confrontations. This is a Bill that neither in another place nor in your Lordships' House has led to anything of that kind. We are simply trying to make the best arrangements possible for this splendid museum following the abolition of the GLC. If, in addition to having the extraordinary provision in these amendments, each council of a London borough were able to make individual recommendations, with the Prime Minister and the City having to sort out these 32 recommendations, and then, in addition, we were to have subsection (2C)(b), the amendments would be less than helpful.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I do not disagree very much with what the Government are trying to do, but I find the arguments extraordinarily slim. There are, am I right in saying, 32 boroughs?
Baroness Birk: Yes, 32.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: There are 32 boroughs each having a chance to put up a name. No one has to ask them for one. The idea of civil servants and clerks having a rough time getting through the work is a fantastic suggestion made by the noble Lord.

19
It is not treating us seriously. It will be a matter of half a dozen letters from half a dozen boroughs—at the most 30—from which they will make a choice. Anyone here who has been Minister for the Arts, as most of us seem to have been, knows very well that when you have a list of 30 it comes down to three almost at once. Then it is a question of deciding who are the best people. The arguments that we have heard are unworthy both of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who, although the best debater in the House, is not always right, and of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. Having said that, if the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, is prepared to ask the noble Lord to look at this matter and to give us time to consider whether we may care to propose something less rigid at Report stage, I shall be happy to see her withdraw the amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I have long been interested in this museum and, indeed, in its two predecessors. However, as I could not be here on Second Reading, I feel that I should apologise to your Lordships for intervening now in Committee. This sort of suggestion was made and debated frequently on what is now the National Heritage Act. Having spent the whole of that Session contentedly under the thumb of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, I am well conditioned to agreeing with what she says. But, having listened to the debate, it seems to me that, for the reason given by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, the amendment, as it stands, is obviously wrong. It seems to me also, for the reason given by the noble Lord the Minister, that it is unnecessary.
If there is any doubt about its necessity, I suggest that on principle your Lordships should hesitate very long before adding to a piece of legislation. We have masses of legislation every Session. We always try to stop every possible mousehole, and as a result it has become entirely unwieldy and out of hand.
For those reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press the amendment.
Lord Howie of Troon: I accept the general argument about too much legislation. I have felt this for a very long time. It is all very interesting, but most of it is unnecessary. Even among the necessary parts a good deal of it does not work terribly well. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, looks at me with understanding, because he knows about these things very well. However, legislation appears before us and we have to deal with it and try to make it work as best we can, whether or not it is necessary in the ultimate.
I was impressed by the reply of the noble Lord the Minister to the points I made. I think that his remarks were sound as far as they went, but I am not sure that they went the whole way. He was suggesting to us that there were practical difficulties in dealing with the appointment from 32 boroughs. I know his argument went beyond that, but the noble Lord the Minister put it in this way. It will be within his recollection that the Government deal in your Lordships' House with the appointment of 24 Bishops. The appointment of 24 Bishops is not quite as startling as the appointment from 32 boroughs—I am quite well aware of that; this is almost half as many again. However, the Government seem able to deal with that. If they can
20
deal with two dozen Bishops I think they could deal with three dozen London boroughs, or rather less, if, as the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, said, three dozen boroughs made representations or nominations, because it is unlikely that they all would.
It seems to me that the practical difficulties are not great against the philosophical problem that the Museum of London deals with London as a whole. All the Minister has to do, I think, is to give us some kind of assurance that he will propose some means of dealing with London as a whole rather better than it is dealt with by the Bill as it stands at the moment, and the Committee will be satisfied. I leave it at that.
Baroness Birk: I am grateful to everyone who has taken part in this debate, and particularly my noble friend Lord Jenkins and the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has made the point first, that we have two past Arts Ministers speaking on this subject. They have tremendous experience of museums.
This is not in any way a political ploy. I am personally not concerned with the argument about "one of us" or "one of them". I am concerned that the people of London should feel, and that it should be seen on the face of the Bill, that some of the nominations—even if not all of them—have come from the London boroughs.
The trouble with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, is that every time he gets up to speak he says nice things and I think he is going to be on my side. But I find that the noble and learned Lord gets from under my thumb far too easily and far too often.
It was quite a pleasure, since I changed portfolios slightly and did not think that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and I would have any cut and thrust across the Chamber again, to have in fact done so. I think that the noble Lord is wrong on this occasion, although he may be partly right.
3.45 p.m.
I agree with the Minister when he says that this is cumbersome. It has been very difficult to work out whether it was possible to get those two parts closer together. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, genuinely did not realise that subsection (2A) in Amendment No. 11 was connected with subsection (2C). This makes all the difference, because if I understood the noble Lord—and he is always very clear in his expositions—he was certainly of the opinion that it had to be governors nominated by the boroughs.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Would the noble Baroness allow me to intervene. I am perfectly aware of subsection (2C). If the noble Baroness looks at it, I think she will be quite clear it would be unworkable to have a proposition that it is up to the Prime Minister or the City of London to say publicly that someone is unsuitable and then presumably find themselves—subject to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said—subject to judicial review as to whether they have acted properly. That means that those provisions are so ineffective as to be suitable to be ignored.
Baroness Birk: If I may say so with great respect, this is absolute nonsense. Nominations for all sorts of bodies are sent in. They are not publicised. A decision is then taken. All this says is that the boroughs should have the opportunity to nominate. As the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, quite rightly said, they will not all send in names. It may gradually get down to very few, if any; so there is no question of any public fuss being made about it. That has been covered by saying that it would have to be a person who was suitable at that time for the board of the museum, which may need someone who has a special interest or qualification in a particular subject.
The Minister seemed to me to lean very much on Clause 2. He said that this covered it all when he was referring to the general functions of the board "generally to promote understanding and appreciation" of London. Yes, that covers the functions of the board, but it does not cover the composition of the board. The amendment which I am moving is concerned with the composition of the board. If the chairman of the board gives an amendment in this form his blessing, there is a feeling that something rather more specific should be in the Bill which covers outer London. One has to turn to Clause 4(3) to see:
"In this section 'London' includes all Greater London and the surrounding region".
This is all quite irrelevant when we are talking about the composition of a board, where the nominations are put in and where people who read the Act of Parliament will feel that this is concerned with outer London. As the Minister and all noble Lords are aware, what is in Hansard may be quite interesting and shows the views expressed, but those views have no legal significance unless they are in the Act itself.
I should like to withdraw this amendment now. I think the point is important enough, and I feel very encouraged by all the noble Lords who have spoken, including, as I think I mentioned, my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon. I repeat that I am also struck by the emphasis given to this by two ex-Ministers for the Arts. I think that this could be drafted in a less cumbersome way. In the meantime, I think that the Minister should also look again at what I have said and at what he has said because, quite frankly, he was not discussing the composition of the board at all; he was discussing the functions of the board. Even if the composition is carried out in this way and even if the wording is made less clumsy, it would still not be an insuperable task to ask people to send in nominations. Those nominations are sifted in any event. It would be very odd if either everyone who wants to be on a body was on it, or that a national crisis arose every time appointments were made. We know that that is not true; it is a lot of nonsense.
In the circumstances, I should like to withdraw the amendment, look at it again and ask the Minister to reconsider the matter. I see that he is smiling very amiably, but I hope he does not think that he has seen the end of this matter because I shall return to it on Report. I say quite seriously that the Minister should also look at this aspect again. He may find it useful to have a few words with the chairman of the board of the museum, who feels quite strongly on this subject himself. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 2 to 11 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Functions of Board of Governors]:
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I am grateful to noble Lords for permitting me to say a few words on the Question whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill. It was my intention to table an amendment to the Bill. This arose from a discussion which took place on Second Reading, when the noble Lord and I had a little chat about the question of museum charges—not, I hasten to say, the question in general (that is a matter which those noble Lords who are in a position to stay late on Wednesday may have an opportunity to discuss) but in relation to this particular museum.
I did not put down an amendment because there was some doubt as to which clause I should be seeking to amend in order to achieve this. It may be that I shall try and solve that problem between now and the next stage of the Bill. I believe that that will depend upon what the Minister has to say. When we discussed the matter on Second Reading quite clearly there was a misunderstanding between the noble Lord and myself. I drew attention to what the Minister for the Arts had said in another place when he announced a change in the method of financing museums and galleries. That announcement applied only to the nine national institutions and did not specifically apply to this museum, although I think that many of us would agree that this is not only a museum of London, but also a museum of national significance.
On 10th February in another place the Minister said that there should be two main changes in museum or gallery funding in respect of the nine national institutions. He said:
"i forecast receipts should no longer be specifically netted off against total Estimate requirements to provide a net grant; and
ii there should be a reasonable facility to carry over unspent moneys at the end of the financial year."—[Official Report, Commons, 10/2/86; col. 380.]
I do not propose to discuss the second point but just the first one. On the face of it, this must be a welcome change. Everyone must agree with that. The Minister was quite unable to understand the doubts that I expressed about it in relation to this particular museum. It is for that purpose that I seek to clarify the point this afternoon. I said that this question might be related to the matter of charging, and the noble Lord was quite unable to understand that. He could not grasp how a movement, evidently so desirable, could in any way be seen to be related to the question whether charges should or should not be made for entry.
However, I was not alone in that view because I see that on the following day, after the Minister had made his announcement, The Times had a report on it which was headed "Backing for museum charges". The Times saw it as precisely a means whereby the Government were clearing the way to enable these nine institutions to charge for entry in the future. The report in The Times stated:
"Financial incentives have been announced to encourage national museums and galleries to charge entry fees".
Of course it is possible to see it that way. If it is the case that what the museum raises on its own account is no

23
longer to be set off against the Government grant, greater incentive would be placed upon the museum to extend, to magnify and to increase what it can raise from other sources. In general terms I should like to make it clear that I have no objection whatever to that. It seems to me to be excellent that, in general terms, a museum should be required, encouraged and helped to raise its own funds.
However, what many of us are wholly against, and have been against ever since the idea of national museums was instituted—and this is not a question only for those of us on this side of the Committee; it is one for Members on the other side of the Committee—is the proposition that people should be charged admission to national collections. This is something which many of us are wholly, absolutely and totally against. It is a very bad un-Victorian principle, because when such museums were first instituted the old Victorian custom at the time was that people were to be admitted free. Therefore, if we are returning to Victorian principles, it would mean free entry. It is only quite recently that the whole idea of charging for entry to national institutions has been established. That is a matter for next Wednesday's debate, but the question here is: is this such a national institution; is this Bill to be a step by which this Museum of London is to be encouraged for the first time to charge for entry?
Ever since it was founded—and I believe that the same applied to the predecessor museums from which it sprang—there has never been a charge for entry. It would be very poor and a great pity if, in carrying this Bill, we were to give consent to the notion that we had agreed to the institution of charges for entry to this museum.
It is for that reason that I raise the matter on the clause stand part debate. It may be that in reply in a moment the Minister will be able to give such an assurance that it will not be necessary to consider the question of an amendment at the Report stage of the Bill.
4 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, will forgive me if I do not follow him, for I have a technical point to raise. The only comment I would make on his speech is that he declared that he had been against charging for entry to national museums ever since they were instituted. I found great difficulty in reconciling that with his appearance. He looks much too vigorous and much too young for any such thing.
I want to raise a point on the form of Clause 2, and more particularly on the repercussions of the form of Clause 2. It is legislation by reference. In the old days this would have been a Bill to consolidate and amend. We all know why we do not have that now, and that is because it does not suit business managers, and I do not suppose that there will be any going back on that. But the noble Lord, Lord Graham, will remember that this problem arose in a far more acute form on the Housing and Building Control Bill. I say "far more acute" because there was amendment by reference quite incomprehensible to the people who were affected; namely, council tenants.
24
Obviously this instance has not got that social importance, but I wanted to be reassured by the Minister if possible that what should now be routine has been done: namely, that when there is this sort of legislation by reference, at the final stage of the drafting of the Bill there should be an approach to the editor of the Statutes in Force to have the principal Act—in this case the 1965 Act—reprinted as amended by the proposed Bill. I hope that has been done. If not, I hope that the noble Lord will say that it will be done with all dispatch.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: While I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, was giving us a sort of preview of his speech on his Bill next Wednesday, I cannot see anywhere in Clause 2 anything which even alerts one to thinking in terms of whether the statute is giving anybody permission to charge. I see no reference to it, or any possibility of it having anything to do with the clause to which the noble Lord was speaking.
I suppose that again in anticipation of next Wednesday's Bill the noble Lord spoke about the governors eventually deciding—and that is quite different from it being written into the statute—that it was in the interests of the museum and the general future for some sort of charging to be done (and I do not think one ought to object to that), but to suggest that it is part of the statute that a charge would be made would be giving a wrong impression of this particular clause. It is for that reason that I thought that the record should note that the noble Lord was really giving us a preview as to what he is going to say next Wednesday, and that it has nothing whatever to do with Clause 2 of this Bill.
Lord Belstead: The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, chided me with being unable to follow the logic of his argument on the Second Reading of this Bill. I must confess that I join with my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls in being a little unable to follow the logic of Lord Jenkins's argument now that we are in Committee.
As I understand the argument put to me by the noble Lord opposite, it is that my right honourable friend the Minister for the Arts' announcement that receipts need not be netted off against grant at the nine main museums and galleries, and that indeed their grants can be carried over from one year to another, is good. But, on the other hand, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, put to your Lordships that that can lead to encouraging charges, so that is bad. Then the noble Lord turned round and said, "But, on the other hand, I am interested in seeing whether the Museum of London would be allowed to join in with that particular system". I think I may be forgiven for being a little perplexed as to what exactly it was that the noble Lord was saying to us.
There are two things that I should like to say in reply to the noble Lord. The first is brief and the second just a little longer. First, I was amused that the noble Lord said to the Committee that there is a strong argument that this is indeed not just a local museum but a museum of London and a museum of national significance, turning neatly on its head the whole of the argument which has been put to me by noble Lords on

25
the other side of the Committee on Amendments 1 to 11.
Secondly, my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls is right. Clause 2, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, has nothing to do with the argument which the noble Lord attempted to put forward. I do not think that this Bill has. If the trustees of the Museum of London, along with other museums, wish to institute charges, then they are free to do so. The Government have no wish in any way to interfere with trustees' discretion if this is something that they wish to do. It is therefore something that is not dealt with, and quite properly not dealt with, in this piece of legislation.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I have become increasingly worried about the Minister's arguments today. He suggests that an institution which is concerned with something local cannot be national. It is an odd thing to say. What about Stonehenge? What about the Tower of London? What about hundreds of other things? We have to have a better argument than that, though it is not really relevant to what we are talking about. However, as the noble Lord used the argument, I thought that it should be shown to be empty.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Would the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, be good enough to deal with the point that I raised?
Lord Belstead: I apologise to the noble and learned Lord. He put forward a point with which I am familiar because I remember that he put forward a similar point when we were legislating one part of the Transport Bill in the last year by reference. I shall most certainly draw to the attention of the editor of the Statutes in Force what the noble and learned Lord has said about the great desirability of having amendments to the principal Act altered as quickly as it is possible to do so.
If the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, will forgive me for saying so, the argument I was putting to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, was not my own argument. My argument on Amendments Nos. 1 to 11 is that this is an enormously important museum. Into the Bill is written the fact that the responsibilities of the governors are London-wide, and I went no further than that. But noble Lords opposite have been putting to me continuously and incessantly that because the responsibilities are London-wide there can be no possibility of any appointments coming from outside Greater London. It was that argument which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, neatly turned on its head.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I think that my noble friend wishes to add another point, but perhaps it would be appropriate for me to conclude my own point here. I am sorry that I have been unable to clarify the noble Lord's mind on this issue. Since I do not wish to employ the methods advocated by Dr. Johnson in difficult cases, I think I shall have to move an amendment on Report. That more specific method will enable us to see the point even clearer, although such an amendment might well be attached to a different clause from the one we have been discussing. I take that point.
26
I was not satisfied that this particular clause was the one on which this matter is best discussed. To that extent, and to that extent only, the noble Lord has satisfied me, but as he has satisfied me in no other respect I think we shall have to return to the matter at a later stage.
Lord Strabolgi: Before we leave Clause 2 I wonder whether I could ask for clarification about the subsection which begins at line 14 on Page 3 of the Bill? It says:
"The Board may allow any premises occupied or managed by them to be used by other persons (for payment or otherwise) for purposes not connected with the Board's functions under this Act if the Board are satisfied that to do so would not conflict with those functions".
I imagine that this is to do with sponsored exhibitions where the sponsor may wish to give a party. That is a perfectly sensible thing to allow. But I wonder whether the intention is to give the board freedom to let out the museum for other functions which have nothing to do with an exhibition which may be taking place there.
The other day I read an article in a journal about a small company which arranges parties in different places. It mentioned a whole variety of places, such as country houses, and it also said that it could arrange parties in the Cabinet War Room. I was rather shocked by that. I hope that the Ministry responsible for administering the Cabinet War Room will not allow it to be used for cocktail parties. That seems to me to be quite improper. I only mention it in passing because I hope that the Government are not so cost conscious that they will be letting out our museums for all kinds of other functions which have nothing at all to do with the purpose for which they are set out. Perhaps the noble Lord will be able to clarify this.
Lord Belstead: In answer to the point which the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has made, the idea is simply to give the board of governors the option to allow museum premises to be used for functions and events which are outside the scope of the board's main objectives as defined elsewhere in the Bill. But the key phrase is that the board are required to be satisfied that any such activities would not conflict with those functions. The provision allows the board to raise money for the museum by charging for such hiring of its premises. I hope that the noble Lord may agree that with this proviso, which is an important one about not conflicting with the functions of the board, this is a desirable provision.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Funding of Greater London archaeological service]:
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 4, line 10, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (2A) below").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 12, I shall be speaking both to Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 as they are connected. These amendments deal with the status and position of the Passmore-Edwards Museum about which a certain amount was said on Second Reading. It is part of the history of the

27
development of the Greater London archaeology service that rescue archaeology for the boroughs of Barking and Dagenham, Havering, Newham, Redbridge and Waltham Forest devolved separately from rescue archaeology in the rest of the London boroughs. It was administered independently of any other museum funded by the Greater London Council. Once again this present situation has arisen as a result of the abolition of the GLC.
The Bill does not make specific provision for the current arrangement to continue, and it seems odd that a Bill which seeks to provide a workable alternative to the arrangements which existed when the GLC was one of the funding bodies, should cast some uncertainty now on the funding of a service which has worked so well in the past. It is true that Clause 2 of the Bill provides for the Museum of London's board to promote the provision of archaeological services as well as providing them directly. Clause 4(1) gives English Heritage the power to make grants for the Museum of London's board to promote such services. However as we tried to bring out on Second Reading, unlike the Kent Archaeology Rescue Unit—which has always provided its services for south-east London merely as an agency for the Museum of London—the Passmore-Edwards Museum rescue archaeology service has developed in equal status to the corresponding unit in the Museum of London. As it stands, the Bill gives the Board of the Museum of London powers over the Passmore-Edwards Museum governors which have never existed before because they have been two separate entities. While the GLC existed this problem did not arise.
4.15 p.m.
The Passmore-Edwards Museum has been operating since 1899 and the governors derive their powers from arrangements under the old county of Essex before the Greater London Council came into being. This is the reason for the Passmore-Edwards rescue archaeology boundaries covering the boroughs which they do.
In the debate that took place on Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, who is the chairman of the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, said that the Passmore-Edwards Museum had the right to negotiate directly with the commission if it was unhappy about the arrangements made. He then went on to say:
"though if the Government are prepared to accept an amendment to hand funds direct to the Passmore—Edwards Museum we should be delighted to carry that out"—[Official Report, 20/2/86; col. 800.]
The amendments cover that point.
I cannot believe that this was the intention in the Bill to put the governors in the difficult position of having to go to the board of the Museum of London (which has not been established for nearly as long as the Passmore-Edwards Museum) for funds for their own rescue archaeology service when they have had equal and separate status since the service was set up. The Minister must agree that when one is setting up something new or is having to follow a body such as the GLC which is being abolished, it is important that from the word "go" there should be as much goodwill, as little confrontation and as few difficulties between
28
the constituent parts that have to carry out these functions as is possible. I should have thought that was agreed by everyone everywhere.
The amendment ensures a level of funding for the Passmore-Edwards Museum rescue archaeology services so that the good working partnership with the Museum of London which has prevailed in this area up to now, based on equal status (although the amounts of finance involved are different) can continue. Then the governors of the Passmore-Edwards Museum can concentrate on continuing to run their affairs in the best way possible without having to worry whether the Museum of London board will pass on an adequate proportion of its funds in the future. Whether or not the Museum of London board will do so is not relevant. The point is that we must cover every possible contingency. One can do it simply in legislation, because although we do not want to have more legislation than is necessary—I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, will remind us of that—nevertheless I am sure he would be the first to agree that anything which clarifies must be an improvement.
I am also aware that discussions have taken place about the relevance to the Bill of this amendment. I accept that if the amendment is taken on board by the Government the Long Title would have to be altered. This has happened many times before and I do not think it is a great difficulty. But the main purpose of the clause is to provide for the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission to have the power to grant-aid the Museum of London for various archaeological purposes. A secondary provision of the Bill under Clause 4(2) allows the HBMC to make conditions for the giving of grants. All that Amendment No. 13 does is to specify that certain conditions shall obtain. In fact, it spells out what is implicit and makes it explicit. The amendment thus gives statutory direction about how the power to fund shall be exercised. I submit that it cannot be irrelevant since all that it is concerned with is to put the power on the face of the Bill.
This can be most clearly seen if we recognise that the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission could as a matter of discretion make grants under the conditions specified. This is set out in Clause 4(2):
"A grant under this section may be made subject to such conditions as the Commission think fit".
All this amendment does is to spell out one of the conditions for which there is an extraordinarily strong case.
If this were not so, if this subsection were not in the Bill, then I think that the question of relevance would probably carry more weight. But as it is in the Bill, as the general feeling expressed by those who spoke on Second Reading was certainly sympathetic to this line, and as I know from a certain amount of material on this that I have seen since Second Reading that there is very strong feeling about this in the archaeological world, the amendment does not seem to me to warrant opposing argument. The amendment has been worded in this particular way because originally I had thought that its aim could be achieved merely by the insertion after "grants to the Board of Governors of the Museum of London", in Clause 4(1), of the words "and the Passmore-Edwards Museum"; but I recognised that that would not meet the case. Because

29
of subsection (2) of Clause 4, I believe that the aim can be achieved by spelling out the value of the grants, saying that they be allocated directly to the Passmore-Edwards Museum for the purposes of subsection (1), and by spelling out the boroughs that they cover.
At this point I should say that there is probably a mistake in the amendment. After "Barking" should be added, "and Dagenham". However, this is a small error which can be righted.
There is a very strong case in substance. The question of relevance appeared to be a fairly marginal one, as I understand it from discussions with the Clerk of Parliaments. I believe, because of the way the clause is drafted and the discretion it gives to the Commission under Clause 4(2), that this can quite easily be accepted, possibly with an alteration to the Long Title—although that might not be needed in view of the wide discretion given in Clause 4(2). In any event, that is not a very great problem in itself. I beg to move.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: It might be helpful if I clarify the comments that I made on 10th February at Second Reading on the question of the Commission's funding of the Passmore-Edwards Museum. It is our firm and declared intention to discuss directly with the Passmore-Edwards Museum its funding requirements and to ensure that the agreed sum is passed on in total by the Museum of London, who totally understand the situation.
In retrospect, ideally it might have made better sense to achieve funding for the Passmore-Edwards Museum by more direct means than are proposed in the Bill. It was in that sense that I previously indicated that we would not be averse to an amendment that achieved that end. However, I should like to say that I am perfectly satisfied that the Bill as it stands gives us all the powers we need to negotiate direct and to continue to fund the Passmore-Edwards Museum, and therefore the Bill has the Commission's full support.
I believe that to specify a percentage would create enormous difficulties for the commission and also be detrimental to both museums. We have to negotiate a lump sum which has to be divided fairly according to need. If the Passmore-Edwards Museum wanted more than 25 per cent. in one year because it might need it, that would mean that we would have to raise the total sum for the Museum of London, which itself would not have funds to do that. It certainly would not be a good way of spending taxpayers' money. Similarly if one year the Museum of London because of its situation needed less, it would mean that the Passmore-Edwards Museum would be getting less. So I believe that to ringfence the percentage would be extremely dangerous. Otherwise I can assure the Committee that the Passmore-Edwards Museum would have all the powers to negotiate directly and we would see that the fund goes directly to them.
Lord Belstead: I am surprised that the noble Baroness is concerned about the Passmore-Edwards position as a result of the passing of this Bill, because for the first time the Bill will provide for a single, co-ordinated, London-wide archaeological service with one focal point. That is something which has not been put into statute until now. But, in addition to that, the Museum of London will continue to work in conjunction with the Passmore-Edwards Museum and
30
other organisations involved in archaeology in London and there is no reason why the Passmore-Edwards Museum should feel vulnerable. Assurance has been given, I understand, by the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission in that an invitation has been issued to the chairmen of the respective boards of governors to serve on one of the commission's statutory committees, and I am delighted to say that both of the chairmen have accepted. That will mean a very close link between the Passmore-Edwards Museum and the HBMC.
Having said that, I am glad that the noble Baroness has moved these amendments because it gives me the opportunity to say that the Government recognise that the Passmore-Edwards Museum makes a substantial and important contribution to the provision of archaeological services in the capital, and I hope that it will long continue. But the fact remains that the Passmore-Edwards Museum is one among a number of contributors with whom the HBMC will need to agree a programme of activities. This programme will then form the basis of its deployment of resources. The Government expect—and after hearing the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, speak, I am sure that the noble Baroness will join me in this—that the HBMC will be using its available resources in close consultation with those with whom it is dealing, including the Passmore-Edwards Museum.
I should like to go a stage further than that. The Passmore-Edwards Museum will not be required under the terms of this Bill to go through the Museum of London. So far as this Bill is concerned, they can go direct to the HBMC, who will then decide the funds to go to the Passmore-Edwards Museum according, as I have said, to a programme agreed with them.
If I may repeat two considerable difficulties which I think these amendments raise, first of all, by these amendments the Passmore-Edwards Museum will be given resources regardless of work done; secondly, that would mean that the museum would never get more than its statutory percentage unless a new Bill was passed. I do not think that that would put the Passmore-Edwards Museum into a particularly favourable position.
This Bill secures the continuation of an archaeology service in London. The Government gave a commitment about this and this Bill honours that commitment. Assurances as to how the Bill will be given practical effect have been made previously and I am making them again now in answer to the amendment. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel that this amendment has been useful in putting firmly on the record the importance of the Passmore-Edwards Museum, but, apart from the fact that I think the amendment almost certainly goes outside the scope of the Bill, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel that the amendments are not necessary.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Birk: I am not really happy. I do not accept that the amendment is unnecessary for several reasons. I should like to go back and look at the 25 per cent. again. It flows from the amount spent by the Museum of London on the Passmore-Edwards Museum. It is broken down as 75 per cent. to 25 per cent. That is why we have taken the figure of 25 per cent.

31
The noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, gave an undertaking, as he did on Second Reading, but I have to say that that applies to every independent body or quango. The personnel change. He is chairman at the moment and he is sympathetic to that line. He has appointed the chairmen of both museums' committees, but that will not go on in perpetuum. It is not merely a matter of faith. It is what the commission is doing at the moment, but it does not mean to say that that will always be the position if nothing is written down. It is not just I who am concerned. The Passmore-Edwards Museum, the British Association of Rescue Archaeology and a number of independent academic archaeologists are also concerned about this matter.
The Minister referred to a number of contributors, but there are not a number of contributors. We are talking about the Museum of London Bill. We are not talking about the whole country or anything like that. The only other service that is included, as I understand it, is the Kent service, which acts as an agency for the commission and which is in a different category. The Passmore-Edwards Museum is the only museum in the archaeological field, apart from the Museum of London, which is affected by the Bill.
I am not really happy about the matter. I return to the point that the grant made under the clause may be "subject to such conditions". A wide power is given to the commission. While one obviously appreciates the expressions of goodwill, it would seem to me to be far more satisfactory to have the undertaking written into the Bill. I should like to take the amendment back and reconsider the 25 per cent. grant to see whether there is another way the clause can be drafted without referring to a specific figure. That will need some consideration and, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
Clause 4 [Funding of Greater London archaeological service]:
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Birk: There is a point that I wish to raise with regard to Clause 4 standing part of the Bill. One part of Clause 4, as we have discussed, deals with the finances given to the Museum of London for archaeology. We have mentioned the Passmore-Edwards Museum. I have an anxiety about which I should like an assurance from the Minister. If he cannot give it to me now, perhaps he will write to me about the matter before Report stage. I say that because the point comes into the area where the Minister responsible is in the Department of the Environment and the Minister responsible for the arts in this House is answering now.
As the Minister may be aware, I asked a question on Wednesday of last week about whether Her Majesty's Government were satisfied with the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission's management of public funds. The Minister, Lord Elton, said that some early signs of weakness in financial control had been detected. He was waiting to receive a report on that
32
and would then decide what further action needed to be taken. In answer to further questions from me, it emerged that financial control is not all that it should be at the moment at the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission.
A point that I did not bring up, because it was a Starred Question, was that it had been alleged in a newspaper report that the financial difficulties meant that some archaeological projects would be cut, some would not start in the spring of this year and some staff would be made redundant. For that reason, I feel that I must raise the point and ask for some assurances because it all hinges in the end not just on whether the Passmore-Edwards Museum or the Museum of London receive their percentages but on whether the commission will be in a position to finance the archaeological work.
That point only arise in my mind at lunchtime today. I am conscious that the Minister has not had notice of the point. I am also conscious that the matter comes within another department. That shows the problem of dividing the arts from the heritage. It is a point that should be studied since it is important for the Government to consider the matter so that we can be satisfied that the work will be carried on. That is why I said that I did not know whether the Minister could give me the assurances today. I should rather have firm assurances and know what will happen rather than have an off the cuff reply on a matter of some gravity.
Lord Belstead: I have one or two things I wish to say to the noble Baroness, to whom I shall of course write before the next stage of the Bill. At the conclusion of my reply on Second Reading, I made a specific reference to the Government not wishing to see any diminution in the archaeological work which is going on in Greater London. Both the noble Baroness and I should, perhaps, look up that reference, but I was quite specific in what I said.
The other matter which I think is of some importance, if the noble Baroness will forgive me saying so, is that she has been talking a little today as if previously there had been some absolutely cast iron undertaking that money would flow from the GLC to archaeological work in Greater London. Nothing was ever written into statute about that. I repeat, if I may, what I said before: that the Bill represents a considerable step forward in archaeological work in London because, for the first time, on the face of a Bill—it has never been done before—it is provided that archaeological work in London shall be funded by the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission.
Having said that, I realise that I have not answered the specific points which the noble Baroness put to me. If the noble Baroness will allow me to do so, I shall write to her before the next stage of the Bill.
Baroness Birk: I thank the Minister very much for that reply. I am aware that the commission will get something like an extra £7·75 million for the next financial year to take care of post-abolition activities.
I repeat that I do not expect the Minister to be able to answer my point today but it did not relate to the Government giving more money for archaeology, it was directed to the financial problems, as I understand

33
them to be, of the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission. How happy are the Government that they have sufficient financial control to cope? That is the point. It is not the point of the Government giving more money to archaeology. It is because, according to this Bill, the money will be generated through the commission that I felt that in the circumstances—I am not happy about doing so—I had to raise the question, of which, rather late, I gave the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, notice, because he is chairman of the commission.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: It is the last words of the noble Baroness that disturb me. I do not see what those comments have to do with Clause 4. If there is anything in her comments that is based upon newspaper reports and general allegations, which, as I understand it, have no foundation, I should have thought it was rather premature on discussion of this clause to make that suggestion from the Dispatch Box. Even if there is nothing in the newspaper reports and general allegations, the noble Baroness must know that, even in the roundabout way she refers to them, to do so from the Dispatch Box gives credence to something that may not be true, which is not very good. So as this has nothing to do with the clause, does she not think that her comments are a little premature? There will be plenty of other opportunities as this Bill goes through its stages, and if as the weeks go by we find that there is something in it then comment can be made. But it is a little early to use the Dispatch Box for that.
Baroness Birk: I am sorry, but with great respect I simply must reply, because I think that the noble Lord is wrong to make a comment like that. I was not referring to newspaper reports on my basic point. I was referring to the Answer given by the Minister from the Department of the Environment to my Question last Wednesday, when he said:
"I am satisfied that an effective framework exists within which the commission manages public funds and that these procedures will, and apparently have, detected some early signs of weakness in financial control. I am of course concerned about such weaknesses. The commission have been asked for a full report on their financial procedures. An interim report by the commission's chief executive to the Permanent Secretary of my department will, I understand, arrive later today. They will discuss what further action needs to be taken."—[Official Report, 26/2/86; col. 1046.]
It seems to me that it is quite in order.
I shall not go on with the other questions and answers which certainly did not deny my original Question. There was no question of the Minister saying that there is nothing at all in this. In fact, he took it very seriously and I will shortly be asking for a statement on the report of the inquiry and what action he proposes to take. The reason why that is relevant to this Bill is that the grants for archaeology for the Museum of London and the Passmore-Edwards Museum—whether they are or are not separated in the Bill—go through the commission. The commission also has a very wide discretion regarding conditions that it may think fit to impose on these funds. It is not my doing that this matter has arisen at this time, but since it has done so it would be negligent not to raise
34
it from these Benches and to ask for assurances on it. I consider that what I am doing is absolutely proper.
Clause 4 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved manuscript Amendment No. 14A:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
("Reports
. Not later than 31st March 1989 and subsequently at intervals not exceeding three years the Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament a report on the exercise of the functions of the Board of Governors of the Museum of London since the commencement of this Act or, in the case of the second and subsequent reports, since the end of the period to which the previous report related.").
The noble Lord said: I must first apologise to your Lordships for the fact that, following the tabling of Amendment No. 14, I today tabled manuscript Amendment No. 14A, which was necessary because there was a defect in the wording of Amendment No. 14. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me for having come so late to the Committee with manuscript Amendment No. 14A and may I express the hope that your Lordships will feel that it is an improvement?
The moving of this amendment fulfils a commitment given by my right honourable friend the Minister for the Arts in another place, and the object of this new clause is to ensure by a statutory obligation that regular reports on the museum's activities are produced and laid before Parliament. It is, of course, already the practice of the Museum of London to produce annual reports, which are readily available, and I have no doubt that the museum will continue to produce these reports without any statutory obligations being introduced. However, persuasive arguments were put forward in the earlier stages of the passage of this Bill, that because of the important principle of accountability involved there was a case for enshrining the reporting commitment into a statutory obligation and that is why I am moving this amendment.
As it was originally printed in Amendment No. 14, the amendment would have provided for reports to be produced every three years. This would have been very inflexible and the new manuscript amendment produces a new clause which will provide for reports to be produced not less frequently than every three years. I would emphasise that there is no intention to change the present practice of producing annual reports. The museum, I am sure, will continue to do so. However, as my right honourable friend made clear in another place, the Government take the view that it would be an overtight imposition to require the museum by law to produce reports every year. If your Lordships express some surprise at that, may I just say that the wording before your Lordships in the manuscript amendment would follow the precedent for statutory reporting obligations on other major museums? I am thinking in particular of the provisions in the National Heritage Act 1983 in respect of the Victoria and Albert Museum and the Science Museum and the equivalent provision which is in the British Museum Act 1963. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: I am very grateful to the Minister for moving this clause. It is a very useful one, which, as I understand it, arose out of something that was originally put forward by my honourable friend Mr. Norman Buchan in another place and accepted gladly by the Minister for the Arts. So I think that the amendment makes an improvement to the Bill and we are happy to accept it.
Lord Belstead: The noble Baroness is absolutely right. Perhaps we may finish this Committee stage by registering from both sides of the Committee that this manuscript amendment—and, again, I apologise for its lateness—is the product of co-operation by the political parties on this Bill in this respect.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Remaining clauses and schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with an amendment.

Television Without Frontiers: ECC Report
4.50 p.m.
Viscount Torrington Viscount Torrington rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on Television without Frontiers (4th Report, 1985–86, H.L. 43).
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I often think that the word "revolution" is much misused today. To me, it implies going round in a circle and ending up in much the same position as you started. When applied to political events in certain African and South American countries it may be apt—"The dictator is dead: long live the dictator!"—but when it comes to technology Mao Tse Tung perhaps had a better phrase when he talked about "a great leap forward".
Advances in electronics have begun to bring about great leaps forward in many aspects of our lives. Our cars, our refrigerators, our washing machines, our central heating controls, our telephones and even a Christmas card I received last year all seem to contain micro-processors. But perhaps the most visible great leap forward has been in the field of information and office technology, where the typewriter has been replaced by the word processor and computer and that ubiquitous cousin of the humble television set, the visual display unit.
Somewhere in all this, however, the television set seems to have been left behind. Yes, the advent of colour was indeed a step forward; and, yes, every few years we have been given another channel so that today in Britain we enjoy a choice of four television channels; and, yes, some clever chaps did come up with a system to use a few spare picture lines at the top of the picture to create and transmit hundreds of pages of teletext and graphics which are intelligible only to those of us who have the money to buy a suitably adapted set and the patience to operate it. And, of course, the video tape recorder has liberated the keen telly-watcher from the minor irritation of programmers' scheduling.
But compared with the astonishing developments in electronics generally, especially computers, today's television sets seem almost archaic. Television's early
36
days were full of promise. John Logie Baird was experimenting with colour and stereoscopic television as long ago as 1928, and he and his rivals were aware of the possibilities of line systems giving far greater definition than the 405 lines which was eventually adopted and the 625 lines which we have today. Yet since the BBC started its first regular service nearly 50 years ago, on 2nd November 1936, this system has grown only slowly.
Television ceased altogether during the war, from 1939 to 1946, and to celebrate the re-launch, the last programme broadcast before the war was repeated after it. It was a Mickey Mouse cartoon, which, when you think about it, was something of an aberration. Television was a very serious matter in the 1950s. The chaps who read the news usually wore dinner jackets. It was nine years before the country got the benefit of another, alternative and, indeed, competitive television channel, when ITV started in 1955, and yet another nine years before BBC2 started in 1964. A much longer period—18 years—was to elapse before Channel 4 came on the air. The fourth channel had in fact been available to the Home Office for nearly 20 years, but it had lain unused.
Ironically, 1982 was also the year when a small British company started Europe's first satellite television company. SATV, now known as Sky Channel, broke all the rules of the television game. Its originator, Brian Haynes, sidestepped Home Office regulations by going directly to British Telecom. Instead of asking for a Home Office broadcasting licence, which would have been refused, Mr. Haynes merely negotiated a contract with British Telecom whereby he paid them some money for the use of spare capacity on a telecommunications satellite. Since British Telecom has no responsibility for broadcasting and far less for public service broadcasting, the question of regulation, codes of conduct and programme content never arose.
The spirit of SATV/Sky Channel continues to thrive. At present, London is in fact the centre for Europe's new and burgeoning satellite television industry. There are benefits in this not only for Europe but also for Britain—for programme makers, industry, advertisers and, I hope, viewers.
The fundamental limitations on the proliferation of television broadcasting are really two-fold. First, television is a very voracious consumer of what I am told is technically called bandwidth. A single television signal, carrying synchronised video and audio, occupies a bandwidth broad enough to carry more than 1,000 telephone calls and thus requires a carrier wave high up the frequency spectrum. Yet that spectrum is a very scarce resource. The old 405-line television bands have already been taken away from the broadcasters and given over to mobile radio, and the higher UHF bands have room only for four national channels if we are not to get overcrowded in Europe.
At the same time VHF and higher frequency signals are generally limited to line of sight—the more so the higher up the frequency spectrum you go. In other words, the transmitter and the receiver have to be in almost unobstructed contact and certainly not obscured by the curvature of the earth. The short range

37
of terrestrially broadcast signals therefore for practical purposes limits the coverage to a single country. People in neighbouring countries and perhaps within 30 miles of the border may be able to pick up foreign signals but there is no question of the signal penetrating any further. This would require the building of land-based relay transmitters, and no government have to date effectively allowed that.
All national governments are very well aware of television's power, although they may not always be clear what that power really consists of. Often, perhaps, they have exaggerated it. But practically all governments seem agreed that television channels should be strictly regulated on a national basis rather than given up to the market place. So television has always been constrained by national sovereignty and national rules. The system began to crack a few years ago when the first cable systems were built and relayed foreign signals, but this was done on a very piecemeal basis, with little money changing hands, and the major services and governments were effectively able to ignore it.
Into this cosy little existence has sailed the communications satellite, acting as a mirror in space from which information, and in the context of this debate television signals, can be bounced back to earth to cover areas far greater than can be served by terrestrial transmitters. At the same time far higher sectors of the frequency spectrum can be used to convey the signals since, while a 10 gigahertz signal is truly line of sight, this presents no problem when the transmission is coming from almost immediately above the aerial of the receiver.
True, the present generation of satellites transmit only low power signals requiring large dish aerials and boosters at the receiving end to pump their signals through domestic television sets. Such equipment is provided on a collective basis for redistribution by cable, and hence the growth of cable systems in Europe. Already, however, the choice of television channels has expanded, but the next bound will probably complete the great leap forward. This will be the arrival of direct broadcasting satellites—DBS—signals from which will be receivable directly by individuals equipped with relatively cheap equipment, in due course obviating the need for cable systems. I am told that a well known department store in London already has this equipment on offer for those who are interested in buying it.
The areas covered by transmissions from individual satellites will acknowledge only the broadest of geographical limitations, and certainly not the winding frontiers of the member states of the European Community. Space in turn is free—any corporation or nation can park a geostationary satellite in orbit and in effect broadcast to whom it chooses.
What does this say for the principle of national or EC regulation? It says to me that sooner or later (and we had some debate in Sub-Committee F about what might be sooner and what might constitute later) regulation in the form to which we have been accustomed is doomed.
In its interesting Green Paper, Television without Frontiers, the European Commission has done a valuable service in awakening and stimulating debate
38
on the future role of television broadcasting. However, in the opinion of the Select Committee, it draws some very questionable conclusions about what should happen next. The theme of those conclusions is that television broadcasting is a service and as such falls under Articles 59, 60 and 62 of the Treaty of Rome. Those articles give the Commission powers to promote the free flow of goods and services across internal Community frontiers. Obviously there is room for a great deal of debate as to whether television broadcasting is merely goods or a service, or is a broader cultural matter.
Leaving that point aside for the moment, the Green Paper identifies a number of areas where it feels that directives are warranted to promote a freer flow of broadcasting. Those areas are the standards of advertising; the amount of advertising allowed in television programmes per hour of programming; the prohibition of certain types of advertising, such as alcohol and tobacco; matters to simplify copyright, the right of reply; and the protection of minors.
The committee examined each of those proposals in turn and concluded that the Commision had made no really convincing case for involving itself in any of them. I do not propose to go through those individual subjects in detail as I suspect that many noble Lords taking part in this debate will have interesting views on particular topics. Later in this debate, we will be privileged to hear from my noble friend Lord Chilston who, as a film maker, will no doubt have strong views on copyright, among other matters. I hope that his maiden speech will be the forerunner of many interesting contributions by him to the affairs of this House.
As I have already implied, the footprint of a satellite will not acknowledge either the internal or the external frontiers of the European Community, so any attempt to regulate broadcasting within the Community must at best be a piecemeal approach. If there are serious abuses of the powers of broadcasters in the future, I suspect that it will need action on an international rather than on a purely intra-Community basis to correct such abuses.
Just as the pleasant life of rural England was changed for ever by the motor car, train and aeroplane, so, I believe, will TV broadcasting be changed for ever by the satellite. It is not hard to see, for example, that the BBC, which operates largely a national service, may ultimately wish to distribute its service by satellite and cable—if only to eliminate the high cost of maintaining large numbers of terrestrial transmitters. By moving to satellite broadcasting, the BBC would in effect be able to shift a lot of its maintenance and hardware costs onto the viewer.
Also, much of the output of the ITV companies comprises of nationally-networked programmes, which could similarly be distributed. Therefore, we may well see the situation where the terrestrial transmitters are ultimately surrendered to truly local television stations whose programmes might depend on high-volume, low budget advertising. In fact, they may be a sort of audio-visual Yellow Pages. It may be appropriate for them to have a rather higher advertising content than the EEC proposes to allow in its proposed legislation. Therefore, rules of the kind

39
proposed in the Green Paper for maximum programme advertising content could well become inappropriate.
In spite of that, the Commission still seems intent on producing a directive in that particular area, and in a number of others, that the committee felt were inappropriate. I dare say that we as a committee will have to climb Big Ben and shout a collective "Foul!" in the direction of Brussels. Certainly we may have to reserve our position, to return and make a follow-up report on their specific proposals.
Distributed by satellite and covering much more than the United Kingdom, the major independent networks might have to undergo certain considerable changes. Providers of films, for example, may claim that their use by ITV gives instant international coverage and will seek royalties based on the actual audience coverage and not merely the British coverage. To balance that, advertising revenues may have to relate similarly to a broader audience—the audience then reached—and hence the nature of advertising would have to attract a more international class of advertiser with internationally-branded products.
For the BBC, as a non-commercially financed service, there is a greater problem. If they go to direct broadcasting by satellite, who will pay the licence fee? The British public will be up in arms very quickly if they have to go on stumping up £58 per year while 50 million or 100 million other Europeans can watch BBC and pay nothing. Ironically, that might drive the BBC right out of the scope of the Green Paper and into the area of encrypted and scrambled transmissions, where the viewer pays an annual fee not for a licence but for the renting of a decoder device.
There are many ifs and buts and other things about which one may speculate in the future of television. I do not advocate the total abandonment of the regulation of television broadcasting, which has undoubtedly served us very well in this country since the dawn of the television age. However, the watchword must be flexibility in a time of change; flexibility to alter the laws, regulations and charters of the BBC and the IBA—to allow them to adapt and compete with new forms of broadcasting and broadcasting systems.
There are many small impediments to the cross-frontier flow of television broadcasting at present but I contend that they will be swept away by a tide of change and not merely by EEC directives. While the Select Committee itself has carefully refrained from suggesting particular alternative directives, it has suggested one area where the European Community could usefully assist in preparing the way to allowing the major "quality" networks of Europe to compete in the satellite era.
The committee has suggested that the Commission direct that EEC member governments should simply remove all barriers to the cross-frontier flow of existing national broadcasting, whether or not such broadcasts comply in detail with their own internal regulations. We contend that that would assist the major networks to get into a position to defend themselves against the newcomers, and at the same time allow viewers of one
40
member state access to the cultural values of others. That is in effect the prime purpose of the Green Paper, which the committee and almost all the witnesses who spoke to it thoroughly applauded. We merely believe that in coming up with its particular areas for proposed directives, the Green Paper lost sight of its main objective and became bogged down in minutiae.
There are those merhants of gloom who foresee television broadcasting in the future as being a non-stop diet of American soap operas coming from 50 or so channels, all heavily interposed with low-quality advertising. The prospect, however, of a future free market in broadcasting does not alarm me quite so much. The growth of public television in America has shown that there is a demand for quality within a free market and that the public will pay for it. The BBC may continue to provide that role in the future. Indeed, I hope and I am sure that it will. However, I suspect that it must think beyond the narrow confines and terms of reference of the Peacock Report for its future funding and embrace the satellite challenge—perhaps moving from terrestrial broadcasting to encrypted satellite transmission, and derive its income not merely from every viewer in Britain but from a slightly smaller percentage of a larger geographical audience.
I am not sure how the commercial stations will cope. They will have to provide quality to secure an adequate slice of the not inexhaustible supply of advertising revenue. Who knows?—we may, after the cosmic dust has settled, end up with perhaps only four worthwhile English language channels in this country. If that is the case, then we will have had a true broadcasting "revolution". I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Television without Frontiers. [4th Report, 1985–86, H.L. 43]—(Viscount Torrington.)
5.8 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, for one entrancing moment I thought that I was due to speak on the subject of frontiers without television. However, I find that the subject matter of our discussion is just as fascinating. At this moment, I would love to pay a tribute that I believe all sides of this House would want to pay, to the noble Viscount, Lord Torrington, for having chaired a very able committee. We thank and congratulate him. Like him, I am sure that we shall listen with great anticipation to the maiden speaker in this debate. I may say to the noble Viscount, Lord Chilston, that we know that, when he speaks, we will be hearing from someone with great experience.
I have said that this is a fascinating subject. What could be more fascinating than to try to deal with the following questions? Does broadcasting—radio, television, satellite and cable—come within the economic domain or the cultural domain, or both? What is the picture ahead of us for European integration? Would European Community legislation on the subject of the interchange of programmes—and a subject absorbing to the noble Lord, Lord Kilgerran; that of copyright law—be helpful to European integration?

41
The next question is: is the European Community within its legal powers in legislating on matters of this kind? Some of us wonder whether, even if it were within the legal province of the EC, it is the best body to legislate on matters such as programme control, advertising, and copyright in this particular field and the domain of fair play; that is, the right of reply and, too, the protection of young people. Those are matters—the latter items—which I believe the EC Parliament first concentrated upon before this matter was broadened out into the Green Paper.
It must be remembered that this is a Green Paper; in other words, it is a discussion document, purely that, and this worthy committee of your Lordships' House has been trying to guide us on these very important issues.
I start by trying to answer from my own humble point of view some of the entrancing questions posed by a debate on this subject. My opinion, for what it is worth, is that if broadcasting were deemed to be in its widest aspect an economic issue many of us would have our very material beliefs and traditions shattered. It must be more essentially a cultural issue than an economic issue, even if there be an admixture of both. As I believe one of the witnesses put it in the evidence which he gave to the committee, this is scarcely like selling pigs in a market. If he did not use that colourful phrase it was one similar to it.
May I say in parenthesis that to read the evidence attached to this report is a real treat. Not only is it so succinctly given by the various witnesses but the questions from members of the committee are very pertinent. If I may say so, if I had not looked up his biography and found otherwise I would have taken it for granted that the chairman, the noble Viscount, Lord Torrington, was a very eminent member of the Bar.
What does the Commission aim to do in this Green Paper? I think we should get it perfectly clearly in front of us, as indeed it was summarised by the noble Viscount, Lord Torrington. First, it wants to co-ordinate specific aspects of member states' law regulating radio and television advertising. Secondly, in a limited way, it wants to co-ordinate the member states' copyright laws, replacing the right to prohibit simultaneous transmission with the right to receive fair remuneration. Having previously mentioned the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, in regard to copyright law I add that your Lordships will be much better advised to listen to him on these matters than ever to listen to me. However, I would say in passing that for the European Community to restrict the rights of the holders of copyright merely to receive remuneration and not to have their normal rights under copyright law may be an interferance in those rights which is to be disliked and not immediately upheld.
Thirdly, it tries to co-ordinate certain aspects regulating broadcasting in the interests of fair play; and that is what I referred to earlier as the right of reply. I must say that having read this report I find myself very much in sympathy with the points on the legal powers of the EC to deal with these matters which your Lordships will find summarised very clearly in the Commission's submissions in paragraph 33 and in the Committee's observations in paragraphs 37 and 39. I
42
do not intend to bore the House by reading out those paragraphs. I am sure your Lordships will be able to read those paragraphs for yourselves, but broadly the committee, having heard the evidence from experts on these matters coming from the BBC and elsewhere, says that the case for the legal right of the EC to legislate upon these matters is very thin indeed and asks: even if it had the right, would it be wise to exercise it? Again, I refer the House, if I may, to paragraphs 40 and 43.
In summarising those paragraphs may I say that the committee, in my view quite correctly, said that its recommendation was that certainly at this moment within the restrictive area of the EC and covering, after all, but a few countries and with a wider ambit in the Council of Europe, and with a wider ambit in the EBU, this is not, in fact, the best body to deal with this matter. It comes down upon the side—at all events for the time being—with all the revolutionary changes (the noble Viscount, Lord Torrington, defined the word "revolutionary" in his speech in this context) and with the increase of satellites, cable and so on, that it really is not the time now, even if it were appropriate, for legislation of this kind.
Therefore, one ends up, as I intend to end up, with a very sound recommendation which is to be found on page 29, at paragraph 111:
"In the cause of allowing the citizens of each Member State to become more acquainted with the culture and values of other Member States, the Commission should put pressure on Member States to facilitate the cross-frontier flow of existing national broadcasting".
We are justly proud of our own broadcasting services. We are not so justly proud of our linguistic abilities as a nation. It seems to me that if this were done we would be exporting more which would be understood in Europe than we would be importing of that which is likely to be understood by our own population. However, it seems to me that the paragraph I have just quoted is the essence of what we ought to be aiming at in order to achieve proper, gradual European integration and cultural understanding.
5.20 p.m.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, as from all parts of the House, from these Benches we welcome the admirable and very well-informed report on Television without Frontiers and the elegant, succinct and highly informative speech of the noble Viscount the chairman of your Lordships' committee.
A recurring theme of the committee's report is the speed of technological change. Some of its effects on broadcasting and related media are reflected in miniature in the United Kingdom in the experience of my own organisation, the Advertising Standards Authority. A few years ago a clear distinction could be drawn between broadcast advertising, over which the Independent Broadcasting Authority exercises statutory authority, and print advertising—which attracts two-thirds of all expenditure on advertising in the media—falling under the independent and self-regulatory machinery of the Advertising Standards Authority. Recently, however, that authority has been asked by British Telecom to monitor advertising on Videotext and Prestel; the Cable Authority wishes the

43
ASA to be responsible for the advertising on cable, which approximates to "classified" in print; and the Home Office has asked the authority to apply the British Code of Advertising Practice to community radio for an experimental period and also to take on special event radio. The earlier distinctions are indeed becoming blurred.
The new factors which gave rise to the Commission's Green Paper were the advent of mass broad-band cabling and direct broadcasting by satellite, both of which probably lie beyond the control of national governments, even if they wished to make the attempt to control them. As advertising will pay for much of the variety of broadcasting with which the report is concerned, as it already pays for the choice of newspapers and periodicals, I intend to focus my comments largely upon Part 5 of the report, which deals with advertising and which must be of central importance in the further development of European broadcasting.
After considering the advantages and disadvantages of harmonising advertising standards by EC ukase, the committee concluded, in paragraph 67 of its report, that:
"developing voluntary common rules for advertising is to be preferred. In the Committee's opinion this is another area where the rapid pace of technological change makes self-regulation the best way of dealing with any problems".
What then, one may ask, is the nature of self-regulation, and how might it become established to achieve the committee's objective?
Self-regulation may be defined as the regulation of an activity on a co-operative basis by those engaged in it. The "self" in self-regulatory refers to the body corporate and not to the individual practitioner. Thus, the reach of a self-regulatory system is not necessarily limited by the extent of willing submission of those who are regulated. By virtue of their co-operative structure, self-regulatory systems can effectively control the activities even of individuals who have not made any voluntary gesture of submission. The noble Viscount and his colleagues are not thaumaturgists. Their report will not create a self-regulatory agency; and one of the type envisaged by the committee cannot exist unless at the minimum the industry to be regulated wills it, is prepared to finance it, agrees to accept its guidance and rulings and is capable of securing the adherence and loyalty of its members.
So far as concerns advertising, there would be great advantages in establishing a self-regulatory system. Our own experience in this country suggests that an effective system, as compared with the legal process, will be much quicker, cheaper, much more adaptable and flexible and more effective, in the sense that the industry will more readily accept the rulings of such an agency than it will accept a law which must be mediated through the courts and about which there can be argument. But a self-regulatory system, which is designed to control an international industry and to control it in a number of separate countries, is an entirely new venture in this field so far as I am aware.
To be successful it requires to be based on an international body which has status and is recognised by all the relevant national and regional bodies
44
—because it is no use imagining that a new self-regulatory agency could be established from scratch in time to exercise any effective control over technology which is proceeding at such speed in this field. I can think of only one body which might achieve this task; namely, the International Chambers of Commerce. They have many of the requirements; they are well-known; they have high status; and they are well regarded by governments and by other organisations. One must not forget that one characteristic of the successful self-regulatory agency is that it is acceptable to all the main interests involved—to governments, to advertisers and to consumer groups, to name only three of them.
The International Chambers of Commerce have already been working in this field. They drafted the first international code of advertising practice 50 years ago. Through a Marketing Practice Council they maintain a system of arbitration on arguments about advertising, and they have established similar organisations in a number of other fields. In the nature of things governments will have very little part to play in such a development, though certainly a wink and a nod from governments will be very useful indeed to get things moving, because there is some experience to show that what persuades industry and other bodies into self-regulatory activities is very often fear of government. Indeed, one might say that fear of governments is the beginning of wisdom so far as self-regulation is concerned.
I hope that some attention is paid to this vital recommendation of the committee in terms of ensuring that steps are now taken to see that an agency can become established. Without it, or, what would be worse, with an ineffectual agency, great damage may very well be done to such self-regulatory institutions as we already possess. I cannot conclude without saying how much I, like all those in the House for this debate, look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Viscount who is to follow.
5.31 p.m.
Viscount Chilston: My Lords, I am deeply aware of the honour that I have in addressing your Lordships' House for the first time. I am sure that you will be equally aware of the trepidation that I feel in addressing myself to the occasion. Repeat fees are sometimes payable to film producers. They should perhaps also paid to stammering Peers. As might be expected of someone on this side of the House, I am a committed supporter of the ideals of the Treaty of Rome, and, as is particularly appropriate in this debate, its insistence on the free flow of goods and services across the Community's internal frontiers. Unfortunately, the EC creates as much, if not more, absurdly detailed legislation in upholding this freedom as other less democratic societies do in preventing it.
My noble friend Lord Torrington has mentioned the four areas where the Commission suggested that legislation should be put forward—minimum standards of advertising, a right of reply, the protection of minors, and the observance of copyright. I hope that my noble friend's howls will be heard from the roofs of Parliament because although I am pleased that the Select Committee was of the opinion that the

45
Commission should not involve itself in any of these areas, I have since heard that it is nonetheless still set on such legislation.
Certainly, minimum standards should be established and upheld—but by self-regulation and the commercial judgement of broadcasters and not by legislation. As the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, has pointed out, this will require an immense commitment from the television industry in Britain and also in Europe. The standard of British broadcasting is unmatched anywhere in the world, let alone Europe. Yet legislation has played a very small part in upholding these standards. Programme quality cannot be imposed by rules that define minimum standards. It has to grow from a competitive framework that provides the highest rewards for those producing the best programmes. I speak to you, my Lords, as a film maker. I know that my colleagues within the industry will agree with me in singling out copyright as the crucial issue for the continued well-being of originators and hence an important contributory factor to the quality of programming.
The basis of copyright law is that the owners of intellectual property have a right to a fair reward from the exploitation of their material. That reward can only be a fair reward if the rightsholder has, as he does at the moment, the right to control the various uses made of it. The European Commission in its Green Paper considered several alternative methods of copyrighting. I shall quickly run through them.
One was to treat programmes in the same way as books and records; namely, that if a book is published in one member state it can then circulate freely within the rest of the EC. This suggestion has already been quashed in the European Court of Justice on the grounds that works in material form are different from non-material ones.
Another model suggested was the formation of a few collecting agencies, or even a single one, to which rightsholders would subsume their rights. Apart from the enormous complications and cost involved in setting up and staffing such an organisation, rightsholders would be deprived of their right either to refuse transmission or to negotiate royalties. Another alternative considered by the Commission relies, as at the moment, on private contracts between the rightsholder and the broadcaster. This is basically the system that works at the moment where material is submitted for broadcasting terrestrially. However, the European Commission argues that it will be more difficult when, as is the case now, European satellite broadcasts are transmitted only to cable networks which, in turn, send the signal down to their customers on the end of the wire. The rightsholder then, it argues, would have to enter into separate contracts with each and every cable operator as well as the original broadcaster.
Rather surprisingly, the Commission concluded in its Green Paper, and still maintains, that there is no alternative to legislation. It favours a statutory licensing system whereby rightsholders would have a statutory right to equitable remuneration but would have no right to choose whether or not their programme is broadcast, nor in which territory it is
46
broadcast. That, says the Commission, would constitute,
"a restriction on the free flow of television".
I maintain that such a statutory system would be unworkable. if programmes cannot be purchased competitively, how can we expect broadcasters to transmit them competitively? When every television broadcast is transmitted by high powered DBS—direct broadcast satellite—to the consumer, each with his own dish aerial on his roof, there should be no problem with the existing copyright rules as we know them. The rightsholder can negotiate with the broadcaster and agree a royalty based on up-to-date audited ratings figures. In the present climate of low powered satellites transmitting only to cable networks, such audience figures can still be verified taking into account the number of sets serviced by each of the networks receiving the signal.
I suggest that the rightsholder can either do a sell-out to the original broadcaster bearing in mind the probable number of networks taking the programme, or he can negotiate a percentage of the sales made by the broadcaster to the retransmitting cable operators. In this way, when the programme is retransmitted by the cable operator copyright is transferred from the individual copyright holder to the original broadcaster. The various copyright holders would then look to the original broadcaster for their royalties from the retransmission as well as from the original broadcast. The original broadcaster, in turn, can negotiate retransmissions as he sees fit, reflecting the royalties that he has already paid or will have to pay to his contributors. This system seems to me the most workable.
The rightsholder would not, of course, be able to prevent particular retransmissions in particular territories. This is often a problem because certain programmes have particular appeal to other specific territories whether in the EC or elsewhere. Frequently, such programmes have to be radically adapted to suit these other markets. Programmes tailored specifically for a given territory have a much greater sales value than would the original version, although often the original version can be sent out with a redubbed foreign language sound track. It is my belief that programme appeal, just like advertisement targeting, is to a large degree dependent on a well defined audience. The more defined the audience, the more pertinent the programme, the more effective the advertising and the greater the revenue from both.
Language is, of course, a most obvious limiting factor when making material available to pan-European audiences, and when DBS broadcasting is the norm the number of channels available for simultaneous sound tracks will be severely limited. At the moment, foreign language sound tracks—any number of them—can be sent by land line to the various cable heads. We are perhaps lucky in that English is the most widely spoken language in Europe. As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, commented, British television, not forgetting Irish television, would seem, on the face of it, to have the lion's share of this potential market. However, the United States currently produces vastly more television programming in English than we do. If existing English language television is anything to go by, then

47
European satellite television in the future will have a very transatlantic flavour.
Perhaps I might be excused for quoting from Satellite television magazine who publish a sort of Radio Times of United Kingdom satellite TV broadcasts. At the moment your Lordships are missing, or have just missed, the "Lucy Show"—a comedy; an Australian film called "Storm Boy"; "One Thousand Dozen", which is an American Western, and episode 31 of "Thunder Cats".
A noble Lord: Thank God!
Viscount Chilston: If so-called "brain candy" is to be typical of European satellite broadcasting in the future, then the discerning have very little to look forward to.
I believe, however, that with the present national and commercial television stations of Europe competing for the Euro television tube with freely negotiated and competitively commissioned material, television of "minimum standards" will not be on offer and nor will it be accepted by the viewer. So may not your Lordships feel that live broadcasts from this House, beamed by satellite across Europe, have some future? The free flow of such high quality television would surely satisfy the highest ideals of the Treaty of Rome. And it could be free, with an established copyright, no royalties and certainly no repeat fees.
5.42 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to rise and congratulate a maiden speaker who has acquitted himself as notably as the noble Viscount who has just resumed his seat.
It is one of the boasts of your Lordships' House that no matter what subject is up for discussison we always have at least one expert on the subject, someone who has a mastery of the field and can command your Lordships' attention as I know it was commanded during the course of the noble Viscount's maiden speech. The three qualities on which we traditionally congratulate are to be wise, witty and modest. I can assure the noble Viscount that he has won his spurs under all three headings. We look forward to hearing him many times in the future.
Having delivered a message of congratulation to the maiden speaker I now have an apology to address to the House. An unexpected opportunity to visit the fast reactor at Dounreay last week landed me with some rather terrible arrears of correspondence to which I had to attend in the early part of this afternoon. I was in the middle of that when the noble Viscount, Lord Torrington, began the debate on this subject, and I had to be reminded that I was due to speak. I therefore not only missed his contribution but, I am afraid, half of that of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, as well. Having made that apology, I hope your Lordships will accept it. I should of course remain to listen to the rest of the debate.
I want to draw your Lordships' attention particularly to paragaph 109, which says:
"Because things are changing so fast, the Green Paper is trying to do too much too soon. What is needed is a more modest first step on the lines suggested in … paragraph 93".
48
The "lines suggested" in paragraph 93 are taking such steps as will facilitate cross-frontier flow of existing national broadcasting. With that I entirely agree, as I think would the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, judging by what the noble Lord said during the half of his speech to which I was privileged to listen.
I want to quote something from paragraph 93, which talks of the impact of the new services and technologies:
"changes can at present be assessed only be speculation rather than empirical evidence".
I was absolutely convinced of the truth of that listening to witness after witness. I thought that the Green Paper was trying to do too much too soon. My mind cast back to a situation where the firm of Ferranti had been given a contract to build the first computer in the world that had not been put together Meccano-wise in a university laboratory. They were engineering it to the design of Professor F. C. Williams on a contract originally placed by the Ministry of Supply but later transferred to the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. The late Lord Blackett, who was then a colleague of mine, wanted me to do market research on the future of computers. I had to persuade him as gently as I could that one cannot do market research on something which does not exist. The potential man at the other end of the market must be able to look at what it is he is being asked to buy and see what it is doing.
I went up and talked to Sir Vincent de Ferranti about the future of this machine that he had built under full industrial conditions, not, as I say, in a university laboratory. I asked him whether he would like another development contract. He said, "No, I do not want a development contract. I want orders. I shall do the development if I can get the orders." Thereupon I placed an order with him, more or less on the spot, for 10 computers at £100,000 each to be manufactured on a cost-plus basis, and I assigned him the sole selling agency for them on a commission, reserving 20 per cent. overall profit for the National Research Development Corporation, whose funds I was employing. That meant investing a million in that order out of the £5 million which had been allocated to us by Parliament. And that is how the British computer industry started.
I believe very much that the same sort of situation will develop over, for example, direct broadcasting by satellite. I do not think one can start legislating for it at this point in time. We do not know enough about its opportunities and what will happen at the receiving end. It is all very fine to talk about every man having his own dish. But suppose one lives in a block of flats. Will there be one dish for the block? Which satellite will it be looking at?—and so on and so forth. Nobody seems to have thought about these things at all.
My own belief is that when we legislate we should wait until a mischief develops and then remedy that mischief. To try to see in a glass darkly the future of something so totally different from anything we have experienced so far is, I think, unprofitable as an exercise. I believe that we should avoid it. Therefore, for my own part I support the committee of which I am a member under the chairmanship of the noble Viscount, Lord Torrington, in its conclusion that the Green Paper is trying to do too much too fast.
5.48 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I have a double pleasure, first, in acknowledging the debt that the House owes to the noble Viscount, Lord Torrington, and, secondly, to echo the words that have already been said so eloquently by the previous speaker, in congratulating the noble Viscount, Lord Chilston, on his maiden speech. As the noble Viscount will have gathered—and one senses these things—he was very well received. He was also very well listened to by those in the film-making business. I noticed that behind him sat the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey who is a film-maker, and opposite was the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, who brings to this House his experience as a former chairman of the IBA. There are many in the House with some experience in these matters.
I do not of course include myself. I am a talker and not a doer in these matters. Therefore the presence of the noble Viscount, and the speech he made today, certainly indicate to us that the field of film-making and the media generally will be enhanced by the contributions which the noble Viscount makes. I look forward to hearing many more in the future.
I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who, from our Front Bench gave a very warm welcome to the sagacity of the committee, and the enormous help that that committee had from the range of witnesses many of whom were prompted or invited to appear and many others of whom sought to appear. At the end of the day we are in possession of a very valuable document. As the noble Viscount, Lord Torrington, said, there may not be an ideal time, but it is certainly timely now to bring together those strands and threads in order to ask: Where do we go from here? To that extent we are indeed indebted to the authors of the Green Paper.
I certainly agree with many of the detailed responses of the committee to Television without Frontiers. Quite rightly, this is a British response of which I am proud. Who else but the committee will speak, as they are entitled to, on behalf of Britain and introduce a British input into these matters?
I also bring to this debate the views of the Association of Cinematograph and Television Technicians—ACTT—who have advised me of their views on these matters. ACTT has 25,000 members. When one looks at the population of Europe which is served in these matters, which is 350 million, there is no doubt that the technicians who work in this field have a very important contribution to make.
The first point they make is that, if one is looking for strands and thrusts in the Green Paper, then they are in favour of deregulation. Coming fresh from the battles and scars of Sunday trading and shopping, this is not the only field in which I am not in favour either of deregulation or of complete deregulation. I believe that in his maiden speech the noble Viscount, Lord Chilston, referred to the standards and qualities of British broadcasting, as have other speakers. When one looks at those qualities and standards one can see that not only are they good by our standards and by European standards, but they are good by world standards. In part, though not wholly, this is due to the regulatory framework of the business. It is not merely
50
regulated by the force of law but there is self-regulation by the business, and I refer not merely to the managers and the entrepreneurs but also to the workers in the industry.
We also have the benefit of the observations which were made prior to this debate by the Government in correspondence. The Minister at the Home Office, Mr. Giles Shaw, wrote to my friend Mr. Alan Sapper giving some observations on these matters. One of the phrases used was that:
"the Government … has serious doubts about the need for Community legislation in this field".
A great deal more is said in the letter and I would not presume to impinge upon the Minister's response, which I shall certainly stay to listen to and appreciate. However, the kernal of what we are about is whether it is right and proper, despite the arguments, for the Community to legislate in this particular sphere.
The Green Paper mentions the need to harmonise national agreements. However, the British experience has grown up by trial and error and by practical guidance. I would certainly echo one of the points made by my noble friend Lord Mishcon. Quite clearly, as my noble friend and the ACTT pointed out, the imperative which drives the Green Paper is the economic imperative. The economic imperative is not the only one, and even if it is one of a number, it ought not to be the prime imperative. The others concern cultural, social and political purposes, and they all need to be weighed with the economic imperative, particularly when we talk about these matters.
The report makes the point, which I echo, that when we talk about commodities that can be translated, transported and transformed across boundaries, we are not talking about milk or pig meat; we are talking about ideas, about abstract matters and about matters that need to be handled differently. To that extent, in my view, a major error was committed by the authors of the Green Paper.
I also think that, when looking at the long-term implications of the report, this House, the industry in this country and legislators should recognise what is already on the stocks in this country for those who are deeply involved in broadcasting. We are awaiting the report of the Peacock Committee and, whatever it says, it will undoubtedly be a major and significant 1986 initiative in these matters.
We are looking very closely at the possible relaxation of regulations governing independent local radio. We are assessing the whole of our experience in cable and satellite. My noble friend Lord Mishcon and I first began to discuss these matters when this House dealt with the cable Bill more than two years ago. It is quite clear that, although we recognise that there are European dimensions in these matters, in this House we are not the European Parliament but we are negotiating, advising and trying to guide these matters as they affect us. I would very much favour the approach which talks in terms of regulation by public accountability and would not want it replaced by regulation through market forces. In the United Kingdom we are no stranger to regulation, of which I certainly approve. We have regulations in respect of programme standards; we have regulations in respect of foreign quotas as regards films; we have regulations

51
in respect of feature films. There are no references in the Green Paper, Television without Frontiers, to any of these crucial areas of which we ought to take account.
The Green Paper has much to say about advertising. One paragraph speaks of direct sponsorship and refers to up to 25 per cent. of air time for advertising. Even if we were beginning to talk in terms of accepting the report in general, 25 per cent. of air time for advertising is far too high.
I intend to listen carefully to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, when we shall hear from an acknowledged expert in this House on the issue of copyright. I simply look at paragraph 77 on page 24 of the Green Paper, which deals with this subject. I am struck by the words:
"Any undertaking engaged in re-transmitting broadcasts originating in a Member State would be licensed to do so irrespective of any copyrights in the material transmitted; the rightsholders would have a statutory right to 'equitable remuneration' to be determined according to various principles or, if necessary, by arbitration".
As I say, I await the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, but I would start from the premise that there must be a basic right that the fundamental original owner has the prime rights and must wholly govern the manner in which his work is treated in this particular matter. I would imagine that what has been proposed is contrary to the practice in most countries which are being invited collectively to subscribe in this matter.
I simply want to conclude by making a brief reference to two of the recommendations of the committee. At paragraph 80 on page 25, the committee states:
"The Committee do not believe … that rightsholders should be deprived of their freedom to negotiate their own fees or stop their material being used".
That is a fair point.
There is no reference in the Green Paper to any enforcing or policing provisions, or any time-scale over which this report is to be carried out. I notice in particular, however, that in paragraph 96 it is said:
"The Green Paper is a comprehensive attempt to stimulate debate. But it must be regarded only as a basis for discussion".
Then in paragraph 110:
"Each Member State should remain so far as possible the ultimate arbiter of its own domestic broadcasting policy".
In those two paragraphs the House will find much agreement with what the report says, with what the committee says, and what the noble Viscount, Lord Torrington, has advised us to listen to with care. It is on that basis that I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate.
6.1 p.m.
Earl De La Warr: My Lords, I should like to start by declaring an interest in that I am a director of one of the new cable companies. I should like to go on and say how delighted I was with the maiden speech by my noble friend Lord Chilston. It was particularly pleasant for me. Having spent much of my life in a trade closely relating to broadcasting, I recognised, not a fellow traveller, but a fellow human being, and he seemed to address the House with some good, hard, business sense which commanded my full approval.
52
I want to talk briefly about the subjects dealt with in this report, and then go on to talk rather more specifically about some aspects of direct broadcast satellites, which are so nearly with us. I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Torrington on the report of the committee of which he was chairman, and on the fascinating way in which he introduced it.
The committee, as I understand it, gave a decisive rejection to pretty well all the proposals put forward by the commission, not necessarily because they were wrong but because the committee felt that self-regulation was much better, and that what we had been able to do with the Council of Europe and the European Broadcasting Union showed that there were better mediums through which to achieve these objects. Therefore, I fully agree with everything that the committee said, and I hope that the Government will too.
There are some wider implications to this report which I should like to put to your Lordships. The Green Paper, which was the first of its type—the first communication addressed specifically to broadcasting—should be looked at as something of a thin end to a very thick wedge. It is my belief that at the thick end of that wedge lies an aspiration to create a European Broadcasting Authority. In this era of high tech. and an entrepreneurial approach to broadcasting, it would be devasting to have a bureaucratic body like the Commission impose itself in any way on this creative industry.
It was really summed up perfectly by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, in a speech he made last year when he gave the Fleming Memorial Lecture. He said:
"There is talk of seeking to establish a European Broadcasting Authority. I yield to no one in my enthusiasm for progress in the search for European unity, but I think my former colleagues in Brussels would be well advised to concentrate on creating a monetary community, or a technological community or on breaking down the international barriers to trade, rather than the more elusive issues of seeking to integrate European broadcasting practices which are already handled very well by the European Broadcasting Union."
When you have said that, I think you have said it all.
Therefore, I would suggest that we should not say to the Commission, "You are a little bit early. Perhaps later on." We should be firmer than my noble friend in his report in paragraph 93, and firmer than the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. We should not say, "Not yet". We should say, "Not at all. We do not want the commission now, or at any time, to involve itself in broadcasting affairs".
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Earl will forgive me if I intervene merely to say—and the noble Viscount will speak for himself—that I did not say that eventually what was suggested in the Green Paper would commend itself to your Lordships' House. I merely said certainly not now, and by all means let us look at this in stages.
Earl De La Warr: My Lords, I am most obliged to the noble Lord. I do not think there is really very much at issue between us. I believe we look at it in very much the same way. I shall be extremely interested to hear what the Government have to say to us about their view.

53
I should now like to talk for a bit about direct broadcasting satellites. I do not know whether any of your Lordships remember the book I have with me. It was a book produced in 1981 by the Home Office. It is the only textbook that has been written on this subject. It was written by a civil servant in the Home Office, and I remember congratulating him on that work in your Lordships' House in 1981. It is even more prestigious because the prologue was signed by no less a person than my noble friend the Leader of the House when he was at the Home Office.
Let us be clear what direct broadcasting satellites are about, or indeed any satellites. They are about offering extra choice of programmes to those who are prepared to pay for it, for nothing is for free. There are three ways in which you can get extra choice. First is the video cassette recorder, which has two uses. First, the time shift, and that, of course, because of the sequential nature of broadcasting, enables, you to have extra choice. You can record a programme that you might not see because you are out, or you can record a programme that you might not have seen because you were looking at another one. That is extra choice in every sense.
In addition to that, there are the pre-recorded cassettes that one can buy. My information is that in this current year the trade expect that people will spend over £100 million on buying, or renting, prerecorded cassettes. There is a penetration of well over 40 per cent. of these objects in television homes. It is clear that the demand for choice is pretty big.
The second way is by cable. Usually the cable programmes these days come from low-powered satellites which broadcast on 10 watts and distribute to 3m. dishes at the head ends of cable systems. Most operators are now offering their subscribers something like eight extra channels. Subscribers can easily pay £15 a month or more for the extra programmes that they want. Then, finally, there is the new breed of satellite which goes direct to the home, not to a 3m. dish but to a 50cm. dish, which has attached to it certain equipment on the down lead to make the programme receivable by an ordinary televison set. It broadcasts on 200 watts not 10 watts. Every home that wants this facility with the dish and its equipment will probably pay £250.
That is still to come. At the moment, apart from the video cassette recorder, we have cable to offer subscribers an additional choice. But there is a big difference between cable in this country and cable in western Europe. In France, Germany and the low countries cable is growing very fast. There is much government finance. There is the intention of setting up a grid in each country, and the big cities are being tackled energetically. In this country, in spite of the enthusiasm there was a year or two ago, the growth of cable is very slow. If I were asked to say why, the reason I would give is because there is little sign of anything like the support from the institutions that is needed to enable this new system to build up.
In my opinion for a very long time there will be an unsatisfied demand for extra choice. I have no doubt that that demand will be filled by direct broadcast satellites. Indeed the French and the Germans are putting up their first direct broadcast satellites either at the end of this year or the beginning of next year. The
54
French satellite TDF1 has a footprint which adequately covers the whole of this county. One channel is being offered in English. We understand that Mr. Maxwell is at a fairly complete state of negotiation to take over that channel. If those negotiations are successful, by summer 1987 at the latest, for those who are prepared to buy a dish there will be at least one programme available, but it will be under the control of the French Government, not under British control.
Who will come next? We hear that Luxembourg might come in possibly using a French channel. We hear that the Irish are very interested. I suggest that it is essential that the next people should be the United Kingdom because if we do not do anything then for certain somebody else will. My noble friend Lord Torrington spoke very properly about the lack of control that can come from non-United Kingdom-based satellites and the real danger of lower standards being created. I personally do not believe that control is necessarily doomed. I very much hope not because I am one of those who believe passionately that the excellence of our broadcasting in this country, which is the envy of the world, has come about because of the way in which the Government and the broadcasters between them have been willing to see it controlled.
I should remind your Lordships that there is one further benefit. If a British satellite is launched, the footprint, as it is called, will cover the whole of this country for the domestic dish, but the footprint for cable will cover the whole of Europe. We shall not only have the opportunity of broadcasting in this country to homes and to cable systems, but we shall have the opportunity to move into a pre-eminent position in the growing European cable systems. I believe that we have at the most three years, if we are not to be overtaken by more extraterritorial competition.
I very much welcome the initiative that the Government have recently taken (which they announced, without very much fanfare, in a Written Answer in another place to a Private Notice Question on 20th February) that they were asking the IBA to put out tenders for contractors who would be prepared to find finance for the putting up of a satellite, who would operate it and who would find programmers for the three channels which they suggested should be operative out of the five possibles. I have no doubt at all that both the Government and the IBA understand the urgency of this, but I shall be grateful for anything that the Government can tell us today. I do not ask my noble friend today to describe this whole large subject, but I should be pleased to hear that the Government have some date in mind for British direct broadcasting satellites to go into business.
As I said we have the finest broadcasting in the world, so let us seize this latest opportunity to make ourselves pre-eminent in that as well.
6.17 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I join other members in congratulating the noble Viscount, Lord Torrington, upon the fascinating way in which he introduced this report. I should like to emphasise, and add further congratulations on, the nature of the report, because he has done a splendid job, in my view, in finalising this report on a very difficult subject, with

55
the perhaps difficult witnesses who came before us. I feel that this report will be of great use to the Commission in its further deliberations. It is a contribution towards helping further integration of the Community on matters with which the report is concerned.
It would be trite of me to say that this Green Paper deals with very complex problems arising from cross-frontier broadcasting in a period of rapid technological change—something which the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, emphasised. One of our witnesses said that the Green Paper is merely a web "of theoretical reasoning". But its proposals are controversial and have already led to much useful debate in many countries.
It has also been emphasised that I am a practitioner in intellectual property. I am grateful for the kind words that have been said about me this evening. Consequently, as the Green Paper raised matters in relation to the Rome Treaty, I confess that I rather selfishly and pragmatically limited my interests in the committee's activities to two main themes in the Green Paper and tried to follow them.
That was somewhat difficult. First, I tried to follow the argument as to whether the Commission was competent to deal with cross-frontier broadcasting in this way having regard to the terms of the Rome Treaty; and, secondly, I attempted to analyse that part of the Green Paper which dealt with copyright matters arising, as it were, from the footprints made by television broadcasting in crossing frontiers. As to the competence of the Commission in these matters, I had noted with some interest that this Green Paper, unlike so many other Green Papers, was not merely born of bureaucrats in Brussels but had, as far as I can understand, arisen from a resolution of the European Parliament in March 1982. I have not been able to find whether that resolution has been debated in the European Parliament.
However, at an early stage in the evidence it became clear that there would be severe objections to accepting the Commission's view that the concept of regulation of Community broadcasting over frontiers fell within the scope of the Rome Treaty. Indeed, some parts of the Green Paper seemed to run counter to some recent decisions of the European Court of Justice. I was supported in this view by the oral evidence of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, who gave evidence to us as chairman of the Independent Broadcasting Authority. But his evidence was of very considerable significance, in my view, as he was also a former commissioner of the EC. He said this—and I think that these are words which are worth quoting:
"I ought to begin by saying we very much understand and sympathise with the European aspirations that lie behind the Commission's Green Paper … The concept of a Community broadcasting without frontiers is, certainly, on the face of it an admirable European sentiment and a goal with which we would in principle agree. But I am bound to say that the IBA has serious reservations about the basic premises of the Commission's approach to these issues".
He goes on to say later:
"The EEC is an economic community. The Treaty of Rome is an economic treaty. The Green Paper treats broadcasting as if it were predominantly an economic service, justifying this by reference to
56
Articles 59 and 60 of the Treaty. But, broadcasting, while it is to be paid for in one way or another, is predominantly not an economic service".
He goes on then to apologise for speaking so harshly of the results of such painstaking Commission work in producing this Green Paper. I put the views of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, to the witnesses who appeared from the BBC. Mr. Jennings, a legal adviser of the BBC, was good enough to say (at page 76 of the report) that I had accurately summarised the basic view of the BBC that broadcasting, like education, was not covered by the terms of the Rome Treaty. He went on further to say that even if Articles 59 and 60 of the Rome Treaty were to apply to broadcasting as a service, it would not be regarded as just an economic activity but was something much broader than that. For those reasons he felt that the Green Paper had got itself into serious difficulties in the present context of broadcasting.
However the sub-committee had one further interesting memorandum introduced by Mars Corporate Services, who are one of the biggest advertisers and whose advertisements pass all over Europe. I was sorry that that representative of Mars Corporate Services was not orally examined. He made an interesting analysis of the Rome Treaty position, starting at page 252 of the report. This interpretation of the Rome Treaty is certainly something which I shall bear in mind in other discussions arising out of this report.
Now I come to the question of copyright. There have been certain references to what I shall say about copyright. I hope that I shall not disappoint those kind persons who have spoken earlier this evening about my being a practitioner in this field particularly concerned with the Rome Treaty. I must confess that I went to Dounreay with the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, with the noble Viscount, Lord Torrington, and with today's maiden speaker, the noble Viscount, Lord Chilston. He told me that, as a film producer, he would be dealing with practical matters out of his experience on copyright matters.
Perhaps I am rather late in congratulating the noble Viscount on his maiden speech but all your Lordships heard how he dealt so practically with these questions of copyright in the context of TV broadcasting crossing frontiers. I think it would be a waste of time for me now to enter into anything speculative about the future of copyright matters when we have had this practical statement from the noble Viscount, Lord Chilston.
When the British Copyright Council gave evidence, it said (at page 239) that in so far as copyright was concerned this Green Paper was:
"densely written"—
and again I quote—
"rather tedious and time consuming to assimilate".
Therefore, having heard the splendid maiden speech of the noble Viscount and having quoted what the British Copyright Council has said about the Green Paper on copyright, I shall be quite brief in dealing with this section on copyright. It was interesting to have Mr. Coleman, the head of the Intellectual Property and Unfair Competition Division of the European Commission, to give evidence. He made it

57
clear that copyright itself comes within the scope of the Treaty of Rome. I have had some professional dealings with Mr. Coleman recently on questions relating to the harmonisation of the laws of copyright in EC countries quite apart from the deliberations of this Select Committee.
It is the view of a number of countries, and of some members of the secretariat of the Commission, that the United Kingdom law on copyright has provisions which other EC countries have not and therefore that the owners of UK copyright have advantages in some areas over other countries in the EC. For instance, we have what is known as conversion damages. If you are successful in suing anybody for breach of copyright, you do not merely get ordinary damages but you get conversion damages which may be very much larger than the normal damages that are given in intellectual property matters. Again, the length of term of copyright in this country is so much greater than the length of term of copyright in other countries.
There is now pressure being brought to bear to modify the United Kingdom law particularly in these two areas. Many of the United Kingdom institutions that gave evidence to us may wish to reserve such advantages as we may have against those neighbours abroad who, as it were, were making footprints, gaining access and infringing some of their rights. However that may be, I do not feel that I should take up your Lordships' time with more of my legalistic views on the present copyright themes in the Green Paper.
Mr. Collins, a member of the European Parliament, gave evidence at page 219 that the Green Paper, whatever its complexity, lays a good foundation for a Commission directive on television advertising along the lines talked about by my noble friend Lord McGregor of Durris. On page 138 I raised with a witness the question of the protection of children and young people from advertisement of alcoholic beverages. That seems to be a factor needing urgent attention because it may have some influence in relation to the vandalism at football matches which we so much deplore. The Government may have something to say about that.
Perhaps I may, in conclusion, say that I sympathise with the European aspirations that lie behind the Commission's Green Paper and its efforts to achieve coherence and co-ordination in the interests of the integration of the Community economically as well as politically. However, it is clear that at present the differences of political, cultural and historical heritage of EC countries and, perhaps, the limited terms of the Rome Treaty, have provided stumbling blocks to progress of the kind envisaged in the Green Paper. As the Select Committee has concluded, there is a strong case for regarding the Green Paper mainly as a basis for further discusssions, in particular with regard to standards for satellite transmissions, advertising and many of the other fields of high technology which will impinge upon broadcasting in the future.
6.32 p.m.
Lord Taylor: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord 'Torrington, must be very pleased by the reception of his baby. It is obviously an extremely popular one. I was equally delighted with his speech until about the
58
last one-third, when he made us think of a television yellow pages supplement which would help to raise the advertising revenue necessary for the many channels.
It is worth remembering that one can only watch one channel at a time and that the advantages of 60, 40, 20 or 10 channels are limited, in particular if their quality is limited. The vision of the noble Viscount, Lord Torrington, of complete freedom of broadcasting is more roseate than mine when I think of public service broadcasting in America. It has to devote days appealing to the audience to send half dollars, dollars or whatever it may be to keep the system going. It is a highly dicey job to get the money necessary for the excellent broadcasting service that is provided. I think the public service broadcasting probably underpays for BBC and other feature films. The noble Viscount and his committee have done the most remarkable job. I must congratulate them on their English, which is superb, beautiful, crisp, delightful and all correct.
The noble Viscount, Lord Chilston, made an excellent maiden speech. I take it that he Is an independent producer—a most dangerous occupation, as I understand it, and one in which one can sometimes lose a great deal of money and sometimes make a great deal of money. I must confess to indirect family connections as one of my children has married into the Holmes Associates family, which the noble Viscount, Lord Chilston, I am sure, will know.
I must also declare a couple of indirect interests. My elder son is co-ordinator of the plans for the super channel. That is a combined ITV and BBC company to make programmes which would be radiated on an existing satellite. I must not say anything about that because it would be wrong. They must speak for themselves.
One thing which is clear is the cost of putting up a satellite. I believe that it costs 12 million dollars, of which half is the cost of launching. It will take a bit of doing to get back 12 million dollars commercially. It means that most television via satellite must be commercial. It must earn a large advertising revenue and it must command a large audience.
My second special interest in the matter is that I am still a visiting professor of medicine at the Memorial University of Newfoundland. I was the vice-chancellor when we started a tele-medicine unit which aimed to cover the whole of Newfoundland and Labrador with medical advice by means of television. We conducted a series of experiments. Fortunately, the Americans provided half a satellite. I think it was called Hermes. This was in about 1970. That satellite was available to cover the vast and sparsely populated areas of northern Canada from Calvary and St. John's. We did not know how it would work, but we knew that there were doctors working in isolation who might benefit from the service.
However, after a six-month trial we found that there was very little to be gained from having a moving picture as against voice-to-voice transmissions. With conventional voice-to-voice telephone transmissions we could have a still picture within 70 seconds. We take a video picture and transmit a single still. That gives, for example, an electro-cardiograph or an electro-encephalograph, if they are required. That can usually be done by two people speaking together; they do not always need a satellite.

59
As one drives along the roads in Canada, one sees large red and white trellis poles with dishes on top. They constitute the microwave system of the Canadian telecommunications commission. They enable one to have a hook-up of any number of people for individual consultations, conferences or committee meetings. They are quite useful. I say "quite useful" as they do not replace the conference, because at conferences the most useful information is often that which comes out in the bar or, in America, on the broadwalk, and in general discussions after the conference.
If one uses the system for teleconferences, one must be a very good chairman to keep the thing going properly. We have found the system useful in relatively few cases. We have had one successful use of a satellite. It is to link St. John's with the University of Nairobi. The satellite has voice-to-voice communication with a picture one way—to St. John's. This is used for the interpretation of electroencephalograms, and has proved quite successful and worthwhile; but it would be utterly uneconomic in terms of cost had it not been a free gift of spare time on an existing satellite.
The last problem we have in Newfoundland—and it is a special problem—concerns working with floating oil-rigs. Here the transmission of a signal is fairly frequently frustrated by the roughness of the sea. If one is trying to send a picture it is not always easy. These rigs have to be mobile because of the possibility of icebergs coming down and wrecking the rig. So, again, the value has been limited. It is a very good example of why one should not legislate until one has done a great deal of experimenting.
I therefore heartily welcome the conclusions of the report and heartily welcome the work of the committee of the noble Viscount, Lord Torrington. I hope that we shall follow the advice and hasten very slowly here.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Lovell-Davis: My Lords, before commenting on the report I should make it clear to your Lordships that, although I am a consultant to companies and associations which have made their own responses to the Green Paper, the views I wish to express in this debate are my own.
I should like to start by adding to that of other noble Lords my appreciation of the time and effort that the noble Viscount, Lord Torrington, and the committee have devoted to the preparation of their report on the Commission's Green Paper. A substantial amount of evidence has been painstakingly taken and deliberated upon before the committee has presented us with its conclusions.
I should be concealing my true reactions, however, were I not to admit to some sense of disappointment at several of those conclusions. It seemed to me, as I read much of the evidence, that too many interested parties want to preserve the status quo—a status quo which does not in fact exist. The broadcasting scene is changing rapidly and will go on changing. New technology, in the form of cable television and DBS, is presenting us with social, economic and technological
60
challenges to which neither the Community as a whole nor its member states can afford to adopt a "wait and see" policy.
In certain respects, a comparison of the Green Paper and the report reminds me of the American comedian Mort Sahl's definition of the difference between the Democrats and Republicans. The Democrats, he would say, believe in change; the Republicans believe in change, too—but not now. Well, I believe that a policy of change is needed—and needed now. I agree with that part of the National Consumer Council's evidence which says:
"A 'do nothing' policy is likely to produce the worst of all worlds".
Consequently, I cannot agree with the committee's conclusion at paragraph 96:
"The Green Paper is a comprehensive attempt to stimulate debate … it must be regarded only as a basis for discussion".
In my view, the Green Paper represents a careful but determined approach to problems we cannot shrug off, in which cables are already laid and are still being laid, in which satellites are in orbit and more direct broadcasting satellites will go into orbit in the future, covering vast areas of the EC and Europe as a whole with their broadcasting footprints. All this is happening against a confused background of national rules and regulations which, if they remain as they are, will create chaos, as cross-frontier broadcasting inexorably presses forward.
One has only to look at the present situation so far as broadcast advertising is concerned to get some idea of the problems which may arise. In some member states television advertising is permitted; in others it is not. The prohibitions on what may or may not be advertised, and when, vary from country to country and in some instances have a somewhat bizarre quality. In France, for instance, there are restrictions on television advertising of tourism, records, the press, textiles and (the farming lobby at it again perhaps) margarine. In Italy, cruises, tours and boats cannot be advertised on television; in the Netherlands, correspondence courses. Here in the United Kingdom, not only correspondence clubs, matrimonial agencies and "undertakers or others associated with death or burial", but the IBA code also prohibits advertising by charities. Comparative product advertising is effectively ruled out in Germany, Italy, Portugal and Spain. Television advertising as a whole is prohibited in Belgium, Denmark, Norway and Sweden.
However, more and more countries are beginning to recognise that much of the funding for the costly new technologies, and the programmes which will be needed if we are not to import wall-to-wall soap operas but are to set minimum quotas of Community and national programmes, will have to come from advertising. Whatever may be one's personal view of broadcast advertising and sponsorship, it is unrealistic to imagine that this is not going to be a major source of the massive funding which will be required. It is equally hard to imagine the convoluted arrangements which would have to be made to fit advertising-backed cable and DBS broadcasts into the complex variety of national rules and regulations as they exist at present.
The Commission's Green Paper is a laudable attempt to establish some ground rules which will take

61
the place of these complicated national arrangements. It proposes to simplify, not to impose new rules and regulations. Its objective is to open up the field to the new communications technology which exists, is already in operation and, in my view, can do so much for the economic and social well-being of the Community; and within which the self-regulation referred to in the committee's report can operate effectively.
It has been said, notably by the Home Office in its evidence and by the EBU, that all,
"these difficulties can best be sorted out on a bilateral basis between the broadcasting organisations themselves or between the broadcasting organisation in one country and the government in another".
Apart from finding this a rather mind-boggling method of dealing with the situation we are debating today, I take a rather cynical view of this bland assumption, not least because I have attempted to find out more about these bilateral agreements, even to the point of raising the subject with a senior member of the EBU, only to find that singularly little information is forthcoming. This leads me to suspect that, apart from being an inadequate solution to the problems facing us, the arrangements may cosily suit the parties involved more than they serve the Community as a whole.
There is one conclusion in the report which seriously affects the contribution it makes to the general EC debate on television without frontiers. It is contained in paragraph 97, which states:
"The Green Paper fails to make a convincing case that the EEC is either fully competent or the best suited authority to regulate broadcasting between Member States".
Leaving aside the second part of the statement, consideration of the Green Paper's recommendations must have been rather inhibited by the committee's doubts about the competence of the Commission to legislate on broadcasting. I must confess that had I been a member of the committee, I would have found it academic to go much further than that one conclusion.
The view that the Community is not competent seems to be based on two lines of argument. The first is that Community institutions have authority to deal only with those matters that are specifically assigned to them under the EC treaty, and that since the treaty makes no reference to broadcasting, that matter is the exclusive concern of the member states. The second is that broadcasting serves vital cultural, social and political purposes, which are also the individual concern of member states.
But the treaty is a framework that sets out a number of general objectives, the manner of achieving which is not described in detail; it is left to the Commission to apply the broad principles of the treaty. And two of the main objectives of the treaty are to create a common market in services by the removal of barriers to the freedom to supply services across national boundaries, and to create a common market in goods by the removal of barriers to their free movement between member states. The proposals in the Green Paper, I suggest, are a step towards achieving those objectives.
Your Lordships will know, better than I, the cases that have come before the European Court of Justice and may be adduced to advance the argument that the
62
Community has authority to introduce measures to eliminate restrictions on the freedom to provide services. In such an august legal assembly as your Lordships' House, I shall not presume to rehearse them. I only wish to say that I believe that the committee has not given proper weight to the economic importance of broadcasting—which already provides direct employment for some 100,000 people within the EC and a substantial volume of work for the electronics, telecommunications and aerospace industries—and that (to refer to a matter that has already been raised) broadcasting is no less subject to the treaty than what is referred to in evidence as
"cross-frontier traffic in pig-meat or banking".
In putting forward the proposals in the Green Paper, the Commission is acting within the authority and duty given to it under Article 155 of the EC treaty to ensure that the provisions of the treaty are applied. Broadcasting involves the provision of services that are subject to the rules on freedom to provide services. As the European Court of Justice ruled in the Saatchi case,
"the transmission of television signals, including those in the nature of advertisements, comes, as such, within the rules of the Treaty relating to services".
Although in the Debauve case the court pointed out,
"the provisions of the Treaty on freedom to provide services cannot apply to activities whose relevant elements are confined within a single Member State",
the opportunities for trans-national broadcasting are widening and current national copyright legislation and widely varying restrictions on advertising can severely prejudice its viability. The Commission therefore is taking what seems to me the eminently sensible step of proposing harmonising legislation under Article 100 of the treaty, and, as the report itself emphasise,
"The Commission wants 'the absolute necessary minimum' of harmonisation".
The Green Paper is not about laying down the law on matters of national culture, programmes or the specific interests of individual states.
The committee's report refers in Part 6 to matters of copyright and concludes that:
"the Green Paper has not made out a case for Community regulation of copyright by a statutory licensing system",
and that,
"Copyright matters should be left to evolve further".
Clearly, this is an important matter, and the Green Paper's implication is that:
"existing copyright arrangements are a barrier to the further development of cross-frontier broadcasting".
However, there are Members of this House far better qualified than I am who have pronounced on those matters—notably the noble Viscount, Lord Chilston, whom I congratulate upon his maiden speech and its contribution to this debate, and the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. I shall not venture into that particular minefield, as I am certain to get blown up.
However, I should like to make one further comment on the committee's general approach to the Green Paper, exemplified by its consideration and conclusions on subjects such as advertising, air time, bans on advertising, the protection of minors, and the general interests of consumers and viewers.

63
No one who has been following the widening debate on the Green Paper since its publication in May 1984 can have failed to be aware of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which deals specifically with freedom of expression, the limitations which may be placed upon it, and its part in that debate. Article 10 is referred to specifically in the Green Paper; legal opinion on it has been published; and it appears in speeches, articles, and most of the discussions that have taken place on the Green Paper. Properly so, since it raises the subject of freedom of commercial speech and also because 21 European countries, including the United Kingdom, subscribe to the convention.
Article 10 crops up in the evidence given to the committee—but it is not mentioned in the report. Considering all its implications, I find that an extraordinary and disappointing omission, not only because it is germane to the subject but also because the committee's views would have been an informative and useful contribution to the debate.
In conclusion, I am of the opinion that a directive is needed and, since it will probably take years for it to be implemented by member states, I welcome the Commission's initiative in producing the Green Paper. The directive should be broad and designed, as the Green Paper itself states,
"to achieve only the absolute necessary minimum of harmonised rules".
I really cannot agree with the committee's conclusion that,
"the Green Paper is trying to do too much too soon",
and while recognising that this is a highly complicated subject to which the committee has devoted much thought and effort, I wish that its report had been a more positive and forward-looking response to the Green Paper.
6.57 p.m.
The Duke of Portland: My Lords, television without frontiers sounds fine but I have a feeling that we should beware of attaching too much importance to that appellation. I detected in the Green Paper adopted by the European Commission in 1984 a tendency to propose directives and regulations that may, owing to lack of experience, hinder rather than further the international spread of television.
In my opinion, the Commission should not be in a hurry to issue directives or to set up new regulatory bodies but should see how those bodies that are functioning now can be adjusted as required to cope with new technologies. For instance, the ITU remains the best forum for the allocation of frequencies. To discard the present system of national allocation would put in question the entire world legal system for the administration of frequencies, whose effectiveness in establishing a system for the administration of frequencies is unquestioned. Likewise, the European Broadcasting Union—the EBU—has proved through the years the most effective body in smoothing out difficult problems between individual broadcasters, etc.
At the same time, our enthusiasm for the new technologies that are opening before us should be
64
curbed by bearing in mind the immense obstacle created by the numerous different languages of the peoples of Europe. While broadband cable may enable the subscriber to receive perhaps as many as 30 different stations, how many will he really tune in to? Two or three in his own language, except perhaps for sport or music.
Perhaps I am being over-pessimistic, remembering my experiences as a director of British Relay Wireless. When this company was founded over 20 years ago and I joined the board, we were filled with optimism that this would prove a real money spinner. We were disappointed. If we had not also been engaged in the rental of television sets we would have been bankrupt; and in those days laying cables was comparatively cheap. As for direct broadcasting services—that is, satellites—we cannot be certain how this new technology will develop.
The Green Paper—perhaps we should call it a volume, as it has about 400 pages—is trying to do too much too soon. While there may be a case for trying to harmonise advertising standards by EC regulation the proposed directive for advertising contained in the Green Paper may impede rather than achieve a free flow of advertising. I would submit that the development of voluntary common rules for advertising is likely to prove more efficient than regulations set up by authorities which have their own theories based on little practical experience.
I should like to turn to the question of copyright. Here I wish to refer to a passage in the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee of the EC commenting on the Green Paper's proposal as regards copyright. That committee rightly attaches great importance to the protection of copyright for authors, performers and producers, and all others involved in cable and satellite broadcasting. It considers that steps must be taken to ensure that the exploitation of copyright and performance rights are adequately rewarded; for which purpose the present contractual systems must be maintained and the question of what royalties should be paid must be left to contractual negotiation between the parties and not depend on the decision of a third party.
I think that the Green Paper has served a useful purpose in ventilating the various aspects of Television without Frontiers and new technologies. However, as was made clear to us in the committee by the numerous witnesses we interviewed, the Green Paper is trying to do too much too soon. I have heard disturbing rumours that the Commission intends to issue the directives proposed in the Green Paper without further discussion. If these rumours are correct I hope that Her Majesty's Government will strongly oppose this folly.
7.3 p.m.
Lord Kissin: My Lords, I wish to pay special tribute to the noble Viscount, Lord Torrington, who has patiently and efficiently led the committee through unexplored territory with the help of the special adviser and the committee's clerk. I for one now have a greater appreciation of the difficulties that will face us as the broadcasting revolution proceeds.
I support—and I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis—the committee's conclusions that

65
the Commission's Green Paper should be regarded as a discussion document rather than as an action plan. The European Community is often slow in responding to political and economic developments and bringing forward proposals when member governments and other bodies have already established their positions. It is amazing that in this case the situation has been reversed. The future of broadcasting can take us in many different directions and areas and technology is advancing at such a speed that I am concerned that the Commission's Green Paper is coming out with detailed proposals for legislation rather than suggestions for monitoring these changes and keeping an open mind.
I was fascinated by the enormous amount of evidence that the committee has taken from a wide variety of interested bodies. There is no doubting the vitality of the European broadcasting industry and its willingness to take advantage of technological change; in particular the introduction of broadcasting by cable or satellite. It is clear that consumer demand for a wider range of services will have a marked impact on development and broadcasting in the future will bear little resemblance to the broadcasting of today. Is it cable or direct broadcasting by satellite which will become the most popular media? I am not sure. If it is direct broadcasting—and I shall refer to that later—then many of the Commission's proposals are, to my mind, irrelevant.
In that case it is likely that non-European organisations will soon be able to broadcast directly within the Community and further undermine the position of nationally based broadcasting systems. The Community will have no legal jurisdiction over these satellite systems and the committee have had to take the view that a strict Community régime is therefore likely to be at best irrelevant or at worst damaging, creating many legal anomalies. The committee's conclusions stress that the Commission's proposals are at this stage unlikely to bring any advantages to the furtherance of a European Economic Community. It is a very wide issue which clearly will be debated over a long period.
The Commission believes that a broadcasting policy will contribute to European integration. Even listening to the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, in his plea for greater regulation on advertising, I am not clear how this will help in the integration of a European Economic Community. I think I should like him or even the Commission to clarify their objectives in this regard. I am not clear about what it wants to achieve at this juncture by legislation.
It has become obvious from all the evidence that the committee has taken that the legal basis for Community action in the field of broadcasting is rather nebulous. There is at present only very limited European case law and there is widespread disagreement as to its general applicability. Ultimately, political judgments will have to be made by member governments as to how far they wish the Community to be involved in this area. I believe, with the committee, that there is very little that requires legislation at this time while there may be many areas that need to be watched as technology progresses.
Moreover, as far as advertising is concerned, which is a major issue, attitudes to broadcasting differ widely
66
throughout Europe. This is hardly surprising given the cultural and historical diversity of the nations which are members of the EC. I am concerned that any attempts to harmonise broadcasting standards will not further anybody's interests. We have clearly heard from witnesses that they fear that harmonising means restricting, rather than liberalising. Thus, I feel that the committee is right in not supporting the Green Paper's directive on advertising at this point.
The committee's conclusions must be right that the development of voluntary common rules is a better way to proceed, particularly in the case of advertising standards. Both the Independent Broadcasting Authority and the Incorporated Society of British Advertisers spoke positively about the advantages of self-regulation. I would repeat the statement of the Incorporated Society of British Advertisers:
"When codes of practice are willingly supported by all parties, especially the advertisers, then they carry a great deal of practical and moral force and are likely to be observed".
I think that this is a better way than legislation at this point in our development.
In addition, if direct broadcasting by satellite becomes dominant, it puts television in the same position as radio, since it will make it possible to receive signals from all over the world. Even communist countries have great difficulty in banning broadcasts from the free world, and the Community should itself guard against adopting rigid legal rules. The committee rightly concluded that:
"The Green Paper fails to make a convincing case that the EEC is either a fully competent or the best suited authority to regulate broadcasting between member states".
It does not exclude the possibility that there may be another authority that could be of practical value to standardisation of an advertising system.
Despite the committee's misgivings at this stage, one does not want to discourage the European Commission from continuing to take an interest in these matters as they arise and publicising the problems accordingly.
However, there are two areas which I think the Commission might examine—and my colleagues on the committee were not all with me on this point. First, I wonder whether it is possible to devise a method to defend individuals or commercial bodies and to give them redress if they are defamed or slandered in broadcasts originating outside their own country but in an EC broadcast. I do not believe in the viability of a right to reply. It will not be enough. The committee believes that the directive to enforce a statutory right to reply would be unlikely to achieve universal acceptance. But what happens if someone's livelihood is materially damaged by allegations made in broadcasts? There is no way in which a person defamed through a broadcast in any of the EC member countries has any immediate remedy but only through an action in the courts in that country. To my mind this is inadequate. At present it will fail absolutely to give any kind of protection within a reasonable period of time.
There was evidence that it would be possible to set up a pan-European organisation through which claims for defamation which are relevant to a person's or a commercial organisation's livelihood might be set up. I do not wish to see more bureaucracy in Europe, but

67
the problem deserves consideration because redress is only of value if it can be implemented more rapidly than is normally the case. Secondly, I would support greater consideration being given to protection of copyright and how it could be extended from the national to the European level and be enforceable and effective in all member states with immediacy.
There are greater experts on this subject that I, and I feel that it is not for me to continue speaking on this subject but I think that these two areas deserve some attention and will be focussed on in further discussions. Beyond these I believe that the Community should help broadcasters to learn from each other and find their own solutions.
The Committee did not believe, and I support their view, that there is a case for furthering a distinct European Community culture. There is no such thing as a European Community culture. There are only many national cultures. If television really is to be without frontiers then the Community cannot afford to isolate itself from the rest of the world by proposing regulations of a restrictive nature.
I should like to make one personal observation. I am a strong supporter of the basic aims of the European Economic Community but I disagree with some of the EEC's priorities, as the committee diplomatically indicated in its conclusions by saying—which was something that disturbed the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis—that in regard to broadcasting, the Commission is trying to do too much too soon. The reason for this is very simple. We do not know the frontiers of the future of the broadcasting revolution through which we are passing. When we have a better conception of how far this revolution is going, I think we must come back to the subject—but not before. Any measures now would be half measures. They will not deal with the rapidly developing systems that will come into operation within the next few years.
To me the central point of the problem is that the type of regulation which in this Green Paper the EEC is trying to enforce is not the most relevant to the aim of establishing a European Economic Community at this point.
Introducing a decimal system into our monetary world, regulating the shape of icecream cones, lawnmower noise or the question of retirement for men and women, on which so much effort, time and money are being spent, does not bring us any nearer at this moment towards the economic integration of the members of the European Economic Community and to the exploitation of its real potential.
To return to the matter in hand, I believe that the Community should help broadcasters learn from each other and, except for the two specific areas which I have mentioned, it should not take an initiative at this point.
I found my time on the committee most enjoyable. I learned a lot about technical developments of which I had only known rather vaguely before. I certainly have not wasted time by taking part in the deliberations. I am not critical of the Commission's effort to highlight the problems arising from the DBS and the implications arising from the upheaval that we have witnessed. However, I am critical of the Commission's
68
attempt to put forward practical and immediate proposals for early legislation in this field when we have so many technical developments still to come.
I wonder whether those who are supposed to give the Commission a brief on urgent legislation that is of great immediacy should not re-examine their priorities on the EEC in the shortest possible period so that the EEC can become a united and powerful voice in the world.
7.18 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, it is not often in your Lordships' House that we have the opportunity to debate broadcasting, and the chance to consider its international aspects is an even greater rarity. Radio has, of course, crossed frontiers ever since its inception and, despite the excitement over the development of short-wave radio in the 1930s, has never caused any major problems. Now the technologies of cable and satellite are leading us into a new and exciting age, when television programmes as well as radio can cross international frontiers to a degree undreamt of a few years ago. This debate therefore provides an important opportunity for me to explain the Government's approach to this revolution, as my noble friend Lord Torrington described it.
The debate has also provided the moment for my noble friend Lord Chilston to make his excellent and often amusing maiden speech. I am delighted to be able to congratulate him on it most sincerely. As we have heard, he brings to the subject his experience as a film producer. I was most interested to hear his lucid views on copyright, to which I shall return shortly. I know that I speak for all your Lordships when I say that I hope we shall have the benefit of his interventions regularly and again before long.
I, too, should like to pay a sincere tribute to my noble friend Lord Torrington and to his committee—five of whom have spoken in the debate—for their excellent and highly readable report and also for the evidence that it contains which has provided the opportunity for the debate. He and his committee have undertaken a most thorough and painstaking examination over the past year of the complex proposals put forward by the European Commission. They have taken evidence from all the relevant interests: the Government, the broadcasters, the cable interests, those who provide the satellite programmes, the advertisers, the copyright interests, the consumers, and even from the Commission itself. The balance of opinion in this country on the EC Green Paper is very well reflected in the committee's final report, which constitutes a most valuable and effective commentary on the Green Paper and it is certain to influence the course of the debate in Europe.
In June 1984 the Commission decided to follow the very British practice of publishing its proposals in Green Paper form, although it is coloured lilac, and subsequently throwing them open to the widest possible debate. Since then it has held numerous meetings with all the interests involved. Despite the considerable reservations that the Government have on the contents of the Green Paper, I would like nevertheless, along with the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, to acknowledge the debt we owe to the

69
Commission for having brought the document to public light. It has raised the profile of the debate in Europe on these important current questions, and we particularly welcome its willingness to discuss the issues freely and to listen to the full range of views expressed. It has kept a relatively open mind which I hope, as does the noble Lord, Lord Kissin, it continues to do.
The Government's attitude to the Green Paper proposals is very clearly set out in the two memoranda submitted to the Select Committee by the Home Office and the Department of Trade and Industry, and follows closely the general approach which the committee itself has taken. In general, we believe that the Commission has not yet made out a case that would justify in practice the promulgation of Community legislation on broadcasting from Brussels. Like the Select Committee, we believe that any problems that do arise in developing trans-frontier television services would best be dealt with under the traditional procedures that have been followed by the broadcasters and programme providers until now; that is, by multilateral agreement in the European Broadcasting Union and by bilateral discussions, between broadcasters and between governments. This informal, flexible, ad hoc approach is far more likely to succeed, I suggest, than one of central legislative direction which, as we have seen in the recent reaction of the Green Paper, is more likely to breed hostility and lack of co-operation. In that regard, can I say how much I agree with the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, when he gave his parallel illustration of how there may have been too much haste in the marketing of computers when they first appeared on the scene.
The Select Committee speaks out plainly on the question of Community competence in broadcasting matters. The Treaty of Rome does not, of course, mention the word broadcasting at all, although that is a point of which one might lose sight in reading the Green Paper. Of course, as the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Graham of Edmonton, indicated, broadcasting has its commercial and industrial—economic, in a word—aspects. But it is far from being merely a commercial service. Rather, I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, it is the social, cultural and political considerations that inevitably predominate.
Indeed, one of the general criticisms of the Green Paper that seems to be shared by most groups is that insufficient weight has been given in it to the significance and indeed the sensitivity of those aspects. The Government have yet to take a firm view on the general issue of competence. But it is clear that before any discussion can take place in Brussels on the detailed content of any draft directive these questions of competence must be gone into in some depth to the satisfaction of all member states.
I am sure that your Lordships would not expect me, within the confines of this debate, to go into the Government's attitude on every fine point of detail of these proposals. But, so far as the advertising proposals are concerned, many of them seem to follow the lines of the system already adopted by the IBA. We hope that the Commission will follow a flexible approach in this respect.
70
I listened with considerable interest to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, with his unparalleled experience of self-regulation in the field of advertising. It is perhaps an open question whether self-regulation in international broadcast advertising should require a specific institutional framework with enforcement powers or whether it should merely involve voluntary adherence by countries to the guidelines already promulgated by the International Chambers of Commerce, the EBU or the Council of Europe. The noble Lord's proposals in this respect will have given us serious food for thought.
The noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, in a dissenting note, referred to the different advertising rules in European countries. I acknowledge that these differences do of course exist. But it is our view that these differences are slowly breaking down as cross-frontier transmissions become more frequent. It is certainly true that those few countries which do not now permit broadcast advertising domestically nevertheless in practice permit such advertising in services from abroad.
My noble friend Lord Chilston, the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, with his experience of the subject, and, indeed, my noble friend the Duke of Portland and the noble Lord, Lord Kissin, all referred to the question of copyright. The essential purpose of the Green Paper in its copyright proposals is to ensure that copyright should not be used as a means to prevent the retransmission in one member state, normally by cable, of a broadcast made from another member state. It proposes therefore that rights to control such retransmission should be abolished so that cable operators will be free to transmit cross-frontier broadcasts without needing permission. The copyright owner would, however, be entitled to receive equitable remuneration at a rate to be determined, in the absence of agreement, by an arbitration body.
As your Lordships will be aware, this proposal has been almost universally condemned by copy right interests, who argue that copyright, like any other right, should be properly protected. The Government agree with them that the negotiation of voluntary agreements, as done so successfully in Belgium, is the best way to proceed. I can say that the Government will continue to argue as before for a system of voluntary agreements freely negotiated.
Since the Green Paper, there has been, we understand, another major change in the Commission's approach. The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, indicated in the debates in the European Parliament last September that the Commission would be bringing forward additional proposals to assist programme production. It has been rumoured that it is now considering proposals to place quotas on certain types of television programme; for example, on the amounts of domestic production and on co-productions. We believe that such ideas are misconceived and will be strongly resented by both broadcasters and new media interests alike.
What our broadcasters fear is that the process of harmonisation, however limited in first intention, will be upwards rather than downwards and burden our broadcasters, both domestically and overseas, with more restrictions than they face already. Our aim must surely be to try to preserve the flexibility that we enjoy

71
under our present system and which indeed helps to preserve what my noble friend Lord Chilston and others referred to as our unmatched standards.
The detailed proposals in a Community directive on individual products such as alcohol would have to be written on the face of a new Broadcasting Act, or at least in regulations made under that Act. If changed circumstances in this country make it necessary to adapt those regulations, we shall have first to go to Brussels to try to negotiate an amendment to the directive with our other Community partners. If we succeed in that, we shall then need new primary or secondary legislation to make the appropriate changes in our existing law. What can now be done by the IBA in a matter of days, would in future have to be done by the Government, perhaps over a period of many years. This is the kind of inflexibility that will lead to heavy and insensitive regulation, quite out of keeping with the needs of our broadcasting system.
The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, referred to the need to control advertising of alcohol in the interests of children. Having mentioned alcohol just now, perhaps I may say that the IBA code prevents the transmission of alcohol advertisements in proximity to children's programmes or the addressing of such advertisements to the young. Similar controls exist in other countries and I do not foresee a major problem in this area although I note the caution which he counsels.
We and our broadcasters are not alone in questioning the Commission's proposals. All the broadcasters in the European Broadcasting Union have made clear their opposition to Community legislation in this field, although of the member states' governments, not all have yet taken a clear stand. But we think it is likely that the majority will share our doubts. It is certainly true, however, that many of the new media interests—the Cable Authority, the Cable Television Association and some of the satellite programme providers—take a more positive approach to the Green Paper and might welcome some sort of Community framework particularly on advertising. But I believe that even they would not want such a framework if its price were the imposition of many additional restrictions on our domestic arrangements.
In the long run, what most broadcasters in this country fear—and the Government agree with them—is that the Green Paper will be the first step on a road towards centralisation of control over broadcasting which will culminate in each country's broadcasting legislation and programming policies being made from a central point in Brussels rather than in each member state. Harmonisation of rules on advertising is one thing, but central control of programme content is quite another. The Commission is quite open about this issue. Page 177 of the Green Paper, for example, states:
"an approximation of the rules on broadcasting—especially as regards the content of programmes—is already possible, and in the long term necessary, in order to achieve a common market for broadcasting. The question is not whether this objective of the EEC Treaty must be attained, but when and at what stage of integration."
The inclusion of programming quotas in the first draft directive that the Commission brings forward may well imply that this stage is coming faster even than the
72
Commission itself envisaged. The general question we have to ask ourselves today is whether we want our broadcasting arrangements and our broadcasting legislation in the longer term to be made in Brussels rather than in London.
That is a brief summary of our doubts and reservations about the Commission's proposals. But they certainly do not mean that the Government are opposed to the exciting new developments in trans-frontier broadcasting. Far from it. Like most other countries in Europe, we adhere to the general internationally held principles of free flow of information across frontiers. We fully support the Commission's general objective to facilitate as far as possible the development of trans-frontier broadcasting. We do not create obstacles to the reception of foreign services here; nor do we hinder our own programme providers in sending their programme services abroad. Our cable operators fully welcome new services from abroad. A number now take the Francophone service TV-5, and Westminster Cable, which has been perhaps the most enterprising in this field, takes World Public News (which includes programmes from the Netherlands and the Nordic countries as well as the United States) and even an Arab service from Dubai. Last May, the Government announced that they would freely issue licences for the individual reception of low-powered satellite programme services. Now anyone who can afford a dish antenna and can comply with planning permission is able to receive any number of these services from abroad, including two channels from the Soviet Union.
We heard a most interesting speech from my noble friend Lord De La Warr, who most effectively brought his long experience in the broadcasting world to bear upon this debate. I am grateful for the kind remarks of my noble friend on what I think he referred to as the textbook on DBS. It is not often that the Home Office gets lavish praise for the paperwork which it produces. I am very grateful for what my noble friend said. He mentioned the importance of maintaining a fast momentum in our current plans for IBA DBS, which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced on 20th February. I can assure him that the IBA is very well aware of this need and I understand that it hopes to be ready to issue its advertisement for DBS contracts in a month or so. If contractors can be found, and good progress made, our hope must be that a United Kingdom DBS Service can become operational before the end of 1989. I hope that that provides the reassurance in this exciting new field which my noble friend is looking for.
The record of this country is significant in exporting services to the rest of Europe. In 1982 Sky Channel became the trail blazer for satellite programme services in Europe. It has now achieved an audience size of over five million. It has been followed closely by the success of Music Box, and others such as Screen Sport, all of which have a viewing audience on the Continent considerably larger than their domestic audience because of the relatively slow growth of cable in this country to which we have heard reference made this evening. And recently the ITV companies have announced that their Superchannel service—to which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, referred as one in which

73
he had an indirect interest, and may I say that I was most interested to hear the description of the noble Lord of the services in Newfoundland?—will be starting up this autumn to send the best of British television programmes, including some purchased from the BBC, to audiences in Europe.
These examples show that we are committed to the principle of trans-frontier broadcasting. But, while it is one thing to recognise the importance of a European dimension, it is quite another to imply, as both the Commission and the European Parliament have done in the past, that all television services must cross frontiers. The domestic services of one country, because of differences in culture, outlook and—as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and my noble friend the Duke of Portland pointed out—language, will not always readily find an audience in another. At present, and perhaps for the foreseeable future, there will be only a limited audience for foreign programmes in this country, partly for language and partly for cultural reasons. And, despite the very great strength of television programming in this country and the world-wide recognition of its quality, we must never forget that much of what we see in this country on our televisions, in news, current affairs and other non-fiction programmes, is essentially of local and domestic interest to us and will not necessarily appeal to a rural family in the south of Italy or a businessman in Bonn. That is why, again, we emphasise that these movements of television across frontiers should be allowed to take place naturally, not as the result of a system of central direction.
The Green Paper quite rightly points out, and my noble friend Lord Torrington did too, that broadcasting signals are no respecters of national boundaries. What the Green Paper fails to emphasise, however, is that they are no respecters of Community boundaries either. If we look just at the television scene in this country today, we see that our home-grown services like Sky Channel are transmitted via satellite into countries such as Austria, Norway and Sweden. Similarly, TV-5, which is received by more than one cable system in this country, contains a segment of programmes from Switzerland. These illustrate the fact that if there were to be trans-national rules governing broadcasting in Europe they should be formulated in a wider grouping than that of the European Community. We do not want to see a tight system of EC rules preventing programme exchanges with non-EC countries. Nor do we want to impose unilaterally upon non-EC countries a set of Community rules just in order that we should see their television services and they ours.
That is why the Government favour the work that has already been going on for some years now in the Council of Europe on these matters, because that forum covers 23 European countries rather than just 12. The mass media committees of the Council of Europe have been heavily involved since the early 1980s in the latest developments governing trans-frontier broadcasting, and have already considered and discussed many of the issues presented in the Commission's Green Paper. Furthermore, they have as part of their continuing work programme already taken action on questions of trans-national regulation.
74
In December this year the Council of Europe will be holding in Vienna what I believe is the first meeting of Ministers responsible for broadcasting throughout Europe. They will no doubt be reviewing the work of the council in the general field and the common problems that remain, and setting the program me of work for the future. We shall, of course, play our full part in the proceedings in Vienna, and I have no doubt that they will prove productive. We shall, of course, play our full part in the discussions in Brussels as well. We await with interest the publication of the Commission's draft directive on all the matters that have been discussed in the Green Paper.
In bringing my remarks to an end, I again thank my noble friend Lord Torrington, his committee and all noble Lords who have spoken today. We shall scrutinise the text of the report closely and make our views on it clearly known. It is important, however, to make it clear now that the Government still remain to be convinced that Community legislation is justified at the present time, and in this I am glad to find that the Government agree completely with the cogent arguments deployed by the Select Committee. I say this with no disrespect to the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, who made an interesting if dissenting contribution, but the majority of those who have taken part in today's stimulating debate support the main view, too.
7.42 p.m.
Viscount Torrington: My Lords, I do not want to detain noble Lords from their dinners or from BBC, ITV and Channel 4, and especially from repeats of "I Love Lucy", "Bonanza", "Hopalong Cassidy", racing from Saratoga in 1965 and other delights no doubt reaching us by satellite television at the moment. I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. It is always gratifying when we have these EC debates that a number of noble Lords from outside the Select Committee, and especially the subcommittee, take part. There have been many this evening. I thank my noble friend the Minister for his robust bolstering of the committee's conclusions. I am sure that they will drive the "wedge" of my noble friend Lord De La Warr back to Brussels.
We are certain that there are proposals for further directives coming out of Brussels, and the Select Committee will want to look at those in a great deal of detail and possibly make a small supplementary report. I am sure that in the process we shall look into the matter of Article 10, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Prevention of Oil Pollution Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes before eight o'clock.

  THE NUCLEAR WINTER HYPOTHESIS
  THE NUCLEAR WINTER HYPOTHESIS
  YOUNG OFFENDERS: CUSTODIAL ACCOMMODATION
  YOUNG OFFENDERS: CUSTODIAL ACCOMMODATION
  BANGOR, Co. DOWN, LIBRARY
  BANGOR, Co. DOWN, LIBRARY
  COURT OF APPEAL JUDGMENT: TRANSCRIPT
  COURT OF APPEAL JUDGMENT: TRANSCRIPT
  HANDSWORTH TASK FORCE: APPOINTMENTS
  HANDSWORTH TASK FORCE: APPOINTMENTS
  THAMES CROSSING AT DARTFORD: GUIDELINES
  THAMES CROSSING AT DARTFORD: GUIDELINES
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT: INFORMATION ON NEW STRUCTURE
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT: INFORMATION ON NEW STRUCTURE
  LLOYD'S: COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY
  LLOYD'S: COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY