Sitting of 2 March 1987

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

ROYAL ASSENT
Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts :

1. Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987

2. Licensing (Restaurant Meals) Act 1987

3. Advocates' Widows' and Orphans' Fund Order Confirmation Act 1987

4. Plymouth City Council Act 1987

5. Port of Fosdyke Act 1987

6. Brighton Marine Palace and Pier Act 1987

7. Mid Glamorgan County Council Act 1987

Oral Answers to Questions
  WALES

    Unemployment
    Mr. Ray Powellasked the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the consequences for the Welsh economy of the current level of unemployment in Wales.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): On a seasonally adjusted basis, unemployment in Wales has fallen in nine out of the past 10 months. This is in some measure a reflection of the success of the action taken by the Government to promote investment and new jobs and to stimulate and encourage future growth in the Welsh economy.
    Mr. Powell: That does not really answer my question. The Library's research department estimates that £1,131 million has been expended on the payment of unemployment benefit and other related matters in Wales, and this figure, over the past seven years of the Tory Government, means that £7 billion to £8 billion could have been spent in the economy of Wales — money that industrialists, commercialists and others would have welcomed. When will the Secretary of State stop this lunacy and do something to get people back to work?
    Mr. Edwards: I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be pleased that we have provided benefit on a substantial scale to those who have suffered from unemployment. Equally, I am sure that he will welcome the reduction over the past 12 months in blynpunemployment in the travel-to-work area covering his constituency, from 18·3 to 16·4 per cent. In particular, I am sure that he will welcome the announcement today by
    572
    Sony of a major £30 million-plus project at Bridgend, which will employ over 330 additional people, bringing the work force at Bridgend to about 1,600.
    Sir Raymond Gower: Do not indications, reports and forecasts by the Welsh CBI and other bodies suggest that the prospects for the Welsh economy are probably better now than they have been for many years? Is investment by British Coal Enterprise Ltd. commensurate with the jobs lost in the coal mining areas of south Wales?
    Mr. Edwards: I agree with my hon. Friend's assessment, and I shall have more to say on that subject in the debate later this afternoon. As my hon. Friend will be aware, over £40 million has been made available to British Coal Enterprise Ltd. and over £5 million has already been invested in projects in Wales. British Coal believes that that would create, in due course, some 4,000 jobs in the affected area of Wales. That is only one of the many contributory sources of new employment and new job creation in the Principality.
    Mr. D. E. Thomas: How many jobs have been lost in Wales since the Government took office in 1979? Is it 150,000 or 170,000?
    Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman has to look at the small reduction—about 2 per cent.—in the total number in the work force, taking account of the self-employed, following the massive loss of jobs in coal and steel and the world recession in the early 1980s. What is of much greater significance is the scale on which investment is taking place, the fact that unemployment is falling faster in Wales than anywhere in the United Kingdom, and the almost universally confident forecasts by those involved in industry and in a position to assess its prospects.
    Mr. Terlezki: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Welsh economy is in infinitely better shape and is healthier than it was in 1978–79 because more than 200 foreign companies have settled and invested in Wales, employing over 44,000 people? Does he also agree that we have had fewer strikes than for the past 30 years, and that our coal and steel industries are also doing infinitely better? If they had been left in the hands of the Labour party, we would have been suffering from stagnation, inflation and unemployment.
    Mr. Edwards: I agree with all that. When the Labour party was in Government, industry was overmanned and uncompetitive. Great advances have been made in improving the competitive position of British, and especially of Welsh, industry since that time.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Does not unemployment cost Wales almost £3 million a day and are we not squandering our most precious resource—our people? May I remind the Secretary of State that nearly 15,000 people in Wales have been out of work for more than five years—some 9 per cent. of the total number of unemployed? Will he ensure that the forthcoming Budget is a Budget for Welsh jobs in housing, health, education, law and order, social services and industrial development?
    Mr. Edwards: As I have said, last year's Budget has produced a fall in unemployment for nine out of the last 10 months, and unemployment has fallen faster in Wales than elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I am quite confident that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's Budget will accelerate that process in the months ahead.

    A-Level Examinations
    Mr. Raffanasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the future of A-level examinations in the light of the consequential change in teaching methods following the introduction of the GCSE.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science announced on 25 February that he is appointing a committee to review A-levels, with the aim of maintaining or improving the present character and rigorous standards of these examinations. The committee will certainly take account of the changes brought about by the introduction of the GCSE.
    Mr. Raffan: Does my hon. Friend agree that as the GCSE involves radical fundamental changes in the structure and philosophy of secondary education it would be highly undesirable if those now studying for the GCSE had to revert to the old learning approaches, the old teaching techniques and to the old classroom methodology when they enter the sixth form? Is it true, that as the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) has recently alleged, that there has been a decline in A-level success rates between 1981–1985, or is it the case that once again the hon. Gentleman has not done his homework and is completely wrong?
    Mr. Roberts: With regard to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, the introduction of the GCSE, which is regarded as a tremendous improvement by all involved in education, will have implications for other, more advanced examinations. With regard to the A-level results in Wales, the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) was, indeed, wrong. The truth is that in 1981, 57 per cent. of those who tried three A-levels were successful. By 1985, that figure had risen to 62 per cent. The success rate of those trying one A-level remained almost constant at about 57 per cent., and the success rate of those trying two A-levels rose from 41 to 45 per cent.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Will the Minister give us a clear statement as to whether he envisages GCSE taking over from A-levels, bearing in mind that the level of certificate is dependent on the whole school record? What is the position of tertiary colleges in relation to the current falling rolls? Will the Secretary of State encourage those colleges?
    Mr. Roberts: There is no question of GCSE taking over from A-levels. We are trying to assess the effects of GCSE on A-levels, and to act according to the advice that we receive. Of course, we encourage local education authorities to consider tertiary colleges, sixth-form colleges and all the other options available to them.
    Mr. Grist: Will my hon. Friend take the chance that the review opens up to him, to try to look again at the teaching of foreign languages in our schools? Does he agree that at both GCSE level and A-level or AS-level, our languages should be taught so that they can be used by people in business and in everyday life, rather than just to read Moliere or whatever?
    Mr. Roberts: My hon. Friend is right, although I do not agree with him about the lack of merit in reading Moliere. We have given guidance on the teaching of foreign
    574
    languages, and the fact is that we have spare teaching capacity in many foreign languages, such as Spanish and Italian, from which our children could benefit.

    Mid-Wales Development
    Mr. Livseyasked the Secretary of State for Wales what additional financial assistance he is giving to Mid-Wales Development as a result of the changes in Government policy towards rural areas.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Gross expenditure by the Development Board for Rural Wales in 1987–88 is expected to be £13·5 million compared with £12·8 million this year. The board's budget for the year allows for a 25 per cent. increase in the Mid-Wales Development grant, a 50 per cent. increase in expenditure on the DRIVE scheme, and the building of almost 120,000 sq ft of new factory space in Mid-Wales.
    Mr. Livsey: Will the Secretary of State ensure that if the Development Commission in England receives more money for the coming financial year, Mid-Wales Development will also benefit by increased funding in that period?
    Mr. Edwards: I have announced our proposed funding. I remind the hon. Gentleman that expenditure per head by the DBRW is some three times greater than in the Development Commission's rural development areas and some 13 times greater if the whole population of rural England is brought into the equation, so the hon. Gentleman need not fear that Mid-Wales is being neglected, on that basis of comparison.
    Mr. Forth: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the various agencies that hand out taxpayers' money rarely create new jobs, but move employment around from one part of the country to another? Can my right hon. Friend give any examples of the number of companies set up with taxpayers' money that have subsequently gone bust?
    Mr. Edwards: I have to tell my hon. Friend that I do not agree. The development agencies in Wales have done much to transform the Principality's economic prospects and have helped us through a very difficult time during the decline of the old industries. Mid-Wales Development has made a major contribution towards the strengthening of the rural economy in Wales.
    Mr. Barry Jones: That said, it helps to explain why the Conservative party lost Brecon and Radnor in the by-election. The right hon. Gentleman delivered a near fatal blow when he denuded Mid-Wales of assisted area status. Does he know that it costs £47,000 per day to pay the Brecon and Radnor unemployed? What is he doing to get unemployment down in that constituency?
    Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman, of course, is wrong. There is a great variety of ways in which we can help in Mid-Wales. For example, our success in obtaining the major investment by Laura Ashley, an internationally successful company, shows just how effective those measures are. Indeed, a vivid account was given to us by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) on 16 February during a debate on hospital provision, of the way in which Mid-Wales is thriving and doing better at present. I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for that positive account.

    Nursery Schools
    Mr. D. E. Thomasasked the Secretary of State for Wales how many pre-school age children attend local-authority funded nursery schools in Wales; and what percentage of the children of their age group they represent.
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: At January 1986 about 3,900 pupils were attending local authority-funded nursery schools in Wales. That represents about 5½ per cent. of 3 and 4-year-olds. Many more children of that age—nearly 64 per cent. —are in the nursery classes of primary schools.
    Mr. Thomas: Is it the Government's policy that all children of pre-statutory school age should attend nursery provision, to develop their educational and social skills and to take stress off the parents, many of whom are working or are one-parent families and have problems in coping with young children?
    Mr. Roberts: The number of nursery units has increased considerably during the period of this Government. From 1979–80 to 1985–86 the number increased from 563 nursery units to 673, which is a rise in full-time pupils from 29,000 to 41,000, so it is clearly the Government's policy.
    Mr. Best: What is the policy of the Welsh Office towards funding of Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin? What efforts is my hon. Friend's Department making to ensure that parental wishes are observed as to the medium through which children are taught?
    Mr. Roberts: Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin, the Welsh language nursery school movement, receives support from the Government — currently about £360,000 a year. It has increased the number of groups to some 700 in Wales. It has made tremendous progress. As to the medium of teaching and parental influence in schools, my hon. Friend will know that the Government have taken steps to increase parental influence, and a further step will be taken as from the autumn this year.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the Minister agree that the scheme known as Play Board Wales has an excellent record of achievement? Will he give a commitment for future funding to Play Board Wales so that it will not have to be wound up at the end of the current financial year?
    Mr. Roberts: I am not familiar with the details of the application by Play Board Wales, but I shall consider them.
    Mr. Barry Jones: In the nursery sector, cuts and closures have been proposed, not least in my constituency at Shotton, Aston and Buckley. Will the Minister take advice and give the £1·3 million grant which is proposed for public schools in Wales to the LEAs for nursery education.
    Mr. Roberts: As to the last fact, I hope that the hon. Gentleman realises that the figure to which he referred—the amount which is given to the approved assisted places scheme—is 0·126 per cent. of the total spent on education in Wales. With regard to the Shotton nursery school, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, I can make no comment because no proposals have been published.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Roy Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest unadjusted figures for
    576
    unemployment in (a) Newport, (b) Gwent and (c) Wales; and if he will give the equivalent figures for 1979 on the most nearly comparable basis.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: On 8 January 1987 the total numbers of unemployed claimants in Newport district, Gwent and Wales were 9,990, 28,672 and 176,866 respectively. Unadjusted figures for 1979 are not available on a comparable basis.
    Mr. Hughes: Do not these figures yet again reveal that the Government's policies are not working, particularly in Newport? To improve matters, will the Secretary of State prevail on the Central Electricity Generating Board to build a coal-fired power station at Uskmouth? That would be a useful development near the south Wales coalfield and would boost employment in the area during its construction and operation?
    Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman is wrong in saying that the Government's policies are not working. I have already said that there has been a substantial fall in unemployment in Wales. That is true of Newport, where the unemployment rate has fallen from 16·8 per cent. to 15·6 per cent. over the 12-month period. I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of the CEGB.
    Mr. Harvey: Will my right hon. Friend welcome the fact that in the latest CBI report on quarterly trends, 16 per cent. of respondents say that they expect to take on new labour this year? Will he condemn the gloom that the Labour party shows at the good news that unemployment is declining in Wales?
    Mr. Edwards: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, arid I shall have more to say on the subject later this afternoon.
    Mrs. Clwyd: As the Secretary of State knows, there has not been a substantial drop in unemployment in my constituency in the Cynon valley. Will the right hon. Gentleman be precise and tell me how much that has cost in the Cynon valley in lost taxes, unemployment benefit and redundancy payments in addition to the cost in human misery? When will the right hon. Gentleman create some jobs in the Cynon valley?
    Mr. Edwards: The hon. Lady knows that unemployment has fallen over the period in the Cynon valley, as elsewhere, that firms such as Hitachi are making major investments, and that there is substantial urban development grant support and urban programme support in the area. The prospects for the valley have probably been altered more than by any other event by the Government's action in completing the splendid new road access to the heart of the valley.
    Mr. Raffan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there has been an 11·5 per cent. drop in unemployment in my constituency during the past year? This is largely due to the dramatic success of the Delyrt enterprise zone. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Labour party's concern about unemployment might begin to carry some credibility if it changed its position on enterprise zones from outright hostility to unqualified support?
    Mr. Edwards: I wholly agree with my hon. Friend, especially about the success of the Delyn enterprise zone. The other enterprise zones in Wales are also making a notable contribution. The enterprise zone in Swansea has created some 2,300 jobs since we set it up.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the reasons for the high continuing unemployment in Wales is the fact that not enough people are employed in improving homes in bad condition? Is he not trying to conceal that fact by requiring local authority housing officers to sign a declaration under the Official Secrets Act in connection with a Welsh Office survey on housing conditions which is taking place at the moment?
    Mr. Edwards: The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite wrong. As he knows, there has been a major programme of house renovation and improvement — indeed, the largest ever undertaken. We wish to have an accurate and full survey carried out. It is perfectly normal that those who are engaged in such operations should observe the normal rules of confidentiality until the report is prepared and that they should not go through the process that is all too common nowadays in Government, or around Government and local government, of leaking partial information before there is a complete and comprehensive report.

    YTS
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he plans to take to increase the proportion of young Welsh people who have participated in the YTS who go on from training to jobs.
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: The progress on two-year YTS is very encouraging. Fifty-eight per cent. of YTS leavers in the first five months of 1986–87 went into jobs compared with 52 per cent. in the same period in 1985–86. The recent introduction of approved training organisation status and the training standards advisory service will consolidate the improvements already being made.
    Mr. Knox: I welcome that excellent news. How many young people in Wales have joined the YTS since last April? How many organisations have applied for approved training organisation status over the same period?
    Mr. Roberts: As I told my hon. Friend, the progress has been encouraging. In Wales, over 27,000 young people have joined the YTS since April 1986 and some 188 organisations have applied for approved training organisation status.
    Mr. Rowlands: Is the Minister aware of the importance in the creation of opportunities for young people of community projects which are run by our churches and by organisations such as the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders? Is he aware of the proposed 10 per cent. cut in these projects and that the impact on these projects in terms of morale and development could be serious? Will the hon. Gentleman ask the MSC to review this policy?
    Mr. Roberts: Of course, I am very much aware of the importance of the community programme, which caters for about 22,000 people in Wales. We intend to introduce the job training scheme for young people aged between 18 and 25. I am sure that some of those young people will come from the community programme and, therefore, the burden of financing the community programme should be less.
    Sir Raymond Gower: Does my hon. Friend recall allegations by the Opposition that these schemes were
    578
    nothing better than a means of concealing unemployment? My hon. Friend's answers show that for 58 per cent. of these people it was a gateway to subsequent employment.
    Mr. Roberts: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Moreover, the YTS is not just a gateway to employment—it also provides high-quality training. The aim of the new scheme, the JTS about which I spoke a moment ago, is to provide high-quality training as well. Training of this kind is now essential throughout working life.

    Regional Development Grant
    Mr. Gareth Wardellasked the Secretary of State for Wales how much Wales received in the form of regional development grants in 1979–80 and 1985–86.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Payments of regional development grant in Wales were £50·7 million in 1979–80 and £84·4 million in 1985–86.
    Mr. Wardell: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the effect of regional development grant has been reduced in terms of the areas of Wales that now benefit from it? Will he also confirm that the Government are the only Government in the EEC who block any firm or enterprise from receiving aid under article 15 of the European regional development fund?
    Mr. Edwards: The effectiveness of regional assistance has not been reduced. It has been improved. The Welsh share of regional assistance rose from 17 per cent. in 1972 to 22 per cent. in 1985–86, showing that Wales has not suffered from the changes. Over the weekend, the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland complained that Wales was getting a greater share of grant than Scotland even though its working population is half that of Scotland. Clearly, Wales is doing extremely well out of these arrangements.
    Mr. Harvey: Will my right hon. Friend consider re-extending development area status to Denbigh in view of the closure of North Wales hospital?
    Mr. Edwards: I know that my hon. Friend is concerned about the proposal by the area health authority to close a hospital there. He will also know that consultations about that proposal is at an early stage. Clwyd county council is organising consultation with a wide body of interests, including the Welsh Development Agency, about the way of dealing with the situation if the hospital closure goes ahead.

    Job Training Scheme
    Mr. Gwilym Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Wales how many training places are envisaged for Wales by the recently announced extension of the job training scheme.
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: There are no firm targets for the new job training scheme, but funding is available for up to 6,020 places by autumn 1987. The Manpower Services Commission will proceed at a rate consistent with demand and the maintenance of quality.
    Mr. Jones: I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that the most important part of the job training scheme is the quality of the training. Can he reassure me that there will be proper emphasis on the quality of training in the new scheme?
    Mr. Roberts: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. Trainees will he able to obtain qualifications from recognised examining and validating bodies. The managing agents will have to become approved training organisations, there will be a role for the training standards advisory Service, which is analogous to Her Majesty's Inspectorate in education, and there will be careful monitoring of performane and output.
    Mr. Foot: How much of the extra cost of this scheme has fallen on local authorities which already have very heavy burdens to bear?
    Mr. Roberts: I do not know the details of the cost of the current scheme but, as I implied earlier, it is being introduced in conjunction with the community programme.

    Hospital Waiting Lists
    Mr. Johnasked the Secretary of State for Wales what is the number of patients on hospital waiting lists in the Taff Ely area at the latest convenient date; and what were the comparable figures for the same dates in 1979 and 1983, respectively.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Mark Robinson): The in-patient waiting lists for hospitals in the Taff Ely area at 30 September 1986 totalled 2,463. Comparable figures in 1979 and 1983 were 3,488 and 3,420 respectively. Relevant out-patient figures on 30 September 1986 totalled 4,842. The figures in 1979 and 1983 were 2,791 and 3,283.
    Mr. John: Does the Minister accept that if one combines in-patient and out-patient waiting lists, one finds that in the last seven years there has been no significant difference in the numbers of patients awaiting treatment in this area?
    When will he take a significant step towards cutting those waiting lists?
    Mr. Robinson: First, I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. There has been a 25 per cent. increase in in-patients and a 16 per cent. increase in out-patients since 1979. As for the waiting list initiative, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the mid-Glamorgan health authority has been able to bid and that we have been able to make funds available. Those funds are benefiting the Taff Ely area.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: As my constituency borders Taff Ely, may I suggest a single improvement to my hon. Friend? He will remember that at Welsh Question Time in December last he was able to tell me that it had been agreed that Hywel Rowlands, a convicted killer, at present in Whitchurche hospital, would be moved. Will my hon. Friend now join me in demanding that the Home Office should take urgent action to fulfil its promise?
    Mr. Robinson: I am aware of my hon. Friend's concern but, as he knows, that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

    Bus Services
    Sir Anthony Meyerasked the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received from local authorities and individuals regarding the operation of bus services in Wales since deregulation.
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: My right hon. Friend has received 16 representations. None of these came from local authorities.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Is it not now clear that the prophets of woe have been confounded and that the combination of free competition with carefully targeted subsidy is providing Wales with a better bus service than it had before?
    Mr. Roberts: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The opponents of the policy, who predicted major problems, have been proved wrong, as the Government have always maintained that they would be.
    Mr. Gareth Wardell: In the year before deregulation was introduced, 49 per cent. of the privately owned public service vehicles in Wales failed their annual test. Can the Minister give us confidence that as a result of deregulation that figure will be lower this year?
    Mr. Roberts: I can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government take the safety aspect very seriously. All existing safety checks on buses will continue, and even more spot checks on vehicles in workshops will be undertaken. The Department of Transport has employed additional staff for its vehicle inspectorate to increase enforcement capacity, and new vehicle examiners have been appointed in Wales. Vehicles found to be seriously defective will not be allowed to operate.
    Mr. Terlezki: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Labour party's policy of closing the vehicle licence registration centre at Swansea will result in 4,000 people being unemployed in Wales?
    Mr. Roberts: I noticed the Labour party's proposal to do away with vehicle excise duty and the licensing system and, incidentally, with the licensing centre at Swansea. However, I do not think that there is total agreement on the Opposition Benches as to the wisdom of that policy.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: In relation to the Government's deregulation policy for our bus services, what will be the future of National Welsh? Will the Government allow it to be handed over to a firm of asset strippers? That would certainly be detrimental to bus services in Wales.
    Mr. Roberts: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the bids that he has received. I assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend will consider the bids very carefully before coming to a final view.
    Mr. Best: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the examples of greater service to the public since deregulation is a regular bus service between my constituency and his, carrying people to and from Ysbyty Gwynedd?
    Mr. Roberts: Indeed, and there is plenty of scope for innovative services to be established. The rural transport innovation grant scheme is operating in Wales and it should be very helpful, particularly in rural areas.

    Housebuilding
    Mr. Colemanasked the Secretary of State for Wales how many new houses in the public sector were completed during 1986 in each of the following boroughs: Neath. Lliu

    581
    Valley, Afan, Ognar, Taff Ely, Rhondda, Cynon Valley, Merthyr, Rhmney, Blaurau Gwent, IsIwyn and Tarfgaen; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Mark Robinson: The number of public sector completions in 1986 in the boroughs listed were 36, 48, 39, 40, 32, 12, 40, nil, 42, 38, 40 and 41 respectively.
    Mr. Coleman: I compliment the officials at the Welsh Office on being able to interpret the rather remarkable spelling of some of the boroughs listed. Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House what those completions represent in money terms, as in the Grand Committee recently the Secretary of State referred to the very large resources being spent on housing in the valleys? Do not the figures given today for completions in the boroughs which form the valley communities shows a different picture from that which the Minister seeks to give?
    Mr. Robinson: I am sure that my officials will welcome the kind comments that the hon. Gentleman has made about interpretation of the Order Paper. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that expenditure on housing has increased and that housing allocations are up by 19 per cent. in the coming year. He will be aware that there is a serious problem with regard to older housing stock in the valleys. That is why we have launched our home improvement grant initiative. It is a matter of priorities and it is up to local authorities to decide how they should spend their allocations. Many of them have chosen to take advantage of the home improvement grant system.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER

    Ministerial Duties
    Mr. Nellistasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many hours in February he spent on his ministerial duties.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Norman Tebbit): Sixty hours, Sir.
    Mr. Nellist: Has the Chancellor considered a slightly less arduous job which would give him more time for moonlighting, despite the fact he receives more than £50 per hour wearing his present hat? Has he considered today's report from the Labour research department which suggests that perhaps the real reason why he and the Government take little action against the pimps and sharks in the City of London is that, in his other hat, as chairman of the Tory party, he gets a quarter of the company donations from that source?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must relate his questions to the Chancellor's responsibilities for the Duchy of Lancaster.
    Mr. Tebbit: Once again, the hon. Gentleman is clearly labouring under one of the many misapprehensions that he probably shares with a number of his colleagues. My ministerial pay is £2,000 per year, which works at to rather less than £3 per hour. As ever, the hon. Gentleman has leapt from a wrong premise to an unfounded conclusion.
    As to the City of London, if the hon. Gentleman can cast his memory back that far he may recollect that I was the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who introduced the White Paper which brought about much tougher sanctions in the City and much tighter regulatory
    582
    procedures which will soon be in force generally. Some parts are already in force. That is why we are having success in prosecuting for insider trading, which was not an offence under the Government which the hon. Gentleman would have supported had he been in the House.
    Mr. Favell: My right hon. Friend will be aware that on 1 April the boundary commissioners start their work on the boundaries between metropolitan borough councils. When his official duties next take him to Manchester, will he tell the leader of Manchester city council that the people of Stockport are appalled at what is happening to that once proud city and do not want Manchester city council to encroach one inch into Stockport? With his usual delicacy of phrase, will he tell the leader of Manchester city council to turn his attentions elsewhere?
    Mr. Tebbit: I am not sure whether it is the duty of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to get into such questions. However, I would always make it plain that the people of Stockport and, indeed, most of the people of Lancashire resent sharply the gross excesses perpetrated by Manchester city council. Indeed, I understand that the Leader of the Opposition also resents those excesses.

    Public Meetings
    Mr. Winnickasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many public meetings he has addressed in the last month.
    Mr. Tebbit: On the basis of experience during February, about 15 hours a week.
    Mr. Winnick: In view of all the rosy optimism that Ministers, including the right hon. Gentleman, show about the economy—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is question No. 24, about public meetings.
    Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), who should have asked question No. 22, is probably still celebrating St. David's day.
    My answer to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) is : in the course of my duties as Chancellor of the Duchy, none.
    Mr. Winnick: In view of all the rosy optimism that Ministers show about the economy, how does the right hon. Gentleman explain the fact that whenever elections give people the opportunity the Tory vote virtually collapses, as it did at Greenwich? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of his numerous political opponents hope that he will continue his job as party chairman, though not as Chancellor of the Duchy, for many years to come?
    Mr. Tebbit: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. Presumably it is an expression of his hope that the Labour party will shortly lose many more of the seats that it has held for more than 40 years. I share that hope.
    Mr. Yeo: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he would be most welcome if he could find time to address a public meeting in my constituency of Suffolk, South? It would provide him with a valuable opportunity to tell my electorate, especially the farming community, which is prominent in my constituency, what a disastrous future it would have if Labour or SDP-Liberal policies were ever put into practice.
    Mr. Tebbit: Once again, I am not sure whether it would be the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster speaking in Suffolk or one of my other incarnations. However, in any of my incarnations I should certainly tell the farmers about the Labour party's proposals to introduce rating of agricultural premises and the great split within the alliance between the half that wants to introduce the rating of agricultural land and the half that does not.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many of his meetings in the past month dragged him away from the county palatine into Greenwich and how he would assess his success rate per meeting in Greenwich?
    Mr. Tebbit: The Chancellor of the Duchy did not attend any meetings in Greenwich, so once again the hon. and learned Gentleman's question has gone sadly adrift. I shall be happy to come to the Dispatch Box after the general election and tell the hon. and learned Gentleman about the statistics of the general election if he has the good fortune to be here.

  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Historic Buildings
    Mr. Chapmanasked the hon. Member for Wokingham, as representing the Church Commissioners, what is his response to those parts of the House of Commons Environment Committee's report on historic buildings which relate to the responsibilities of the Church Commissioners.
    The Second Church Estates Commissioner, Representing the Church Commissioners (Sir William van Straubenzee): The commissioners welcome the references to redundant churches and the ecclesiastical exemption, which directly concern them. I know that the General Synod's working party on state aid for churches in use will be especially heartened by what the committee has recommended in relation to VAT on repairs.
    Mr. Chapman: I welcome my hon. Friend's reply. Will he encourage his fellow commissioners to urge the deans of our cathedrals to accept that if they expect public money to help with the repair and maintenance of our glorious ecclesiastical architectural heritage, they must play their part in seeking more voluntary funds in the form of entrance fees from the millions of people who visit our cathedrals?
    Sir William van Straubenzee: I must make it clear that the commissioners have no direct responsibility for cathedrals. Speaking as an individual, I find it entirely acceptable when visiting cathedrals abroad to make a contribution to go in. There are a number of places in this country, such as St. George's at Windsor, where it has been entirely proper, right and accepted for many years that those going in, other than for services or to pray, should pay to do so.

    Church House (Sale)
    Mr. Peter Bruinvelsasked the hon. Member for Wokingham, as representing the Church Commissioners, what are the financial implications for the Commissioners of the proposed sale of Church House and the move by the General Synod and the Church House staff into the Commissioners' headquarters at Millbank.
    Sir William van Straubenzee: As my hon. Friend will know, the move of the Church House staff to separate accommodation adjacent to the commissioners' offices in Millbank was approved by the General Synod last week. The adaptation of Millbank for this purpose will cost around £4 million and is the most economical of all the options considered. The future of Church House, which the Synod will leave with sadness, will be the responsibility of the corporation of Church House.
    Mr. Bruinvels: As staying at Church House would have cost £28·7 million and as there would possibly have been women ordained priests based at Church House, it is right that the Church of England organisation and General Synod staff should be moving to No. 1 Millbank. Does my hon. Friend agree that the savings are so incredible that that option was worth approving? Does he also agree that hiring the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre for Synods at £10,000 per year means that money will be saved to enable the church and the clergy to go out and attract more people to increase the flock which the church is losing, not because women may be ordained but because of modern services and the new Lord's Prayer?
    Sir William van Straubenzee: My hon. Friend has included a good many points in his question, with the skill that we have come to associate with him. There is no doubt that the most economical and sensible of the various options has been chosen and I look forward with the greatest pleasure to a building that will encompass in one set of rooms both my hon. Friend and women priests.
    Mr. Frank Field: As "Faith in the City" made much of what the Government could do to regenerate the inner cities, could not Church House and the Church Commissioners use this opportunity, instead of preaching to the Government, to set a n example by moving from Westminster to one of the northern cities?
    Sir William van Straubenzee: The hon. Gentleman with his close connection with these matters, will have noticed that the General Synod debated this with great care only last week—
    Mr. Frank Field: And came to the wrong conclusion.
    Sir William van Straubenzee: The hon. Gentleman says that it came to the wrong conclusion, but that would be the view of anyone in a minority. The decision was made by a group of people overwhelmingly drawn from outside London. They concluded—whether they were right or wrong is another matter — that it would not be appropriate for the General Synod to move out of London. I must make it quite clear that the commissioners have no responsibility, nor do they wish such responsibility, for decisions taken by the General Synod. However, the conclusion was taken after mature and careful debate.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Telephone Messages
    Sir Anthony Meyerasked the Lord Privy Seal if he is satisfied with present arrangements for hon. Members to receive telephone messages.
    The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the advent of new technology, in this as in so many other matters, has led not to an improvement but to a deterioration in the message system for Members of Parliament? In particular, would it not be possible for the brilliant new telephones to have their red lights go out when hon. Members receive their messages and to display on their dials whether a telephone is branched through to hon. Member's secretaries?
    Mr. Biffen: I am sorry that my hon. Friend has had this unhappy experience as about 600 to 700 messages are taken daily. I will refer the point to the communications manager who, no doubt, will be in touch with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Boyes: While the right hon. Gentleman is looking at the system of receiving messages, will he also consider a particular aspect of sending messages, especially those to the European Commission in Brussels? Notwithstanding the right hon. Gentleman's attitude to the EEC, will he allow hon. Members to make calls on parliamentary business at Parliament's expense—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is wide of the question. The question is about receiving messages.
    Mr. Boyes: I am answering the messages that I have received, Mr. Speaker. Will the right hon. Gentleman allow hon. Members to make calls to the European Commission on parliamentary business at Parliament's expense? Will he particularly consider allowing members of the Select Committee on European Legislation to have that privilege, along with members of other Committees?
    Mr. Biffen: Although the question may have been somewhat wide of the original, the import was quite clear. The hon. Gentleman would like to have zero charge for something which is at present subject to a charge. I would have thought that, with the recent increase in secretarial and office allowances, he might feel that he could reasonably meet that kind of cost. I think that the matter has been considered recently, but I will look into it.
    Mr. Rathbone: Will my right hon. Friend consider another form of message which can be received via telephones — the transmission of the business of the House into our offices? How is his consideration of that matter coming along?
    Mr. Biffen: That matter has been considered. A highly controversial judgment will have to be made, and it will certainly require the authority of the House.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Lord Privy Seal consider the other form of message that we get occasionally—the green card telling us that someone is here to see us—to see whether we can find a way of communicating news of their arrival much more quickly than at present, when often we hear much later that people were here, by which time they have gone?
    Mr. Biffen: That is a somewhat controversial request. As I understand it, a report on radiopaging is being considered and will soon be available to the House.
    Mr. Maxton: Is the Leader of the House aware that on one occasion it took two and a half hours for a telephone message to reach me informing me that my wife had been in a car accident? Such a delay is ludicrous. In those circumstances, will he consider two alternatives: first, a
    586
    full paging system for Members of Parliament; and secondly, the idea that each Member's telephone should have an individual answering service which would allow us to put it on and to receive messages?
    Mr. Biffen: I shall make those points to the communications manager, who will no doubt be in touch with the hon. Gentleman. As I have just announced, the report of the Services Committee on radiopaging will he available later this week.

    Opposition Parties (Assistance)
    Mr. Peter Bruinvelsasked the Lord Privy Seal, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Leicester, East of 9 February, Official Report, columns 59–60, if he has any plans to review the arrangements under which financial assistance is provided to Opposition parties within the House; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Biffen: As I told the House, I expect that, following past practice, these arrangements are likely to be reviewed later this year or next.
    Mr. Bruinvels: I welcome my right hon. Friend"s statement that there will be a review, especially since £630,000 was allocated to Opposition parties in 1986. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Official Unionists receive £20,397, that the year before they received £19,889 and that they have one Member fewer than they did a year ago? The Democratic Unionists receive £6,788·75. With one right honourable exception, Unionist Members are not taking part in Northern Ireland business—which I can understand — or in any other parliamentary business. It is strange that they are claiming this money, especially as they voted against it. Could it not be interpreted that they are using the money to campaign against the Anglo-Irish agreement?
    Mr. Biffen: I was aware of the figures because I supplied them to my hon. Friend. He should remember that each qualifying party is required to certify to the Accounting Officer of the House that the expenses for which reimbursement is claimed have been expended exclusively in relation to that party's parliamentary business. Therefore, the claims have been made on the authority of the party concerned. If my hon. Friend thinks that the arrangement is unsatisfactory, he should make that point when the matter is next before the House.
    Mr. Alton: Will the Lord Privy Seal also consider the allocation of civil servants to Whips' offices other than those of the official Opposition, especially as four are provided to the Labour Opposition entirely at taxpayers' expense and Short money—something about which the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) will be concerned — has been frozen at the levels established during the lifetime of this Parliament? Will he confirm that Opposition funding will be increased in the aftermath of the general election?
    Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman will be the first to concede that the Civil Service arrangements to which he refers predated the advent of Short money and were not absorbed by the existence of Short money, but those arrangements can, of course, be considered when they come up for renewal.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Will my right hon. Friend consider increasing the support available to the Liberal party in

    587
    view of a recent report by that party claiming that, for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Mr. Roberts) had failed to vote against the Government on one occasion? It would be helpful if the Liberal party had enough resources to discover that my hon. Friend is a Minister.
    Mr. Biffen: Education that is self-financed is much more likely to be taken to heart than that which is publicly financed.
    Mr. Bermingham: Does the Lord Privy Seal agree that if a democracy is to survive the Opposition should be properly funded so that the right and proper questions can be asked of the Government, thus probing Government policies in the interests of democracy?
    Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that there was a sharp division about whether such public funding should be provided, and that the opposition to it was split across the conventional divisions in the House. However, I happen to agree with the hon. Gentleman.

  WALES

    Town and Country Planning Controls
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the proportion of land in the
    588
    Principality on which special town and country planning controls operate, with the purpose of protecting the environment.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Mark Robinson): About 25 per cent. of Wales, comprising mainly national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, is covered by special development orders. Other controls covering these and other areas of land apply for specific environmental protection purposes.
    Mr. Chapman: I welcome the relatively high proportion of land that has special protection. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that the protection of the environment will remain the dominant consideration in any future planning applications in such areas, particularly in the light of the recent consultation paper about the future of agricultural land use?
    Mr. Robinson: I am delighted to give my hon. Friend that assurance. The need to protect the countryside from uncontrolled development remains as strong as ever. The special protection afforded to national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and other areas of special importance will be fully maintained.

Teachers' Pay and Conditions
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about teachers' pay and conditions of employment in England and Wales.
The Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act has now received Royal Assent. The Government want school teachers to receive an average increase of 16·4 per cent., half with effect from 1 January 1987 and half on 1 October 1987. I am today sending a draft order for this purpose to those whom I am required to consult under the Act seeking their comments. The order covers the 1 January pay increase and sets out the conditions which will beome part of school teachers' contracts of employment. I am placing copies of the consultation letter and attachments in the Vote Office and Printed Paper Office.
I have considered carefully the responses to the proposals for teachers' pay and conditions which I set out in October, and to those which emerged from the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service discussions. I have also taken into account the settlement in Scotland, and I am now bringing forward revised proposals to apply in full from 1 October. The main features are, first, the top of the basic salary scale will increase from £12,700 a year to £13,300 a year, which is £600 higher than the figure in my October proposals. Secondly, there will be five levels of incentive allowances ranging from £500 to £4,200. Thirdly, the 105,000 teachers on scales 3 and 4 and the senior teachers' scale will receive allowances of £1,000, £3,000 and £4,200 respectively. Fourthly, there will be scope for 25,000 new promotions in October 1987, with an increase in the number of teachers qualifying for an allowance to about 165,000 in 1990. This is 20,000 more incentive posts than in my previous proposals. Fifthly, there are no changes to my original proposals for heads and deputies.
These proposals recognise the view put by the teacher unions in support of a basic salary scale, and I have moved towards their position. I have, however, retained a pay structure which provides good differentials and I have increased the number of incentive posts so that the proportion of teachers in them will rise to 55 per cent. overall in 1990. The order also covers teachers in special schools and unqualified teachers. I recognise the distinctive position of teachers in special schools, and the basic allowance for them will be £1,000 as against £855 in the ACAS proposals.
In my statement on 30 October I said that the increased expenditure of £608 million on teachers' pay must be matched by a clear definition of school teachers' duties and conditions of employment. On 27 November, I recognised the useful progress in the ACAS discussions on the definition of a teacher's job and on the length of the teachers' working year. The list of teachers' duties set out in the draft order are based closely on the ACAS proposals. The order provides for a working year of 195 days, of which five days are beyond the pupil year, and states that a teacher may be required to work for 1,265 hours a year at the direction of the headteacher. These requirements are consistent with the ACAS proposals.
The ACAS document proposed levels of cover for absent teachers but recognised that this depended both on finance and the availability of suitably qualified teachers.
590
The Government believe that the ACAS proposals would have created difficulties for many local authorities. We have therefore decided that teachers should not normally be required to provide cover after a colleague has been absent for three consecutive days, nor to provide cover in the case of planned absences of more than three consecutive days. The question of cover will be among the matters to be taken into consideration in the consultations that I shall shortly be initiating about the numbers of school teachers needed and how their time can be used to best advantage.
I am asking for responses to my consultative letter by Monday 23 March at the latest. Ministers or my officials will be willing to meet those who are being consulted. I regard it as essential for these discussions to be completed before the end of this month. We can then lay the order before the Easter recess so that teachers will receive their back pay without delay.
I wish to confirm that the Government propose to increase education GREs in England and Wales by £118 million for 1986–87 and £490 million for 1987–88, with an increase in block grant to local authorities of £56 million and £200 million for those years. On that basis the local authority associations have already been sent information about the likely change in individual GREs and block grant entitlements. Formal consultations will he started shortly.
These proposals will improve the career prospects of teachers and give local management new scope to raise the quality of education. Teachers are being given a substantial pay increase combined with a clear definition of their responsibilities. I believe that parents will expect teachers to respond by giving their commitment to uninterrupted and effective education for all our nation's children.
Mr. Giles Radice: Does the Secretary of State believe that his statement represents a genuine attempt to settle the teachers' dispute, or is it yet another round in the Government's war against the teachers?
I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has modified the proposals that he announced in November and that he has at last recognised the need to offer all classroom teachers an improved basic salary scale. Does he not realise that his rejection of the ACAS agreement, which was freely agreed between employers and the teachers; his legislation, which has been through this House and another place, to remove teachers' bargaining rights; and now his decision to impose a settlement on the teachers, have left the prospect of a lasting peace in our schools still uncertain and that, by imposing a settlement, the Government are embarking on a dangerous gamble which, sadly — I regret it very much — could lead to further disruption in our schools?
Mr. Baker: As regards imposition, yes, I am imposing a pay increase which will mean that teachers have an average rise of 25 per cent. over 18 months. That is what I am imposing.
I do not agree that this is a constitutional outrage. The hon. Gentleman will know that I have tried hard to find a way through during the past three months. This is a genuine attempt. I have moved closer to the union stance. It is deeply regrettable that the teacher unions did not move at all towards the Government's position.
Perhaps I might say something about causing further disruption. It is not I who can cause disruption in our

591
schools. Only the leaders of the teacher unions can seek to take out their grievancies on children in this way. Despite the antics of the two cold war warriors of the main teacher unions, I do not believe that the hearts of teachers will be in further disruption. The settlement that I am implementing is fair to the teachers, to parents, to ratepayers and, most of all, to our children. I believe that most teachers who have taken action during the past few years have done so with a very heavy heart and that, with the better pay and prospects which this settlement provides, they will want to get on with their job in peace.
Mr. J. F. Pawsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be warmly welcomed by teachers and parents and that, far from being another round in the Government's war against teachers, it is a further sign of the Government's good intentions? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that roughly 165,000 teachers will be in incentive posts by about 1990? How does he intend to publicise this good news to schools and teachers so that they can take that information carefully into account when deciding what action to take?
Mr. Baker: I can confirm what my hon. Friend has said. One of the features of my latest proposals is an increase in the number of incentive posts by 25,000 from 1 October this year. Many of those posts will go to scale 1 and scale 2 teachers, as it became clear in the negotiations and consultations that I have had that one group which did not do very well were those at the top of scale 2. They will be able to benefit from the higher number of incentive posts.
I am one of those who believe that good news travels by itself. However, I shall help it on its way by writing tonight to all head teachers setting out my proposals, and will enclose a copy of a booklet that sets out the proposals — they are very complicated. On Wednesday, I shall again be taking space in the national press to set out the proposals so that everyone will be able to see the advantage of them.
Mr. David Alton: While I welcome the Secretary of State's movement, I recognise that this is a gamble by the Government. Does the Secretary of State appreciate that many teachers regard the right to negotiate pay and conditions as being just as important as their level of pay and remuneration? In the long term, is not the need for an independent pay body essential? If we are to avoid this kind of trench warfare, which has led to so much loss of morale, falling standards, many lost days by teachers and pupils alike and so much hurt to parents, is not a mechanism required?
Mr. Baker: On my frequent visits to schools, I see many dedicated, committed and hard-working teachers, who, I am sure, will respond to the higher rewards and better prospects that I am bringing forward. I do not sense any urge to revive disruption.
Future negotiating rights were debated last Thursday, when the official spokesman for the Liberal party was in his place and put forward the case for an independent review body. I have made it clear that the advisory committee is an interim measure. We need a cooling-off period or breathing space to try to resolve the differences. I made it clear on Thursday, and I reiterate, that I am willing to open negotiations with the various parties to find a long-term solution. However, I ask the House to bear in mind that this move is against the background of
592
a negotiating process that has become thoroughly discredited. That was the Burnham process, which, by the Royal Assent announced at the beginning of Question Time today, is now at an end.
Mr. Alan Haselhurst: Is my right hon. Friend aware that under his original proposals, many teachers were worried that there appeared to be too many rewards going to teachers who were promoted out of the classroom and away from the art of teaching? Will he confirm that even then, but especially now, under the adjustment in his proposals announced today, there is ample reward for the good teacher who wishes to remain in the classroom?
Mr. Baker: I am willing to confirm that. The position on incentives is that the five allowances which I have announced, which is an increase over the last proposals, will go for additional responsibilities—for example, a head of a department—for where there is a generally recognised shortage of skills, for recruitment to posts difficult to fill and for good classroom performance. We want to reward the teacher who does not wish to become a head of department but wishes to remain in the classroom teaching. The incentive allowances will be available to such teachers.
Mr. Max Madden: Will the Secretary of State understand that, while he has made some movement towards the unions' position, anger will remain in the teaching profession until negotiating rights are fully restored? Will he also understand that in many places, including Bradford, teachers are concerned about pupil-teacher ratios, the availability of equipment and the fabric of schools? What will be the maximum cost to individual local authorities as a result of the settlement?
Mr. Baker: When we came into office in 1979, the pupil-teacher ratio was 18·9:1. It has now fallen to 17·6:1 and by 1990 it is planned to fall to 17·1:1. These are historically low figures. At the same time, the proportion of classes in secondary schools with more than 33 pupils has fallen from over 2 per cent. to 1·1 per cent. The average class size now is 21. This shows clearly the Government's commitment to providing resources for the education system.
I reiterate my point about finding a better long-term answer beyond the interim advisory committee. When I met Mr. Smithers, Mr. Jarvis and Mr. Willis last week, they said that for the longer term they could deliver a negotiating forum that would act responsibly and not lead to the divisions and disputes of Burnham or to disruption in the classroom. I hope that the first token of their good intent will not be a call for strikes and stoppages, because that would bode ill for their aspirations.
Mr. Michael Colvin: My right hon. Friend's statement proves that constructive consultation can work, and nothing that he said has given any further excuse for industrial action. However. is he aware that concern has been expressed that his proposed settlement may favour secondary school teachers at the expense of primary school teachers, who see little prospects for promotion and a general levelling down of scales? What can he tell us to assure primary school teachers that they will not get the rough end of the stick in his proposed settlement?
Mr. Baker: Once again, I pay tribute to the vast majority of teachers in primary schools, who do an outstanding job. I can give my hon. Friend some reassurance on the point that he raised. The first two levels of incentive allowance will be available in all schools so that the outstanding classroom teacher in the small primary school can be rewarded. In larger primary schools, the £2,000 allowance will also be introduced over three years to give a maximum salary of £15,300 for teachers other than heads or deputies. As from October this year, there will be 30,000 incentive allowances, rising to 55,000 in September 1990.
Mr. Gareth Wardell: While it is obvious that everyone will welcome the Government's move towards increasing the quality of teaching in our schools, does the Secretary of State accept that the conditions in the new city technology colleges, which the Government are setting up and which encourage payments over the odds for good teachers, should apply also to the inner city schools, which will still suffer because the rate of pay in them will not be sufficiently high to attract the good teachers whom those schools desperately need?
Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman is far too pessimistic. I have made it clear that the money for the city technology colleges will be extra, over and above the money available for the State maintenance education system. I was glad to go up to Solihull in the west midlands last week to announce the first city technology college, with support from the Hanson Trust and Lucas industries. In due course, I hope to visit many other cities and towns and bring them good news about the city technology colleges.
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although record pupil-teacher ratios may be popular, the crucial variable in education is teacher quality, and that his proposals offer an opportunity for well-motivated and properly rewarded teachers and a decent career structure? It is now up to pupils, parents and the professions to make a success of those proposals and offer our children a period of uninterrupted education.
Mr. Baker: I warmly agree with what my hon. Friend has just said. The thrust of the proposals has been to try to improve the professional standing and status of teachers by better remuneration. For example, a good honours graduate would enter the profession at a salary of £8,500, which is £700 or £800 more, and he or she would rise, through several annual increments, to a salary of £13,300. That is an increase of 26 per cent. over what a teacher can now expect without promotion and it will be reached in a shorter time. That represents a substantial improvement.
I should like to reinforce my hon. Friend's comments. We must attract graduates of a higher and better quality into the teaching profession—that is no reflection on the existing profession. The pay scales and the rewards that I am announcing today will go a long way towards doing that.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does the Secretary of State agree, while he is in his fairy godmother mood, that teachers' wages are now becoming commensurate with their rightful position, as they were between the two world wars? Does he agree that that seems—perhaps I am being cynical—to have some link with the
594
fact that this is an election year? Perhaps if we had another election next year we could eventually reach a proper payment for the teachers?
Mr. Baker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will speed the orders on their way because I am sure that, election or not, he would not want to delay the back pay to teachers, as it could be quite substantial. For example, if it is paid in the May pay packet, the deputy head in group 4 would qualify for £625 and a senior teacher for £450 in back pay. I am sure that that is what the teachers will want.
Mr. Steve Norris: Given that the one thing on which most objective observers agree, regardless of their political credentials, is that the Burnham system was wholly discredited, and given the urgency with which it was necessary to replace that system, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the package that he has now presented to teachers? May I invite him to stress that the present arrangements for negotiation are interim arrangements? Will he tell the House what plans he has to produce a substantive arrangement for the negotiation of teachers' salaries in the future, to lead on from the excellent package that he has presented to the House today?
Mr. Baker: I reinforce what I said earlier, that the proposals are of an interim nature. That is their essence. There will be consultation. I shall appoint the advisory committee later in the year. There is ample opportunity for unions to make representations to it. I have already given clear undertakings that when I receive recommendations from the advisory committee, there will be widespread consultation with all the interested parties, which will tend to have the character of negotiations. Apart from that—I reaffirm this—we want to move to a system that is more satisfactory in the long term. I shall do all that I can in the coming months to do that. However, I emphasise that I believe that the unions need a cooling-off period and a breathing space to try to get over the bitterness—I witnessed great bitterness—of the past few months.
Mr. Dave Nellist: Is the Secretary of State aware that the wholly inadequate settlement that he intends to impose from today will not lead to the depoliticisation of the teachers' struggle but will only prolong, not remove, teachers' hostility? This is particularly so because, by taking this action, the right hon. Gentleman removes the basic trade union right of negotiation. If, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), he is looking for a target for pupil-teacher ratios for local authorities to aim at, we shall settle for Eton's—8:1.
Mr. Baker: If the Bill that was debated in the House on Thursday last week was a great constitutional outrage, removing negotiating rights, I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was not in the Chamber. Not only was the hon. Gentleman not in the Chamber, but the debate packed up after three hours. It collapsed. So much for that great constitutional outrage. That was an opportunity for the Opposition to take the Bill right through the night and, indeed, into the next day, if need be. The hon. Gentleman's outrage is an outrage of rhetoric, not reality.
Sir Peter Hordern: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the incentive payments that he has

595
announced, which will be widely welcomed, will rest on assessment of teachers' capacity, because continuous assessment is just as important for teachers as for pupils?
Mr. Baker: I very much hope that during the next year it will be possible to establish a system of appraisal for teachers. Six pilot projects are going aheaad at the moment, and that is very important. With regard to the level of incentives that are now available, this is the first occasion on which some members of the teaching profession will be earning over £30,000 a year.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Secretary of State announced that he would write to head teachers explaining the effects of his announcement. Is it the practice of the Department, through Darlington, to write to retired teachers to explain the effect on them? If not, will the right hon. Gentleman do that?
Mr. Baker: I did not have that in mind, but I shall certainly consider what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, if some of the teachers are misguided enough to follow the advice that some Opposition Members would give them, and seek to continue industrial action, they will lose 1/195th of their pay every time they go on strike rather than 1/365th?
Mr. Baker: I shall need notice of the fractions. I hope, as I have said several times from the Dispatch Box today, that there will not be further disruption. An advertisement has been put in the press by the Professional Association of Teachers, which calls upon all teachers
"to reject industrial action at this time"
PAT says that teachers organisations should :
"Encourage teachers to adopt a responsible attitude to contractual conditions of service, since they will be based upon conditions agreed in recent ACAS negotiations."
I thoroughly applaud that line.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have an important Welsh debate today. I shall allow questions to continue for another six minutes, until 4 o'clock, and then we must move on.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will my Friend draw the attention to the House to what teachers' pay was in 1979 and what it will be when this increase is given to them?
Mr. Baker: There will have been a substantial increase in real terms in teacher's pay when these proposals work through in October 1987. It almost seems indecent to bring a little party politics into this exchange, but the big drop in take-home pay for teachers occurred in the lifetime of the Labour Government.
Mr. Alan Howarth: Will my right hon. Friend accept that his action in putting these generous proposals out to consultation so promptly after Royal Assent will be widely received in the teaching profession as evidence of his good will towards teachers? Will he say a little more about how his proposals will affect teachers in special schools, who do an important job, and who felt that they were undervalued in the ACAS deal?
Mr. Baker: There are some 16,000 teachers in special schools. Any hon. Member who has visited a special school in his constituency will know of the enormous
596
devotion and dedication which is shown by those teachers. It is inspiring to see the dedication that they show in dealing with children who are severely handicapped. I recognise the contribution that they make to our society. My proposals give to teachers on scales 1, 2 and 3 in special schools a £1,000 advantage at October 1987 over teachers in ordinary schools. That is an increase from the previous proposal of £855.
Mr. Tim Rathbone: Will my right hon. Friend accept that his accent on the communication of this good news is crucial to its acceptance? Will he accept that many of the difficulties of the past have occurred because of lack of good communication due to the long chain of command from himself to the teacher in his class? Will he assure the House that he will pay particular attention in future to communications on pay and assessment so as to reassure teachers of the temporary nature of the Act that now exists to guide their pay?
Mr. Baker: I most certainly will do that. The other point in the PAT advertisement is that Sir John Wordie, chairman of the Burnham committee, says of the three years during which the interim advisory committee is scheduled to exist, that the unions ought to:
"use to the best advantage that period to produce a really good form of collective bargaining."
I re-emphasise that.
As to spreading the good news, I shall be writing to all hon. Members tonight giving them the basic facts that I have given to the House today, together with a booklet and some information, which. I shall encourage all hon. Members to pass on to their constituents.
Mr. Gerald HowarthDoes my right hon. Friend agree that his proposals will be widely welcomed by parents and taxpayers throughout the country—who will have to foot the bill—as evidence of the Government's generous approach? They will not take lightly to those teachers who abuse the trust placed in them and cause further disruption in schools. Is my right hon. Friend able to tell the House whether he has been able to persuade the local authorities that his deal is a good one?
Mr. Baker: On the latter point, I had a meeting this morning with Councillor Pearman and other representatives of the local authority leaders. When talking about the willingness of local authorities to co-operate and implement the proposals, he said—these were the words I took down:
"the duty of LEAs to implement the law of the land. We shall implement it.
To suggest otherwise would be to play very dangerous games with the future of our children."
Councillor Pearman wishes to do everything that is possible to make education effective for our young people. I think that I speak for all sides of the House when I say that I welcome that. I hope that we will be moving to a better set of arrangements as a result of this offer, and I was glad to see that the local education authorities will play their part.
Mr. Roy Galley: My right hon. Friend is to be warmly congratulated on the statement, especially on the improvement in the basic salary scale, while retaining substantial incentives. Is it not amazing that the leaders of some unions still threaten disruption in the face of what must be one of the most generous pay offers ever made to teachers, particularly when set against a background of

597
low inflation and reductions in income tax? Since most parents are likely to receive rather less generous pay rises than 25 per cent. over two years, should not parents now impress upon the teachers the need not to disrupt education and to put children's education first? Surely disruption now will be an unparalleled case of greed and irresponsibility.
Mr. Baker: I very much share my hon. Friend's comment on that. The Bill allows for a new beginning in our schools and a necessary breathing space on pay and negotiating arrangements. I believe that teachers will recognise the need for that and will welcome the pay increases in the new salary structure. I do not believe that teachers like disrupting schools. I am sure that they put the interests of the children first. On my hon. Friend's last point, parents will not understand teachers who disupt children's education when they have won pay increases amounting to an average of 25 per cent. over 18 months.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry that it has not been possible to call all the hon. Members who have risen, but I shall endeavour to give them precedence when the matter is next discussed.

EC (Expenditure Proposals)
4 pm
Mr. Teddy Taylor: I seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which should have urgent consideration and which appears to me to be one of the most serious and urgent issues which has arisen for years in relation to the rights of the House of Commons to control spending, namely,
"the decision of the Council of Ministers to proceed today with the discussion of a Commission proposal to approve a £2·3 billion spending programme when no resources are available within the legal budget limits and when the Court of Auditors of the European Community has stated that the expenditure would be unlawful."
This is not part of the continuing debate on EEC spending which goes on all the time in the House, its Committees and elsewhere. The issue is simply that, although previous modest excess spending has always been carefully cloaked in legality and matched by policies at least designed to claw back spending the next year, the proposal today is for a massive spending increase without any legal resources whatsoever being available to cover the spending. In addition, there is not even a pretence that policies recently agreed will produce savings to finance even a fraction of the spending which falls, in theory, to be repaid in 1989 or thereafter. That is why the Court of Auditors has taken the unusual step of describing the spending plan as illegal before today's meeting.
If the Council, despite this advice, approves the package, it will not just mean that millions of tonnes of butter will be cascaded on to the world market at knockdown prices. It will mean that the Council of Ministers has taken upon itself the power to fix EEC spending at whatever level it considers appropriate. Of course, there are some who would take the view that this would be a positive step, just as there are others who would feel that, without spending limits, any hope of EEC reform would disappear. We obviously cannot consider the merits of any such proposal in an application for a debate. I argue, however, that the decision should be made by this House and by other Parliaments of the European Community. It is not the kind of decision that should be made by the Council of Ministers, particularly when the auditors have stated categorically that the action would be illegal without a new treaty.
The importance of the issue is clear. The urgency is created by the matter being on the Council's agenda today. I therefore hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will allow a debate on the very narrow, but important, subject which I have proposed.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the decision of the Council of Ministers to proceed with the discussion of a Commission proposal when the Court of Auditors has stated that the expenditure would be unlawful."
I have listened with great care to what the hon. Member has said. As he knows, my sole duty in considering an application under Standing Order No. 20 is to decide whether it should be given priority over the orders set down for today or tomorrow. I regret that I cannot find

599
that the matter which the hon. Member has raised meets all the criteria laid down in the standing order. I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

EC (Expenditure Proposals)

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Ordered,
  That the draft Plugs and Sockets etc. (Safety) Regulations 1987 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Welsh Affairs
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd]
4.4 pm
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): Perhaps it would be helpful if, at the outset and to avoid too many interventions, I say that I shall speak on a considerable number of topics, including the Severn crossing, the Trafalger House proposal and the Avana project at Merthyr.
The annual Welsh debate held this year on the day after St. David's day is traditionally wide-ranging. It will have the length although not, I fear, quite the epic grandeur of last Saturday's magnificent performance by the Welsh National Opera of "The Trojans." Some may consider it foolish or ambitious to attempt to set our party arguments and our immediate preoccupations against the prospective of history. I do so because I believe that Wales has arrived at one of those turning points of history which, even if not recognised at the time, are later seen to have changed the way in which we think and live.
One such period was the time when people moved from the countryside and, from both inside and outside the Principality, flooded into the industrial valleys, doubling the population of Wales in 50 years. Much more recently, we have seen a similar phenomenon in modern America. In 1920, 40 per cent. of all Americans lived and worked on farms. In 1920, in Wales about 380,000 men worked in mining and the metal-making industries, about 40 per cent. of male employment. By 1960, that figure had reduced to around 200,000, and the decline continued steadily under successive Governments — Labour and Conservative—and had little to do with party policy. By 1976, coal and steel employment had halved again to around 100,000. Today, it is about 36,000, 10 per cent. of the total in 1920 and only 3 per cent. of the total work force.
The historical fact with which we are confronted is that the Welsh dependence on the old basic industries is over and the long-agonised decline from the peak of 1921 with all its painful social consequences is also over. We have entered a new period in which, though coal and steel will continue to play an important role, the Welsh economy will advance and grow on a broad base that will consist of the old industries modernised and brought up to date by modern technology, the new industries and the services needed by the 21st century man. That growth, which is already taking place, will involve a massive rebuilding and refurbishment of our cities and urban communities, a new diversity of employment in the countryside and the removal of the social and environmental evils that have scarred the lives of our people during the years of decline. It is a time for looking forward with confidence, not backwards with pessimism—a change that on its own will do much to transform our prospects.
I say that coal and steel will continue to play an important role. Let me first say a word about each.
The number of mines in Wales has halved and the number of men who work in them has almost halved since the coal strike ended. Although very generous redundancy terms and offers of alternative employment have eased the transition for individuals, the effect on the communities involved has been traumatic. For the core of the industry that we now have, the prospects are better than for many,

601
many years. Productivity has almost doubled and nearly every pit has had recent investment in heavy duty face equipment. The board's announcement last June of the new Carway Fawr drift mine at Cynheidre provided firm evidence of the fact that good results create a climate of confidence in which really major investment can take place. Some £100 million has been committed in the South Wales coalfield over the past two years. More recently the board of British Coal has announced its wish to go ahead with the Margam project to create nearly 800 mining jobs, with 700 jobs during the construction period. It is the most exciting new project in south Wales mining for many years, and I very much hope that the negotiations that are now taking place between British Coal and the unions will allow it to go forward to become a highly productive coal mine. British Coal is exploring various options for the most appropriate financing of the scheme and is seeking support from the European Coal and Steel Community. British Coal has not yet submitted its formal proposal to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, but it is discussing the funding with him.
The Welsh steel industry has also received very large scale investment. In the financial year 1985–86, the British Steel Corporation made its first net profit for 11 years. Llanwern and Port Talbot are now acknowledged to be among the most modern and efficient steelworks in Europe. At Port Talbot the £171 million hot strip mill was opened by the Prince and Princess of Wales last June, and work on the Concast plant at Llanwern is proceeding well towards commissioning next year. At Shotton I opened the £30 million Galvalume project last summer, and further large investment is now being made. At Trostre tin plate works £50 million is being spent on a second continuous annealing line. All this shows that British Steel is determined to provide the modern technology which, combined with the improvements in performance and productivity, will enable it to maintain its competitive position in the market.
Against a background of unemployment figures that are still very high, I shall explain why I am increasingly confident about the future of the Welsh economy. Despite the loss of some 67,000 jobs in coal and steel since 1975, unemployment in Wales rose less severely in the period up to early 1986 than in the United Kingdom as a whole. Since then it has fallen faster and further than elsewhere. That fact, the new industries and services and the increase in the number of self-employed, together with the very large share of United Kingdom inward investment taken by Wales—consistently around 20 per cent. of the total — have begun to act as an effective cushion to the disproportionate size of our losses in coal and steel.
Those are the statistics. Up and down Wales new industrial estates, new factories, and new firms demonstrate the nature of the change.
Since this debate a year ago the evidence has multiplied and the pace of recovery has accelerated. Unemployment has fallen in Wales for seven months in a row and in nine out of the last 10 months. I am glad to say that there are 13,000 fewer unemployed people in the headline total than there were at this time last year, and that the adjusted figure is over 11,000 below the peak figure recorded in March last year. In last year's debate the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) gave the male unemployment figures for a long list of travel-to-work areas and
602
constituencies. While in all these places the figures are still too high, I am glad to report that in every one they are lower than they were a year ago. The improvement is not confined to particular parts of Wales, but is widespread. There is every reason to think that it will continue.
The British economy is now growing faster than the economies in almost every other developed country, there has been a staggering improvement in production performance, we are no longer dependent on deficit finance and capital goods imports and industrial investment are all rising strongly. The Confederation of British Industry, the chambers of commerce and firms throughout Wales have all expressed confidence about their prospects. A number of independent assessments confirm how widespread is this improvement. The CBI Welsh quarterly trends survey published in January reveals a sharp increase in business optimism.
The volume of orders is the highest for 10 years, the number of firms working below capacity has fallen sharply, and investment in plant and machinery is rising.
The evidence that Wales is entering a period of industrial expansion is reinforced by the remarkable statistics for the allocation of factories by Government agencies. In 1984 the figure was 1·8 million sq ft, in 1985 it was just over 2 million sq ft and in 1986 it was over 2·5 million sq ft. As a result of the high level of demand, the vacanacy rate for the Welsh Development Agency's estate has dipped to around 9 per cent. The highest figure for factory allocations under Labour was 1·125 million sq ft—well under half this year's total. In order to build on this success, I have told the WDA to plan on the basis of having £93 million available for its factory building programme over the next three years. The agency's chairman launched the programme formally earlier today. When the new programme is taken into account, the WDA will provide about 1 million sq ft of factory space a year in each of the next three years. This will virtually double the rate of completions delivered in any year since 1976 — apart from those affected by the special measures taken in the early 1980s to mitigate the steel closures.
The year 1986–87 was also a record year for factory building by Mid Wales Development. A major initiative was the completion of the Laura Ashley factory at Newtown. With that project behind it and with more receipts, the board will have additional resources and flexibility to carry forward its factory programme and its other activities.
Clwyd is a part of Wales that offers striking evidence of the transformation that is taking place and, within it, Delyn is a particularly good example of what can be achieved if Government, local authorities and the public sector co-operate effectively together. Since May 1979, Welsh Office support through job-related regional assistance in Clwyd involved projects with investment costs of over £670 million, with the promise of around 17,000 new jobs and the safeguarding of over 4,500 others. We have specially directed urban programme resources towards economic regeneration of the area.
Some £5 million has been directed to developing the Delyn enterprise zone. Already some 85 firms have located in the zone, of which 62 have moved in since designation in July 1983. Over half the jobs now being provided are new, and 86 per cent. of them are in manufacturing. Remarkable progress has been made in replacing the jobs lost through the closure of the Courtaulds plants at Greenfields and Wrexham.

603
We have also directed resources to the improvement of the Wrexham industrial estate and for infrastructure development at the Wrexham technology park and the Redwither industrial estate.
All this work is bringing new industry in substantial quantities, and this is in addition to major enterprises which are well established and growing. A number of recent announcements show that the transformation of the industrial base is gathering pace. The announcements were : Christie-Tyler 160 new jobs: Warwick International at Mostyn over 250 new jobs; Fibre Flame up to 300 new jobs; and Hurrall 60 jobs. Today, CP Pharmaceuticals announced a £4 million expansion which is expected to create more than 100 extra jobs.
It is not just Clwyd. Between 1979–80 and 1987–88 urban programme resources amounting to some £34 million were allocated to the counties of Gwynedd and Clwyd together. That is about 25 per cent. of the total for the whole of Wales.
All this is evidence that there is no north-south divide in Wales, either in terms of what can be achieved or in terms of the Government's commitment. The capital programme that I have described is only part of what is being done to improve the economic infrastructure of north Wales. A road programme larger than ever before is improving the access to the English motorway system, the routes north and south and, above all, westwards along the A55 where the new dual carriageway between Chester and Bangor is now two thirds completed and journey times have been dramatically reduced in the last year. Work has started on the Conwy crossing and the Penmaenbach tunnel. This new A55 dual carriageway will bring the whole north Wales coastal strip, Gwynedd and Anglesey, within easy driving distance of Manchester airport and the heart of industrial Britain.
Mr. Alex Carlile: The right hon. Gentleman says that there is no north-south divide in Wales. Does he not agree that Wales is clearly a victim of the same factors that divide the north of England from the south? Will he confirm that, in terms of gross domestic product per head, Wales still lags behind almost every other region of the United Kingdom?
Mr. Edwards: In exactly those terms the growth in Wales in gross domestic product per head during the time of this Government has been faster than in any part of the United Kingdom except East Anglia. The change is taking place and is dramatic. I have been talking about the north.
Similarly in the south we are beginning to see the development pulled westwards. Road projects that are under way will remove the last serious obstacles on the route from west Wales to London. We have invested over £8 million in the Milford Haven enterprise zone; and a major deep water facility there should be available for shipping in the coming year. In Swansea the enterprise zone has attracted 2,300 jobs. This month, Swansea Computer Harnesses has announced that it will create 260 additional jobs in Swansea and that the parent company, Swansea Industrial Components, will create 120 jobs at Burryport. I hope we will see a start this spring on the long-awaited international hotel which will reinforce the great progress that has been made in the maritime zone of Swansea, while the WDA factory building programme at Baglan and a high-tech park to be developed at Bridgend are other developments designed to ensure that the
604
economic recovery spreads westwards. I greatly welcome BP's initiative in setting up D'Arcy Development and in providing land, buildings and resources at Llandarcy and at Angle Bay in order to assist job creation in both places. At Kenfig the Japanese company Orion, which began manufacturing only last summer, expects to be employing 250 within the next few months and is planning a further large project.
As I told the House earlier this afternoon, Sony has announced that it is embarking on a major expansion at its Bridgend site. The project, costing over £30 million, involves a substantial increase in the manufacture of colour TV sets, tubes and components and will create an additional 332 jobs, bringing the employment at the plant to nearly 1,600.
The successful development of the enterprise zones and the tranformation of Maritime Swansea are examples of what can be achieved if local authorities take full advantage of the inititatives taken by this Government. They show that, whatever differences emerge in this debate, there is a great deal of common ground. There are shared objectives, a point that emerged very clearly during a visit I paid last summer to the Rhondda. That council has been energetically and imaginatively using this Government's urban development grant scheme to bring forward urban renewal projects and also making use of a variety of schemes that we have introduced for improving the housing stock. There is a "priority estates" project at Penrhys, enveloping schemes at Cwm Park and Blaenau Cwm, and in the same district, at Clydach Vale, private sector housing development by Barratts and factory development is following on the completion of one of the largest derelict land schemes undertaken in Britain. In last month's debate in the Welsh Grand Committee I announced that we were providing additional resources for the derelict land programme.
The Rhondda is also one of the authorities that has responded enthusiastically to the valleys initiative that I launched in this debate last year. I announced on 10 September that we had selected the seven towns of Aberdare, Ebbw Vale, Maesteg, Merthyr Tydfil, Pontardawe, Pontypool and Tonypandy to receive support over a three-year period. We made available £3 million of special capital allocations in the current year and I have announced a further £7 million for 1987–88. This expenditure is additional to the considerable sums of public money already available to the valleys for housing and derelict land clearance and urban improvement.
Another boost will come from the garden festival to be held in 1992 in Ebbw Vale. The site chosen is exciting and challenging. The local authority is responding to the challenge with energy and has rightly recognised that the success of the festival will to a great extent depend upon private sector participation, leadership and involvement. Although the festival is not to take place until 1992, the work is starting at once and there is much to be done. I am sure that the festival will give a massive boost to the regeneration of the whole area, particularly along the heads of the valleys where there have recently been a number of encouraging industrial developments. I particularly welcome the move of Hoover's headquarters to Merthyr.
In that connection I must refer to the announcement this morning of a package of support for a major development planned by Avana in the Dragon Park building originally constructed for Hoover, which is

605
expected to create 800 jobs withing three years. This application for financial assistance was lodged and much of the property negotiation completed before the bid by Rank Hovis McDougall. We have processed that application under the normal procedures without regard to the bid.
I hope that, whatever the outcome of the bid, this very important and carefully prepared project will go ahead. Both companies have a high reputation; both provide significant employment in Wales; and Rank Hovis McDougall is at the present time carrying out a capital project in Barry. Avana has an outstanding record of growth, investment and job creation in Wales and elsewhere.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: This announcement is very welcome. The development will widen the range of job opportunities in the communities that I represent. May I take it that this project is guaranteed to go ahead, irrespective of what happens about the bid?
Mr. Edwards: An offer has been made to Avana. The rules mean that if the offer were successful and Rank Hovis McDougall succeeded, it would have to resubmit an application for the project against the background of the financial structure of that company. I do not know what the outcome of the bid will be. The chairman of Rank Hovis McDougall has informed me that his company would regard a number of the Avana operations as among the lead operations for the proposed merger. If Avana maintained its very strong performance record, the project would go ahead, but the exact future will depend on the decision that is made about the bid.
Mr. James Callaghan: The right hon. Gentleman knows that great apprehension is felt among employees in Cardiff about this takeover bid. Avana has been a very prosperous Welsh company, as he pointed out. In his conversations with Rank Hovis McDougall, has the right hon. Gentleman received any undertakings about future employment if the takeover bid succeeds, because that is what is worrying my constituents and many others?
Mr. Edwards: Even before this project came forward, the chairman assured me that he believed that a takeover would not have adverse job consequences for Wales. He has told my Department that four or five of the Avana operations would be regarded as flagship operations in the new group. Since the right hon. Gentleman has pressed me on the matter, I must say, as a regional Minister, that I believe that there is particular value in companies like Avana, with outstanding management and good performance, having their headquarters in the regions. Therefore, I do not mind saying that I hope that Avana will maintain its position, but it will be for the market to decide. In fairness to Rank Hovis McDougall, it is also investing quite heavily in Wales and has given the kind of assurances that I have explained to the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Callaghan: What the right hon. Gentleman has said will be welcomed, because the general view is that if this company, Avana, can maintain its advanced position and the quality of the goods and services that it is now
606
providing, it is far better that it should be managed in Wales, even if Rank Hovis McDougall has good reasons for thinking that it should be managed outside Wales.
Mr. Edwards: I do not disagree with the right hon. Gentleman.
I have already announced three new industrial projects this afternoon : CP Pharmaceuticals with more than 100 additional jobs, Sony with more than 330, Avana with 800, the overwhelming majority of the jobs being entirely new. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) shouts from a sedentary position that there is a general election coming. These decisions were taken by individual manufacturing companies that have confidence in Wales, which apparently the hon. Gentleman does not have.
Mr. Ray Powell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we were well aware of all these announcements when we came into the Chamber today? There were press releases in Cardiff before any announcement was made to Parliament. Only two minutes ago the Welsh Development Agency's property developments programme was put on the notice board. It is disgusting that only two minutes ago we saw this Welsh Development Agency document.
Mr. Edwards: If the hon. Gentleman had been in the House at the start of the debate, he would have heard me refer to the announcement and to the press conference that was held by the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency, but, as usual, he is out of touch and out of place.
I can also tell the House that Motil Plastics, which already employs 460 at Aberbargoed, today announced an expansion project providing 130 additional jobs by the end of next year; and I am also delighted that Penney and Giles Conduction Plastics Ltd. intends to create 100 extra jobs in a proposed expansion at Blackwood and Magnapower Transformers Ltd. 150 on the Treforest trading estate—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Ogmore seems to regard all that as bad news. However, the people of Wales will regard it as good news and it shows the scale of the economic expansion now under way in Wales.
In this debate last year I told the House of my plans for the further redevelopment of south Cardiff, building on the tremendous progress that has been made in recent years. Those plans received a warm welcome on all sides. Since then we have carried forward our studies, consulting very widely and, with the united support of the local authorities directly involved, I announced on 5 December our intention to set up a Cardiff bay development corporation to bring forward this huge regeneration project which is attracting national and international interest. I have been grateful for the warm support of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) and greatly encouraged by the positive reaction of many experienced and successful people in the property world, the leisure industries and the financial markets. There is every indication that the commitments that the Government and the local authorities are making to infrastructure improvement will trigger private investment around Cardiff bay on a very large scale.
Our studies so far have shown that the proposed barrage is feasible and indicate that it is the key to unlocking a major development opportunity. One of the first tasks of the corporation will be to carry forward these financial appraisals and technical and ecological studies

607
with a view, if they prove favourable, to enabling legislation being introduced by South Glamorgan county council this autumn.
An order setting up the corporation is currently before Parliament and a single petition by one company is due to be considered by a Select Committee in another place on 17 March. I hope that Parliament will give its consent and enable us to proceed very soon. In the meantime, the chairman-designate, Mr. Inkin, is working with the local authorities, my Department and others on the preparatory work.
The Cardiff bay development has potential, not simply to make Cardiff one of the most splendid cities in Europe and greatly to improve the conditions in which some of its poorest citizens live — a broad mix of housing right across the market range will be one of the major elements —but hugely to strengthen the economy of the whole of south Wales and particularly the industrial valleys that are so closely linked to it.
All those developments and, indeed, the whole economy of the area are dependent upon the security and adequacy of the Severn crossing. May I make it absolutely clear and put it beyond doubt that the Government are determined to secure both requirements. I can tell the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport expects to award the main contract for the strengthening works on the existing bridge before Easter.
Since my announcement last year of the Government's decision to provide a second Severn crossing, we have been pressing ahead with the enormous task of planning this major and difficult project. We have protected the route for the new crossing—for planning purposes—on both sides of the estuary. We are drawing up a wide-ranging technical brief for consultants to undertake the next phase of physical planning and consultation. The brief is highly complex, but it will be complete before Easter. Soon afterwards we shall take the necessary steps to appoint consultants. We are working to a timetable that will meet our firm intention to be in a position to provide the second crossing by the mid-1990s.
The House will be aware of a proposal by Trafalgar House to provide a second crossing with private sector finance close to the existing bridge. The chairman has discussed these proposals with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and myself. While we welcome the evidence that a private sector solution might be feasible, a possibility which I referred to in my statement last July, I told Sir Nigel Broackes that this proposal does not meet the requirements for a new crossing which remain as I described them last July. The Trafalgar House proposal is inadequate; it is in the wrong place; it does not provide the road links to the M5 that we want; and the legislative timetable proposed is unrealistic. In any case there could be no question of a contract being awarded before competitive tenders had been sought. If private financing is to be entertained, we would invite bids at the right time on the basis of Government guidelines.
Sir Raymond Gower: As my right hon. Friend has rightly said, he is aware that that crossing is a sort of lifeline for Welsh industry. In those circumstances, is it a fact, from what he has said, that the horrendous forecast, made by the Member of the European Parliament for Wales, South, of private
608
contractors taking over the contract and charging greatly enhanced tolls was completely without foundation? Can he confirm that?
Mr. Edwards: In my statement last July I said that we would consider the possibility of private sector funding but it will be on terms that fall within the Government guidelines of what is required, which is an absolutely satisfactory crossing for Wales, with a sensible financial base and without the sort of horrendous toll regime that my hon. Friend suggests. Any such proposal would simply not be acceptable to the Government. Already the Trafalgar House proposal includes, among other things, the cost of refurbishing and repairing the existing bridge, which is the subject of an entirely different tender and is being dealt with separately by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Secretary of State recall that in the Welsh Grand Committee on 26 November last I suggested that Trafalgar House was intent on making a bid for the second Severn crossing with an arrangement similar to the contract obtained under questionable circumstances to build the proposed new Dartford bridge? Will the Secretary of State also appreciate that on that occasion he gave every indication that he was concealing something and not being frank with the Committee? Would he agree with me now that the idea of Trafalgar House having control of the main access point in and out of Wales would be simply preposterous? Is there not an urgent need to get on with the construction of the new bridge, to make it a publicly owned one and to make it toll-free?
Mr. Edwards: As I said last July, I welcome the possibility of private sector finance on the lines of the Dartford precedent. I was entirely open and advanced the reasons for doing so. I welcome the interest of Trafalgar House. On the suggestion that I have something to conceal, the first I heard of the proposal was when Sir Nigel Broackes came to see my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport the week before last, and myself last week. I was given the detailed information about it on exactly the same day as it was given to the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes). So much for private information and consultation with Government. That proposition has been put forward by Trafalgar House for its own reasons without any discussion with Government. It will have to stand the test —[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Newport, East has said that he does not believe me. I give my word to the House that that is so and I hope that he will accept that.
If private financing is to be entertained, we would invite bids at the right time on the basis of Government guidelines. We will not be dictated to by any company. However, we hope that it will make a bid at the appropriate time.
Mr. Roy Hughes rose—
Mr. Edwards: Withdraw.
Mr. Hughes: I am not going to withdraw anything.
When I put the point of view in the Welsh Grand Committee last November that Trafalgar House was fully intent on putting in a bid for this project with an arrangement similar to that obtained in questionable

609
circumstances for the Dartford bridge, is the Secretary of State telling me that he knew nothing about it? Does no one tell him anything?
Mr. Edwards: What I am saying is perfectly clear. I hope that Trafalgar House and other consortia will come forward with tenders at the appropriate time. I did not have the smallest knowledge, and neither did my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, of any approach by Trafalgar House with any proposal of the sort put forward last week until that proposal was put, as I have said, to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport just prior to the weekend before last. That is the fact. I very much regret that the hon. Gentleman is not prepared to accept my word.
Mr. Stefan Terlezki: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has explained himself thoroughly and positively, should not the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) withdraw his allegation, which has no foundation?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I have heard nothing out of order.
Mr. Edwards: I bow to that ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and we shall move on. I hope that the hon. Member for Newport, East is not questioning my word.
So far, I have concentrated primarily on what is happening in urban and industrial Wales. In rural Wales, we face a period of profound change. It is unavoidable; nobody seriously imagines that we can go on producing agricultural surpluses at huge cost. The level of support for farming is still very large. The question is not whether we should support agriculture, but whether it makes sense to support it in such a way that we produce surpluses that nobody wants.
Progress was made in the December negotiations. For the first time, we have a realistic mechanism for dealing with the problem of milk surpluses and we have laid the foundations for a much more sensible support arrangement for beef. It was a major negotiating success that we succeeded in removing the uncertainty that had attached to the continuation of the beef premium scheme and it must make sense to reduce the dependence on intervention.
In the negotiations that begin in Brussels this week, we have to make progress in reducing overproduction of other commodities, in amending the Commission's proposals so that they do not discriminate against British agriculture, and in reforming the highly unsatisfactory agromonetary arrangements which produce enormous green currency discrepancies.
Later this month, the Government will be publishing a comprehensive set of papers that will set out our proposals for assisting farming and the rural economy to adapt to the new situation. We have to find a new balance of policies, which will involve less support for expanding production, more attention to the demands of the market, more encouragement for alternative uses of land, more diversity on farms, and a better structure for the rural economy as a whole.
Mr. D. E. Thomas rose—
Mr. Edwards: I have already given way a number of times and I fear that I may be criticised for going on too long.
We have to balance farming interests, the economic and social needs of rural areas, with conservation of the countryside and its enjoyment by the public.
A great deal of nonsense has been talked about the possible effects of our proposals for revising the guidance to local planning authorities. In future, rather less weight will be attached to retaining all our agricultural land in production and more weight will be given to environmental and other factors, such as the need to encourage employment. Of course, the need to protect the countryside from uncontrolled development remains as strong as ever and it is perfectly possible to provide the necessary protection while permitting an increasing diversification of economic activity in villages and on farms.
I must make it perfectly clear that in Wales, as elsewhere, the special protection afforded to national parks, areas of outstanding beauty and nature and scientific reserves will remain, and the heritage coast and other areas of good countryside will continue to be conserved and protected.
We already have in Wales some effective instruments for encouraging the sorts of diversification that we need in rural Wales. I have already referred to the activities of Mid Wales Development, and the Welsh Development Agency has been strengthening its rural organisation. The range of measures available in support of investment and enterprise in rural Wales is extensive and we shall give a full account of them in a new publication, "Action for Rural Enterprise in Wales", which will be included in the package to which I referred.
I launched my rural enterprise initiative a year ago and introduced a new grant scheme called DRIVE. That scheme is already producing results. For example, it has enabled the Pringle company to develop a new outlet in the railway station at Llanfair PG, creating more than 100 jobs in rural Anglesey.
Mr. Keith Best (Ynys Môn): Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Edwards: No. I did not give way to an Opposition Member, so I must not give way to my hon. Friend.
The resources available for the rural enterprise initiative will be substantially greater in the coming financial year than they are this year.
Just before our debate began, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science announced our intentions for handling teachers' pay. What he had to say applies as much in Wales as in England and I hope that we shall shortly see the end of the long dispute and shall be able to concentrate again on the important task of raising education standards.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary who is to reply to the debate will have more to say about education and training. I dealt at length with our training measures in the November debate in the Welsh Grand Committee. Our planned education expenditure in 1987–88 of £846 million shows an increase of 16 per cent. over this year's planned level, and further increases are proposed for the later years of the survey.
When the planned expenditure is looked at in the context of continuing falling rolls in the secondary sector,

611
it becomes clear that local education authorities have been provided with the means to make substantial advances in the quality of the services that they provide, particularly if they address themselves urgently to the problem of removing nearly 150,000 surplus places.
In the Welsh Grand Committee debate on 4 February, I reported on the other increases that we are making in public spending and public services in Wales. National Health Service expenditure in Wales has risen significantly faster under this Government than it did under our Labour predecessors. Hospital and community health service provision in 1987–88 will be increased by almost 8 per cent. Discretionary capital allocations to authorities are up by, on average, 14 per cent. in cash terms over 1986–87 and that follows a period of the biggest health building programme in Welsh history.
I have been able to increase the gross provision for housing capital expenditure by Welsh local authorities. Hon. Members in all parts of the House have welcomed the increase in net provision for the Housing Corporation by £10 million to £54·7 million. I do not underestimate the scale of the problem that we face in improving the quality of housing in a part of the country where so much of it is old and run-down. The Select Committee on Welsh Affairs is now examining that matter. While I am entitled to point out that we have spent much more on housing renovations than did our Labour predecessors, I have no illusions about the need to find new ways of overcoming the problem.
During my speech, I have referred to other areas of public expenditure—the funding of the agencies the road programme and the urban programme. All those are expanding and all are being used with increasing effectiveness.
Huge tasks remain, but, sustained by an expanding economy which is enjoying its sixth year of growth, public services are being improved and enlarged in Wales, private investment is growing strongly, unemployment is falling and great projects of urban renewal have been set in hand. The long decline is over. If we in Wales press forward with a new confidence, there is every prospect of an improving future for our people.
4.47 pm
Mr. Barry Jonesa: The Secretary of State started by giving us a history lecture which was no more than a debating smokescreen. If Wales has arrived, it has arrived after needless agonies since 1979, and the Opposition have not seen the arrival.
If massive building is needed, why has the Secretary of State savagely cut the rate support grant in successive years since 1979? He says that we have had a large share of the available inward investment, but we have certainly had an ever-larger share of redundancies year after year. The right hon. Gentleman's speech was made in anticipation of a general election and was drafted to attempt to defend vulnerable seats, including those of his ministerial colleagues.
The right hon. Gentleman gave us no genuine strategy in response to the massive unemployment problems of Wales. Problems have piled up while he and the Government have been in office. We were not taken in by his sweet words about the jobless totals. The Wales TUC has made a frank allegation that the Government are manipulating the unemployment figures. The general
612
secretary says that, far from falling by 8,000, as the Government claim, unemployment increased in 1986 by nearly 7,000.
There is no doubt that the Government have been massaging the unemployment figures downwards over successive months.
Sir Raymond Gower: Is it not significant that not only have there been reduced unemployment figures in the past few months, but there has been an increase in the number of notified vacancies, which cannot be misinterpreted or disguised in the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman?
Mr. Jones: The Wales TUC calculations also include the fact that the unemployment figure could truly he described as over 200,000. The Opposition do not accept the attempt by the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Sir R. Gower) to excuse the blatant massaging of the unemployment figures.
I commend the decision to invest in the Margam new mine and I am content that the final negotiations on the project lie in the safe hands of the president of the South Wales National Union of Mineworkers and his members. The Secretary of State made some important remarks about Avana. That company deserves credit for its consistent investment in research and development. It now appears that the Department and the agency are attempting to rescue Avana from the unwelcome predatory Rank Hovis McDougall bid. Few people in Wales would welcome that bid. The Opposition want Avana to survive and win. However, after eight years in office, the Government must face up to their responsibilities for engendering a climate in which slick bids are made by City-based opportunists.
With regard to the Severn bridge, it is clear that Trafalgar House has put the right hon. Gentleman into an embarrassing position. He attempted to respond frankly today to that development. I am glad that he will not dally with a scheme which could lead to the principal industrial artery in south Wales being in the sole control of a company merely out for profits. Clearly, Trafalgar House proposes a monopoly for itself. The right hon. Gentleman must know that public opinion in Wales would never wear that. The current bridge is not only the main link to the principal English markets, but a bridge to Europe.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the development agency. I want to draw his attention to an article in the Financial Times on 19 February. Under the headline
"Tighter rein on Welsh agency"
a report by Anthony Moreton states:
"There is, however, no question of the Scots having to produce monthly figures for the Scottish Office as though it was the subsidiary of a large Public Corporation."
Will the right hon. Gentleman knock on the head the inference that the economic flagship of Wales is to be reduced to behaving like the subsidiary of a large company?
I am unconvinced by the right hon. Gentleman's posture as the guardian of the Welsh countryside. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman's plans and statements will be disastrous for Welsh farmers, damaging to the Welsh tourist industry, worthless as a contribution to the Welsh housing crisis and environmentally dangerous.
Would the right hon. Gentleman care to tell us whether the BBC governor for Wales will leave the corporation? There have been comprehensive but perplexing reports in

613
the media about that over the past few weeks. If the Minister catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he may respond to that.
I did not hear in the right hon. Gentleman's remarks how he proposes to help the survival of the Sherman theatre. We read daily of the events at the University college of Cardiff about that troubled seat of learning. How does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take up an initiative in that respect?
Mr. Terlezki: I very much appreciate the hon. Gentleman giving way. Does he agree that it would be most helpful if the South Glamorgan county council would contribute infinitely more to the Sherman theatre, because the Cardiff city council already contributes a great deal towards that theatre as well as to the new theatre in Cardiff? I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would agree that South Glamorgan county council should contribute infinitely more than it does now.
Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman forgets that he has made consistent attacks on South Glamorgan county council for its expenditure policies. He has supported the strict controls that his right hon. Gentleman has placed upon that excellent local authority.
The Secretary of State said on 23 May 1979:
"There is a clear and paramount need for more jobs."
Indeed there is. The then new Secretary of State in his speech said that unemployment would temporarily remain on the increase. He added:
"It will take longer than a few months for the measures which we shall introduce to produce an improvement."
Some eight years later, unemployment in Wales stands officially in excess of 176,000. When the right hon. Gentleman spoke in the House in 1979, it stood at 83,000, having been reduced under the previous Labour Government over the previous year by 19,000, or 19 per cent. Having endured eight years of the Secretary of State's measures to produce an improvement, unemployment has risen by about 125 per cent. In the constituencies of some of my hon. Friends, unemployment still stands at 25 per cent. among males. The Government have introduced measures that alter the number of people classified as unemployed. Perhaps that manipulation of the unemployment figures is the sort of measure that the Secretary of State had in mind.
In his famous speech on 23 May 1979, the right hon. Gentleman said :
"I believe that there has been too much interference by the Welsh Office with the day-to-day management of local authorities and indeed with other bodies that have been given responsibility for executive action, such as area health authorities. I have already given instructions that will very substantially reduce the … part played by Welsh Office Ministers."
However, the Government's stranglehold on local authorities has tightened each year since 1979 and the Association of District Councils for Wales and the county councils argue that they are now less free from interference than has ever been the case. Our chief council officers plead with the Welsh Office for the freedoms that they enjoyed under the previous Labour Administration.
Again in 1979 the right hon. Gentleman said:
"we recognise that there will be a continuing need for an effective regional policy to reduce the disparity between the richer and less prosperous regions of the United Kingdom." —[Official Report, 23 May 1979; Vol. 967, c. 1130–37.]
614
The gulf between Wales and affluent south-east has grown wider each year. Indeed, it is now a chasm and chronic unemployment has been largely to blame.
Since 1979 we have seen the wasted years, the years of Cabinet complacency. I call in aid to my assertion the reasonably independent document, the publication of the 1984 census of employment. It states that between June 1979 and June 1986 Wales lost a greater proportion of its employment than any other region in Great Britain, a total of 175,000 jobs. Between June 1979 and June 1986 Wales lost a greater proportion of its manufacturing employment than any other region — about 112,000 jobs. Wales suffered a 3 per cent. drop—or 20,000 jobs—in service employment. Even in service employment there was a loss —between 1979 and 1986, according to that census.
Unpublished Department of Employment statistics, which were reported in the Financial Times of 19 January, show that between September 1983 and September 1986 employment in Wales increased by a smaller proportion —0·2 per cent.—than in any other region. In the southeast, the figure was 5·6 per cent. and in East Anglia it was 13 per cent. So much for the glossy, superficial approach adopted by the Secretary of State in his speech. The people of Wales are worried most of all about unemployment.
Those statistics, shocking as they are, only add to recent figures that have shown the Welsh economy to be under performing in several key areas. In 1985, gross domestic product per head in Wales was the lowest of all the regions, measuring 88·9 on the scale which takes the United Kingdom average as 100. My source for that figure is Economic Trends. That shows the right hon. Gentleman's stewardship. That is the truth, not the glossy veneer of his speech today. The Employment Gazette shows that, in 1985, redundancies in Wales increased from 4·7 per cent. to 6·4 per cent. of the Great Britain total.
Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The hon. Gentleman has quoted the GDP figures at me. Will he also confirm that GDP at constant prices has risen by 16 per cent. since 1979, faster than any part of the United Kingdom except for East Anglia?
Mr. Jones: The right hon. Gentleman is trying to get off the hook. I shall return to that point later. I was about to tell him that a report from the independent Low Pay Unit in December 1986 revealed that take-home pay in Wales is considerably below the United Kingdom average and that one third of Welsh workers receive a wage that is below the official EEC poverty level. That is a chronicle of wasted years.
The Government's approach is piecemeal. They lack a strategy and their approach is reactive, fitful and tactical. The main thrust of their policy should take into account the massive trade deficit in manufactured goods. The Government try to emphasise the productivity figures. They are up, but they have increased on a falling level of production. I remind the House that manufacturing output is still below its 1979 level.
To advance beyond even a marginal resurgence in manufacturing capability, the Government must comprehend the need for widespread investment in British industry, or more investment in research and development and for more investment in education and training. We should aim to have the best-educated work force in Europe. In that way, Wales will restore its fortunes, because in the future the major economies will compete entirely on the basis of skill and training.

615
I give two examples of the investment required. The Secretary of State mentioned coal, and I wish to put a plan to him. We want investment in the construction of new washeries and coal preparation plants. They are a great priority in the coal field. We want improved coal haulage and conveying systems underground. We want improved shaft facilities, because the shafts are literally the lifelines of all pits. There must be more surface exploration in the south Wales coal field. There should be an increase in development below ground. We want projects to replace existing face capacity. The Secretary of State mentioned the new mine at Margam. I have outlined a six-point plan which could be implemented over several years. I give credit to the Government for starting the new mine at Margam.
A second area where investment would be highly desirable is aerospace. We must invest in Britian's civil airframe industry and in the new Airbus family. If the Government do not invest in the new Airbus, Britain can say goodbye to its powerful presence in Europe's burgeoning civil aerospace industry. Other nations are queuing up to take our place. Recently, we have heard expressions of unease from hon. Members on both sides of the House. Airbus needs launch aid of £750 million spread over six years. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the A320 Airbus which was launched at Toulouse in southern France is a riproaring commercial success. Boeing is running scared.
The Secretary of State may know that 4,000 of my constituents at Broughton, Clwyd works have made Airbus a success, and I demand that he fights his corner in Cabinet, because a thumbs-up to Airbus will help to underpin the economy of north-east Wales. The right hon. Gentleman should act now; to help him, I should say that the aerospace industry's contribution to the nation's balance of trade in 1986 was a massive £1·9 billion—the best ever recorded. By backing the new Airbus family, the right hon. Gentleman would shore up many jobs in Wales and would ensure the future of an important industry for the next century—to the massive benefit of our balance of trade.
The Secretary of State mentioned the Health Service. I must tell him about the problem of waiting lists, with 120,000 people awaiting treatment at Welsh hospitals, of whom 9,500 have been waiting for more than a year. That has happened despite the Government's special fund of £1 million. Progress is too slow. Why have 2,997 people in mid-Glamorgan waited for more than a year for hospital beds? In Clwyd, the in-patient waiting list is 4,689, while there are 9,000 out-patients in the queue. In Gwent, 11,000 out-patients await appointments. In Gwynedd, 1,900 people are awaiting admission to hospital, and there are 4,000 out-patients in the queue. In the Secretary of State's constituency in Pembroke, 2,400 in-patients are waiting. That is not good enough, and the £1 million is miserly when one considers the size of the problem.
The Secretary of State must spend more to tackle one of the most urgent problems for ordinary people in the Principality. One of the best cases that he could make in the Cabinet is to remind his colleagues that they spent tens of millions of pounds floating off British Gas. If they can spend that sort of money on such a project, why cannot our sick and elderly citizens in Wales have a better deal in terms of the waiting list?
Mr. Best: The hon. Gentleman tries to convince the House that he knows his subject. Will he tell the House of the increase in the number of in-patient and out-patient cases since 1979?
Mr. Jones: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that his health authority is screaming at the Government for more money. Instead of asking obscure questions, he should be fighting for more money to attack the problem of waiting lists. Male unemployment in Holyhead is more than 25 per cent. The Government should be doing something about that urgently, but I heard nothing from the Secretary of State that would help the hon. Member for Ynys MÔn (Mr. Best).
As ever, the Secretary of State responded to the housing problem by trying to put up a smokescreen on funding. In 1979–80, about £330 million was spent on housing. For 1986–87, only £154 million is under consideration, and the White Paper on public expenditure gives a figure for 1989–90 of only £132 million. Clearly that is not good enough. Against the background of claims for outstanding renovation grants totalling £55,000, it is disgraceful. Lately, figures were published showing that 66,000 homes in Wales are totally unfit for human habitation. Fifty five thousand homes lack a bath, shower or an inside lavatory. Over 150,000 are in serious disrepair. In fact, the summation must be that nearly 30 per cent. of private homes in Wales are inadequate for 20th century living. These figures and opinions stem from a politically impartial body, the environmental health officers in Wales. Private housing in Wales is in an appalling state. I heard the right hon. Gentleman say nothing today about how the Government will tackle the growing housing crisis.
A gloss was put on education again today, but the Government's successive cuts in the rate support grant have struck heavy blows to the school service in Wales.
Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The cuts in the rate support grant have not done what the hon. Gentleman said. Expenditure on the education service in Wales has been higher in real terms in every year under the present Government than 1979, in spite of falling school rolls. Expenditure in real terms today is 2·5 per cent. higher than it was when the hon. Gentleman's party lost office, although there are 10 per cent. fewer children in schools.
Mr. Jones: The right hon. Gentleman has not read the reports by Her Majesty's Inspectorate. Since 1979, its reports have successively pointed to a serious state of affairs. Her Majesty's Inspectorate is not politically inspired. Its reports point to a disgraceful situation that has developed during the right hon. Gentleman's term of office. The right hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of his education record. [Interruption.] No number of sedentary interruptions will in any way deflect the truth.
Mr. Terlezki: The hon. Gentleman mentioned housing repairs and habitation. How many thousands of houses were made habitable and were repaired before 1979?
Mr. Jones: I have been talking about education for the past five minutes. The hon. Gentleman should have woken up earlier. We have moved on since 1979.
Mr. Donald Coleman: Will my hon. Friend remind the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Terlezki) of the article that appeared in the Western Mail under the heading,
"Thousands of homes are unfit to live in"?
Mr. Jones: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. I am sure that his voice carried across the Chamber.
The Secretary of State did not refer to the important report by the Welsh Development Agency. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the valleys initiative. The biggest boost that he can give the valleys is more housing investment. I note the letter sent by Mr. Waterstone to all hon. Members, which accompanied the new programme for 1987–92. In that letter, a rather plaintive sentence refers to property throughout most parts of Wales. It states:
"We have therefore had to make some difficult decisions about the allocation of resources in the new programme."
Why is that so? In the current financial year, the Welsh Development Agency has been selling assets of £15 million. In my own constituency a project has been lost because the agency could not provide a bespoke factory. Why is the agency short of factory buildings? It is a serious problem. We are losing out to neighbouring regions. To the credit of the agency, it has the vacancy rate down to 9 per cent. and under. If we are to use more venture capital, we must provide better salaries for investment staff. We cannot attract sufficient staff to use any increased venture capital.
I note that, in the right hon. Gentleman's review, he stated that the need for public intervention in Wales is well attested. I note, too, that the review was not independent. It was conducted by Welsh Office and Treasury officials. Clearly, it is flawed by its acceptance of the Government's philosophy of private sector solutions to economic problems. That leads its authors to spend considerably more time devising ways in which the private sector can be persuaded to participate in Welsh Development Agency activities than proposing how to expand its activities and make them more responsive to community needs.
Mid Wales Development finds it difficult to attract private sector capital to the area because it still does not guarantee a sufficient return on capital. There is clearly a continuing need for public subventions through regional policy. It was a grave Government error to remove assisted area status from that part of Wales. I advise the right hon. Gentleman—I attempted to do so during Question Time —to put it to the Cabinet that the Budget will have a crucial bearing on the quality and standard of life of many of our underprivileged and unemployed Welsh citizens. I wish to see a determined ministerially led attack on the grave housing situation. I wish to see a well-funded approach to the decay in our schools that is disturbingly portrayed in the impartial reports of Her Majesty's Inspectorate. There is a need for a coherent and effective plan to reduce the waiting list problem in the Health Service.
The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State should know that, in Wales, there is a consensus for greater investment in the social infrastructure. I particularly have in mind teachers, day nurseries, day care, the elderly, leisure facilities, home helps, meals on wheels and environmental improvements.
Last week, the Prime Minister told the Institute of Directors that it was immoral for the state to take money from the citizen by way of tax revenue. Why have Her Majesty's Government raised the tax burden for most ordinary families? Indeed, why is it more moral to encourage personal consumption to rise while, for example, in Wales public services are allowed to decay? When the Chancellor of the Exchequer has £4 billion extra
618
revenue to spend, how can the Government afford major tax giveaways but not adequately fund programmes for housing, education, health and for the Welsh Development Agency and Mid Wales Development —indeed, for a balanced regional policy?
Increases in VAT and cuts in other taxes will not help the principal Welsh victims of Thatcherism. By ignoring the need for humane policies based on sensible increases in public expenditure, the Government are courting electoral disaster. I have no doubt that a Labour Government will tackle Wales's problems to the satisfaction of the people.
5.19 pm
Sir Raymond Gower: The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) has painted a rather dismal picture, which is somewhat at variance with that delineated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman referred to the unemployment figures at some length. He said that they had been manipulated and argued that that was the sole reason for the apparent decline in unemployment.
Mr. Barry Jones: I did not.
Sir Raymond Gower: The hon. Gentleman said that it was one of the chief reasons for the apparent decline. His assertion was answered during Question Time earlier today, when the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Mr. Roberts), explained that 58 per cent. of those who had attended training schemes had taken permanent jobs afterwards. That is not manipulation, but a step forward into a job.
The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside was at pains to point out that the decline in the unemployment figures had not affected Wales. He quoted figures which, he claimed, demonstrated that Wales was the worst hit part of the United Kingdom. He must realise that many people were employed in coal mining 20 years ago and that the proportion of people employed in the coal and steel industries was far higher even nine years ago than in comparable areas in other parts of the United Kingdom. As a result, the effect on Wales of the difficulties encountered by those industries both here and overseas was all the greater. The steel industries of most countries had vast overproduction and it was essential to reduce capacity and modernise so that production could be more efficient. That has now happened. The same is true of coal mining. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State produced figures to illustrate that.
When the Government took office in 1979, we did not pretend that everything was difficult or wrong, but we faced many serious problems because of the nature of our economy. The great shake-out in the coal and steel industries had still to take place, many other industries were heavily overmanned and Britain had borrowed heavily, notably from the International Monetary Fund, so the task facing the Government was not easy. We experienced the difficult years of the early 1980s, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is entitled to be a little more optimistic now. Indeed, it would be surprising if he were not. It would certainly be surprising if my right hon. and hon. Friends did not take pleasure in the fact that unemployment has declined. We are sometimes accused of being without feeling, but any decline in unemployment gives us enormous pleasure. Strangely enough, however,

619
as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State reeled off statistics showing the decline in unemployment and the creation of new jobs, misery spread across the faces of Opposition Members. That is quite incredible—it is as though they had expected, or hoped for, unpleasant figures.
Mr. Gareth Wardell: Nonsense.
Sir Raymond Gower: One could gain that impression. Every good statistic seems to increase the Opposition's misery. After all these years, inflation is still generally being contained at a low figure, and after many years of disappointment and trial we now know that unemployment can be contained, although we have still to establish whether it can be reduced at a greater rate. That must be our challenge for the future. One of the most important figures to consider is the number of notified vacancies, and it is significant that they have increased steadily while unemployment has come down. That is partly due to the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the Welsh Office, the Welsh Development Agency, other associated agencies and private industries.
The improvement has been accelerated by the great improvement in our communications. The M4 is now nearing completion, and the main north Wales route from Chester to Bangor is three quarters complete. One most valuable improvement in south Wales is the extension of the connection between Cardiff and Merthyr. I hope that it will soon reach further to Brecon. A second Severn crossing is vital to the communications of south Wales. I accept that the statement made by Trafalgar House and the interpretation of it by the Member of the European Parliament for Wales, South were completely without foundation. I hope that, whatever happens, my right hon. Friend will give an assurance that there will be no further large increase in tolls of the kind described by the MEP for Wales, South. The crossing is so important to south Wales industry that anything which could upset its efficiency or impose new burdens would be unacceptable to the vast majority of people in Wales. The impact of tolls on industry is not, perhaps, so great as is sometimes claimed, but it must be substantial.
Our great objective now must be to improve and extend our existing industries and to obtain a fair share of new industries available in the United Kingdom or likely to come from overseas. I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the Welsh Office on the progress that they have achieved in this respect. Their achievement is most remarkable in regard to the creation of new factories and jobs. We must also remember the importance of British Coal Enterprise Limited, which has invested £21 million in the United Kingdom and is likely to create 2,500 jobs. I believe that my right hon. Friend said that quite a large proportion of them will be in Wales. I share the pleasure expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House at the support of the Government and British Coal for the new super-pit at Margam. I understand that approval is still subject to certain conditions, including a six-day week, but I hope that terms can be agreed at a reasonably early date so that this great undertaking is not imperiled in any way.
The massive new investment in steel is also most impressive, but the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside did not mention it at all. Some £171 million has been invested in a hot strip mill at Port Talbot, and there has been
620
investment in the Concast plant at Llanwern. I do not know how much—perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister can tell me in his winding-up speech—but I understand that the investment is on a substantial scale. One could also mention the arrival of new industries, such as the electrical industries, new technology and biotechnology.
My right hon. Friend the Minister did not refer today — although he has previously done so — to the great increase in self-employment in Wales. As in the rest of the United Kingdom, the self-employed have increased in number and I understand that there are now about 154,000 of them. Compared with the small scale of self-employment even a couple of decades ago, that statistic is impressive. It represents 12 per cent. of our working population, so we should not deem it an unimportant factor on the road to improvement.
Mr. Alex Carlile: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I join him in welcoming the improved level of self-employment in Wales, but does he agree that we should be concerned about the mobility of some of the self-employed, and also about the high number of personal bankruptcies among them?
Sir Raymond Gower: I do not agree entirely. Recently, a friend of mine from the United States was asked what he thought about employment in Britain. He said that, compared with the United States, we had far too few failures. That is a remarkable thought.
Mr. Michael Foot: The Government are putting that right.
Sir Raymond Gower: No, in America there are many failures, but also an enormous number of successes.
Mr. Alex Carlile: America has only half our interest rate.
Sir Raymond Gower: To some extent, I accept what the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) said about mobility. However, the self-employed are less likely to want to move than big industries or their employees. The self-employed tend to establish themselves in small communities, so mobility would be less important for them than for most industries. I adduced the example of the United States to show that success is sometimes accompanied by difficulty. In a competitive area, one cannot expect great successes without some failures, although many people will doubtless disagree with that thought.
WlNvest has not been mentioned, but I understand that it has been instrumental in assisting 155 projects in Wales with an investment of £570 million. That represents a valuable contribution to Welsh industry. Eleven thousand new jobs have been involved and WlNvest has safeguarded another 8,000 jobs. Seventy eight of the companies concerned are from the United States and Canada, 58 from Europe and most of the remainder from Japan. That shows that the Welsh scene and economy are not unreceptive to new ideas, and that Wales is attractive to companies from overseas. I am sustained in my hopefulness not only by the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State but by the forecasts of independent bodies, including the CBI Wales.—[Interruption.] I am talking about experienced industrialists who have to bear the difficulties as well as the advantages of industry. They foresee a period of increased employment, which is encouraging.

621
The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside criticised the Welsh Development Agency, but I think that its achievements have been great. It has created 1,252 advance factory units, 21 bespoke factory units and 95 factory extensions. That is a large contribution in a relatively short period. As the hon. Gentleman admitted, the unoccupied proportion of its factories has now declined to just under 10 per cent. That is a good figure when one recalls that only a few years ago a larger proportion of its completed factories were difficult to let. That is another sign of the improved buoyancy of the Welsh and British economies.
I am sorry to have to refer in less hopeful terms to the present state of Welsh agriculture. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who represents part of the county of Dyfed, will know that the difficult period in relation to milk quotas is not yet entirely over. Many farmers also have fears about beef production and some farmers in my constituency share the fear that the change from milk to beef production will increase their difficulties. Most of them feel — right or wrongly—that the best solution would be some devaluation of the green pound, and they have impressed that view on me time and time again. I know that it is a difficult issue, but I hope that the Ministers concerned will think about what could be achieved in that direction.
Let us not be foolishly over-optimistic. I, for one, am not. Enormous problems face the Welsh and British economies, but there are some brighter signs than we could have foreseen even a short time ago. There are signs that the continuous increase in unemployment has been stopped. Indeed, there are hopeful signs that it is slightly in decline. Let us hope that that decline will accelerate and that the new jobs will last for a long time. We do not want a false dawn and 1 do not think that this is one. Had it been even brighter, it might have been false, but it has taken the form of a slow improvement. That is more likely to be permanent and that is why I am hopeful.
5.37 pm
Mr. James Callaghan: The speech made by the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Sir R. Gower) contrasted in its sober realism with what we have heard on other occasions about the prospects for the future. He painted on a large canvas.
I was reminded by what the hon. Gentleman said about America—that perhaps we did not have enough failures — of what a delegate said to me at the National Farmers Union conference : "How do you make a small fortune from agriculture? Start with a large fortune." I fear that that describes the future for much of agriculture.— [Interruption.] Perhaps I should declare my interest. The point is that I did not start with a large fortune; I started with a small overdraft that has become larger. Some of our small Welsh family farms have better prospects of survival because of their capacity to use the family resources than have farmers in other parts of Britain, but they face a tremendous slog.
I was also pleased to hear the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan tell us about the wonderful work of the Welsh Development Agency. It pleased me greatly to hear of his conversion to that great organisation, which his party
622
spoke against, voted against and described as socialist excess when it was in opposition. Indeed, this afternoon we have seen a Raymond come to judgment.
I do not wish to speak on the same broad canvas as the hon. Gentleman, because I have a feeling that this is the last opportunity that I shall have to make a speech on Welsh day. I wish, therefore, to make an unashamedly constituency speech. Although I have been very fortunate in holding a number of governmental offices, none of them could have been held without the steady and consistent support of the people of Cardiff. We should all speak for and represent the interests of the people who sent us here, and that is what I want to do this afternoon.
In some senses, Cardiff presents a paradox. As the Secretary of State said, there has been a constructive period in my own constituency, as well as in the centre of Cardiff, for which he, the county council and the city council take all the credit. The lead that the county council set when it decided that the new South Glamorgan headquarters should go down to the docks began to give new hope to an area of considerable dereliction. That was followed by the imaginative concept for which the Secretary of State has been responsible: the barrage from Cardiff docks to Penarth, which will encourage leisure activities, new economic activities, shopping facilities, housing and much else.
I pay tribute to the combined efforts of the leaders of both councils. Too often there has been unnecessary friction and a feeling that they must stand on their dignity. But on this occasion councillor Watkiss for the city council, Lord Brooks and councillor Kitson for the county council, and the Secretary of State have all subordinated their individual interests. No doubt those who come after us will be as proud of what they have provided as we are of their forefathers, who established the wonderfull civic centre which we now enjoy and which was built some 80 years ago.
I have observed that the Secretary of State cares about the large issues that concern and improve the environment. However, I feel that the right hon. Gentleman should show the same sensitivity about the quality of life in considering some of the smaller, more personal issues that concern my constituents. I heard only yesterday — I now move deliberately from a large issue to something that is tiny, yet matters—about a dispute over the laundry of elderly people in geriatric wards. The argument is about whether they can have their own underwear and whether it can be laundered. It is absurd that something that matters so much to old people should be the subject of controversy because there are not sufficient funds.
Such tiny things matter to our people: they are what the quality of life is about. But I believe that we have missed out on a number of them. I hear stories about how nursing staff in the geriatric ward of one of our hospitals are being stretched almost to the limit in trying to look after the patients who are so dependent on them. It is unedifying and unfeeling for such things to be happening in Cardiff today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) spoke about the problem of jobs. We know how Wales has suffered, and I do not intend to repeat the figures. There is too much bandying of statistics today. I am reminded of Disraeli's comment about
"lies, damned lies and statistics".
If he had been listening to the exchanges at Question Time —not only today but over the past few months—he

623
would have added a fourth category—election figures, which are statistics inflated by adjectival ministerial excess and bear no relation to reality.
We have lost one third of our industrial workers during the 1980s—over 100,000 men and women—but we have gained no more than 25,000 jobs in the service industries to offset that. Of course, we are moving into a different era; the Secretary of State is absolutely right about that. However, I see no prospect that the jobs now arising in the service industries, which are many fewer than those that we have lost in manufacturing, are likely in any measurable period to offset them.
I still do not know what the Government intend to do to remedy the position. It is having an appalling effect in my constituency, among others. The paradox is that. while great schemes such as the Cardiff barrage are going ahead and the centre of the city is being revived — it looks better than I can remember in all my time in Cardiff—in the housing estates and the homes of our people there is evidence of a different attitude, a depression in morale. Why is that?
On the Llanrumney estate in my constituency, one man in three is out of work. It is the same story in Tremorfa. In Splott, one man in four is out of work, and in Bute town in the docks, where the position has always been worse than in the others, every other man is out of work in every other house. That is the extent of the problem.
I do not know the remedy. I am not my right hon. Friends. If they win the election, as I hope and trust that they will, I should like them to make a real attempt to carry out their plan to reduce unemployment by a million. That would offer hope to our people. No doubt mistakes will be made but, as I walk in and out of those homes, I believe that it is essential that a real effort is made. The social consequences of that continued depression are extremely serious.
Let me give another illustration of the paradox. I would say that our more elderly people are better looked after today, in the geriatric wards and in the bungalows that are being built. But, in my view, the young people now suffer more than they did. Somehow the position has been reversed. Forty years ago, they had something to which to look forward; today that is no longer true.
Of course, I am not speaking of everyone, but the cancer has certainly infected our estates. Recorded crimes in Cardiff have increased by 50 per cent. during the past seven years. I am not making a political point; those happen to be the years for which I have figures. Admittedly, the 50 per cent. figure may be a little inflated. Some areas are now included in the record because of values that were not hitherto recorded. Nevertheless, the thought of an increase in crime of anything up to 50 per cent. during this decade must seem absolutely shocking to all of us, and we must consider where we are going.
I asked the chief constable what had been the increase in the police force in that time, and was told that it had gone up from 3,025 to 3,064. I do not want to start bandying statistics, but I believe that the Government should clarify the record, because that is what is worrying my people in Cardiff. Only a few days ago, I received a letter, which I took up with the chief constable, from a very sensible constituent in Llanrumney. He said :
"As one of your constituents, I write to tell you of my serious concern at the recent escalation of violence and burglaries on this estate. Could you use your influence on behalf of the majority of your constituents to see if something
624
could be done to rid us of this? Most of the incidents might be regarded as trivial, especially if they had not happened to oneself. I have had some personal experience of that, but it is my opinion that failure to crack down on minor matters allows a climate of lawlessness to build up. I speak as the father of five. The business establishments in Countisbury Avenue have experienced a spate of burglaries. One has been `done' three times in a week. I hear there was a fake motor cycle accident in Ball Road when a motorist was stopped and robbed. Buses have been stoned, resulting in their withdrawal, and glue sniffing in the area is notorious. The police, it seems to me, must be strengthened to enable more officers to give their enthusiastic attention to the situation until it is cleared up so that people can walk the streets and sleep in their beds without trepidation, as was once the case. I am afraid that if this is not done, the public or some member of it at some time to come will take the law into their own hands."
I sent that to the chief constable, and he wrote back saying :
"As far as the specific matters … are concerned, in the majority of cases the culprits have been arested and either have been dealt with by the courts or are awaiting trial. We have also mounted a number of operations with both uniform and CID personnel in an effort to reduce the incidence of crime. We shall not hesitate to repeat such exercises when necessary. In addition, we are giving the most careful consideration to the policing needs of the Llanrumney area as part of our current review … the current force establishment is totally inadequate. We intend to assess the proper manpower level to meet modern requirements and I hope to present the findings to the police authority at their next meeting in March."
I hope and expect an assurance from the Secretary of State that if a request comes for an increase in the establishment of the police in South Wales, this will be conceded and the funds will be forthcoming. This is what concerns my constituents.
Mr. Best: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Callaghan: No. I am speaking about my constituents and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman knows too much about that. Perhaps he will allow me to continue.
Cautious sociologists and perhaps complacent politicians may say that there is no proven connection between unemployment and crime, but the common sense of my electors in Cardiff tells them, and they tell me. that an aimless youth without sense of hope for the future, sense of purpose or a steady job is the one who is the most likely to turn to vandalising housing estates, theft, burglary and other crimes. This is what concerns my people on estates. I hear this time after time.
I was glad to hear what the Secretary of State had to say about Avana Bakeries. Rank Hovis McDougall has considerable interests in, and therefore a commitment to, Wales. Nevertheless, Avana Bakeries is essentially Welsh, and under the guidance and leadership of Marks and Spencer some years ago built itself up into one of the most efficient enterprises in Wales. I cannot believe that there will be the same depth of commitment if the control of this firm moves outside of Wales as there will be as long as it remains inside Wales. I hope that the Secretary of State will use such influence as he can without going outside his proper responsibilities to ensure that this is so. He made a good statement this afternoon and we ask him to continue the good work. The Avana Bakeries may not be so efficient and its workers may be less secure if the firm is handled from outside Wales.
Apart from all this, the issue most affecting my constituents, to judge from their letters and from what they say when I have interviews with them, is housing, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside

625
referred. I do not wish to bandy figures with the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Terlezki) about how much was spent on modernising housing before 1979. That is not the problem.
Mr. Terlezki: It is.
Mr. Callaghan: It is not. The problem is that when the coal industry expanded, Cardiff became the premier export port for coal and Cardiff's population doubled within a short time. A large number of huge housebuilding programmes took place. Now those houses are nearly 100 years old. The problem — here the hon. Member for Cardiff, West will not disagree, although he may disagree on other points — is that those houses are almost reaching the end of their lives, although they can be rehabilitated. The guttering has rotted, the roofs have reached the end of their lives and in many places floors need to be replaced. The city council has had to face this problem.
Mr. Terlezki: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Callaghan: Allow me to finish my point. If the hon. Gentleman disagrees with me I shall give way.
In addition, housing built only in the 1950s is showing signs of premature old age. It has not stood up as it should have done. The standards adopted then were not as high as they should have been, or as they were in the case of the late Victorian dwellings. This housing is absorbing resources unexpectedly, to avoid deterioriation or abandonment.
In addition, the city is faced with the normal demand for housing from young families on the housing list. There are now 4,500 applications on the housing list, many of them from young families waiting to be rehoused. Last year, another 700 were added to the list, all hoping for a home to rent because they cannot afford to buy. Many remedies have been put forward for that. I will not go into them this afternoon, but I wish to state the case. Frequently, the cases on the waiting list are the most desperate of all because these people do not have a roof over their heads.
It is easy to paint a composite picture of these people. Every hon. Member knows them. On the Saturday morning when we do interviews, we hear them outside first. Then they come in. Frequently, there is a young mother with a toddler who runs round the room until one can find a sweet to settle him down. Perhaps there is another child, a baby in her arms. Yes, she has been to her councillor and he can do nothing. Yes, she has been to the housing authority and it can make no promises. Yes, she has seen what she can do to find private accommodation to rent, but there is no prospect of it.
The next move is to ask about the circumstances. Often, such families are living with one set of parents and younger brothers and sisters in a three-bedroomed council house. The husband and wife with two young children are sleeping in the box room, where it is impossible to put up a cot as well as a double bed. Such people are asking for help but one cannot give it. One probes and asks, for example, about the health of the parents. It may be that the father has a bad heart condition, or the baby has asthma. One asks whether this has been recorded on the file, and whether the local authority knows about it. If one
626
finds out that it does not, one writes to the local authority, but with a sinking heart because one knows that if one succeeds in this case, one will push somebody else further down the list. This is the problem that we all have to face. I do not paint an exaggerated picture. This is the experience of every hon. Member. Such people come to me often.
Mr. Terlezki rose—
Mr. Callaghan: Allow me to finish my point. I have not done so yet, but when I do the hon. Gentleman may intervene if he still wishes to do so.
Frequently, all that we can do is listen with sympathy and understanding, but with a sinking heart, as we tell the brutal truth that there is nothing we can do to help such people. When young people marry and establish a family, that should be a happy period in their lives, but often it is miserable, a period crowded with domestic strife with parents, or by differences between wife and husband. Never mind what the statistics say—that is the reality and every hon. Member knows it.
Last year, the council in Cardiff—to stop the hon. Member for Cardiff, West rising again I do not criticise at this moment—did not build a single new home. Those 4,500 people could find accommodation only if other houses fell vacant into which they could be decanted.
Mr. Terlezki rose—
Mr. Callaghan: I shall give way at the end as I have advised the hon. Gentleman. He should contain his patience for a moment.
Indeed, the council now has to decant some of those young families into bungalows that were built for pensioners. That, too, creates problems because pensioners who were hoping to live in quiet circumstances are now disturbed by the inevitable noise that comes when children are around. Therefore, unhappiness spreads.
This year, the council has started to build 300 houses. Thank God for that start. However, it is totally inadequate set against the needs rather than the demands of our people who come to see us on a Saturday morning. The reason why no new houses were started last year was that the council decided—I do not criticise it—to allocate its resources to improving the older existing properties, to which I have referred, and to preventing them from falling even further into disrepair.
One cannot envy the council its task in this matter. It has a huge waiting list of people, who have already made applications for grants, not within the past six months but some years ago, to improve their houses. I am not referring now to the young people on the council's waiting lists. I was told not so long ago that the council can only meet applications that were made in 1982 from people living in the older houses and who want grants to improve them.
It is no use discussing what happened before 1979, because this is the situation with which we are faced in 1987. This almost insoluble problem comes down quite simply and shortly to the inadequacy of the resources available. The council does not have the resources necessary to do both. It has had to make the choice of directing the money to the people who are living in the older houses. That has increased the misery of many young families. Those twin problems are beyond the capacity of the council.
What kind of society requires parents to serve their married daughter with a notice to quit, or even an eviction

627
order, so that the council can fulfil its legal obligation to provide some temporary accommodation, at a tremendous cost, when construction workers are sitting idle at home on those estates waiting to build those houses?
Finally, I remind the Secretary of State that we have been told that the Chancellor may have up to £5 billion to give away. I urge him—I believe that the House will demand it—to use every ounce of authority that he has in the Cabinet to ensure that, before any resources are devoted to reducing taxation, these unmet needs should be fulfilled. The major part of any resources that are available should be put into building houses and improving the lot of the elderly and the hospitals and fulfilling the needs that we all know exist.
I have some confidence about the future of Wales because our people have survived before and will do so again. The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan may be right and there may well be a new start for Wales. I know that such things go in cycles. However, there will be a great deal of misery before that happens. Some will be unnecessary because we have been told that the resources are available. It now lies upon the Government's conscience to devote those resources to meeting the needs of our people.
6.3 pm
Mr. Ian Grist: As my neighbour in Cardiff, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) and fellow Hampshire-born Member has said, this is his swan song in a Welsh day debate, and he made it in fine style. Earlier, he told me a little mischievously that he was going to make an electioneering speech. I must admit that I wondered whether he would make the sort of speech he made in Penarth at the last election because that was a fine electioneering speech — quite the best — and perhaps there is yet time for him to repeat that performance.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke about Cardiff. I spent yesterday afternoon with some of my Bangladeshi constituents, celebrating their national day, their martyrs' day, and it was extremely interesting. Later, in the evening, the deputy lord mayor and I transported ourselves to St. David's hall, that fine concert and conference hall, to the entertainment that some hon. Members may have seen on BBC Wales later. When one looked around St. David's hall, it is sad to say that one was not aware that we lived in a multiracial society, and perhaps one of the changes to which we can look in the years ahead is for those celebrations to incorporate others who live in our midst.
I suspect that this is the last St. David's day debate to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will contribute. I should like to pay tribute to the way in which he has led Welsh Conservative Members, in opposition and then when in government. for many years. He has made a magnificent series of speeches for us both when as our spokesman when we were in opposition when we were fighting those dreary debates on inflation, state control and devolution — heaven knows all the things that we are promised again by the alliance, Plaid Cymru and the Labour party. I feel sheer horror at the thought of going into opposition and having to go round the tired old track of the 1960s again. What a policy or promise to hold out to the people of Wales or Britain.
Of course, my right hon. Friend has been recognised in some quarters that we may find surprising as the finest Secretary of State that Wales has ever had. He has
628
transformed Welsh life for the better in many ways. Above all, there is now an awareness— although perhaps not widespread enough— that Wales will be helped most by its own exertions and by seeking value for money.
Wales now has a fine story to tell—we now have efficient and not overmanned industries. We are linked to all the great markets of Britain, and when the Channel tunnel comes we shall be linked directly to the continent of Europe. Wales offers a wonderful opportunity for relaxing, or for being more energetic if one wants, for those who want holidays, whether they come from Britain or from abroad. That also applies to the growing conference business that every town arid city in Wales now seeks and to which, 10 years ago, we did not give a moment's thought. Wales is aware that industrialists who seek new sites, especially those coming from overseas, will find in Wales, probably more than anywhere else in the United Kingdom or the EEC, that mix of finance, labour and real welcome that has brought so many Japanese and north American firms among us.
Above all, my right hon. Friend has raised the eyes and minds of the people, whether employed in large firms or self-employed, so that they will be free from the trammels of state control and the terrors of trade union domination. Rather they will be encouraged to seek their fortune in an expanding economy in which profit and success are applauded and not looked on either with envy or simply as a source of redistributed revenue.
Of course, there are problems. Finding sufficient jobs in a modern economy for all those wanting them is common to virtually all advanced economies. I join the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth in stating that the likelihood of our ever being able to offer jobs to everybody, all the time, in the years ahead is nugatory. There is no real chance of doing that in a modern economy. People will have periods in and out of work. However, we have to ensure that they will not be out of work for long at a time, and that they will have chances to train in between those jobs. However, I do not think that we shall ever return to full employment or at least to the appearance of full employment that we had in previous years. Incidentally, one of the reasons for that is that modern industry and modern developments in offices have tended to make more work available for women.
That change has come in the past 20 years, and it will continue for the rest of the century. Who would have believed, 20 or 30 years ago, that we would have lady bus drivers? Of course, with power-assisted steering and all the electronic aids, one does not have to be a muscle-bound man to swing vehicles around. Whether driving buses or operating computers in the office, and so on, a woman is on an equal plane with a man for any job. In some circumstances, she is better placed. Just ask Hitachi and other electronics firms that want to have components put together. The small fingers then come into their own.
There are problems with falling school rolls, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned. There are far more schools than we would ever build for the present number of pupils. But care must be taken when proposals are made to close community schools. Such care was never shown by South Glamorgan county council when it drew up proposals for secondary education in eastern Cardiff. That can be seen from the fact that the controlling Labour group on the county council was elected pledged, despite all the evidence to the contrary, to close no schools. When reality became too great to

629
withstand, a hastily produced proposal was cobbled together which involved the closure of the most successful, best built, most centrally placed and most socially and ethnically mixed school in east Cardiff — Howardian High—and the establishment of a tertiary college, not close to the centre, but on the fringes of the city, where it would be uniformly inconvenient for most of the youngsters intended for it.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State who will reply to the debate will be aware of the hornets' nest that the proposals have stirred up. The matter is now before him, and every person, every group, every parent and every party in central and east Cardiff now look to him to squash that travesty of an educational plan, and to tell South Glamorgan to go back to the drawing board, look a second time at secondary education in the county as a whole and produce a policy to which the majority of citizens can give their support.
Meanwhile, on another educational front, which is not directly the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State but surely of considerable interest to him, is the serious problem of University college, Cardiff and its finances. It has led to a real threat to the continued existence of the Sherman theatre. I need not rehearse the full story of the theatre. I say just that, even with the final gift of the university to the Sherman, the theatre is in peril of closing from August this year at least until new money can, we hope, be raised for next year. That means that some £200,000 is needed. At the moment there is a clear game of pass the parcel between local authorities and the Arts Council. It seems that all feel that the books are closed for the current year. I hope that my right hon. Friend can find some way of helping that money to emerge from some account somewhere.
In the meantime, as regards the university itself, far too much is being said. I believe that a refusal to face facts and a somewhat irresponsible approach to financial control over the years have led to the present situation, but the university will not close. It has many extremely fine departments and is a worthy college for the capital city. Under a new principal, to be appointed in the near future, and with a new and more professional financial team, the college will pull through. When, in three years' time or so, the merger with the University of Wales institute of science and technology takes place, Cardiff will have one of the most powerful academic institutions in the United Kingdom. That will coincide with other major developments in Cardiff—the new national museum, in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has played such a part and the new national centre for the arts at the Cardiff bay development. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for being the motive force. It was his idea above all others, and he promoted it. What a reminder to future generations that development will be —"Better than Baltimore", indeed.
The new Cardiff, no longer a city of fumes and belching chimneys or run-down docks, but a centre of life for the 21st century, with modern industry, fine leisure, shopping, housing and cultural facilities, will serve all our peoples. I want people to say, "You come from Cardiff? How I envy you." My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been a great friend to the capital city of Wales. He is leaving us with the foundations of a magnificent heritage for the oh, so close, turn of the century.
6.16 pm
Mr. Alex Carlile: Debates on the Floor of the House on Welsh affairs are rare, so it behoves us all, for the sake of our constituents and the people of Wales as a whole, to be positive during such debates. The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) knows that I, as a defeated election opponent of his on two occasions, have considerable regard for him but I am bound to say that although in his speech he seemed to be trying to bring the surgeon's knife to the economic malaise of Wales at the crucial moment he seemed to shut his eyes, fail to cauterise the wound and lose the stiches that need to be applied to cure the economic ills of Wales.
In the positive spirit in which I set out, I welcome the developments to which the Secretary of State referred in his speech, particularly the numerous factory developments. In my own constituency, I very much congratulate the Development Board for Rural Wales—Mid Wales Development—on its continuing and remarkable success in improving life and the economy in mid-Wales. The whole of mid-Wales is grateful for such Government support as is given to Mid Wales Development.
The fact remains, however, that Wales is still suffering from considerable economic sickness. I shall not fall into the trap, particularly as I run the risk of rebuke from the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan), of indulging in a welter of statistics to show that there is still a considerable lack of economic success in Wales—some were mentioned by the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside—but there is little sign of Wales climbing up from the bottom of the league table in terms of gross domestic product or employment.
One measure of industrial development in Wales is the business expansion scheme — an imaginative concept introduced by the present Government. The value of the 700 or more schemes created throughout the United Kingdom is twofold. First, they are entrepreneurial and involve the use of risk capital, which is a good thing. Secondly, and very important from the point of view of Wales, they involve the creation of indigenous industry. Of course, we welcome industry from outside—always, and with open arms — but it is exceedingly important to create our own home-grown industries as well. Sadly, however, despite the efforts of the Welsh Development Agency and Mid Wales Development, Wales has had fewer than 2 per cent. of the business expansion schemes—a poor record, and a sign that all is far from well in the industrial and economic environment in Wales.
We also see in our constituencies—I certainly observe it in mine—that the infrastructure is in physical decline. The deterioration is perceptible. In many areas, rural roads are in a deplorable state, but Powys county council —a good county council which is trying hard to meet its obligations—has no money to repair them.
The education system is also in a sorry state. School inspectors have reported on school buildings which are falling apart. That is not a good environment for children to learn in. Indeed, teachers are troubled by the way that resources are being distributed in education. We welcome the arrival of TVEI money in schools in Wales, but many teachers and parents feel that there is a disproportion between those subjects which have the benefit of TVEI, and therefore reasonable funding, and those which do not and are severely under-funded.

631
At Question Time this afternoon the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist) raised the issue of language teaching. I took him to be referring to languages other than Welsh, which is extremely well taught in Wales. In my constituency, and in the whole of Powys, there are clear signs of a lack of resources for the teaching of European languages to pupils. Bright, ambitious pupils who may wish to play their part as Welsh people in a Europe which includes Wales must have better opportunities to learn French, German and other European languages.
The condition of many houses in Wales is deplorable. It is an open secret—if it is a secret at all—that the Welsh Office is conducting a housing condition survey and requiring local authority housing officials to sign a declaration pursuant to the Official Secrets Act. That is an extraordinary subject on which to demand the rigours of section 2 of that Act. What comes next? A Zircon housing estate in Welshpool?
Health Service waiting lists are grotesquely unacceptable. 1 do not dispute what the Secretary of State said about spending on the Health Service. If that is right, so be it, but it is not coming through to the patients. An example which has been the subject of several letters in my postbag in the last fortnight is the time that it takes for test results to be given for cervical smears. In my area it has been taking between four and five months for the results of cervical smears to become known. That seems to be regarded as acceptable by one health authority with which I have corresponded. One of the constituents who wrote to me on this subject was found to be suffering from cancer. She was not just worried but exceedingly anxious, and her anxiety was heightened by the fact that she had to wait so long for the result of the test. I ask the Secretary of State to ensure that waiting lists—particularly in this crucial area which is of such importance to women—are reduced quickly and substantially.
There are, however, some rays of sunshine in the Health Service in Wales. I hope that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, when he replies to the debate, will join with me in welcoming and congratulating the Laura Ashley foundation and the Ashley family on their gift, which was announced today, of a £230,000 grant to the University of Wales college of medicine, £130,000 of which has come from the foundation and the balance of £100,000 from Sir Bernard Ashley and the rest of the Ashley family. The money will be spent on research into the prevention of kidney damage in children caused by urinary infections in infanthood. That welcome gift is a generous memorial to Laura Ashley, one of the great industrialists of Wales.
I turn to a less fortunate event in recent months. Every week at my constituency surgeries, earnest, hard-working farmers, often with farms that have been in the family for generations, show me their accounts, letters from their bank managers or other evidence of the desperate financial state in which family farmers find themselves today. There are quick remedies for this. For the life of me, I cannot understand why we do not join the European monetary system now. The Government say that they think we should join it, but not yet. The Labour party says that it thinks that we should join it, but not yet. But neither will tell us when. For the sake of farming—indeed, for the sake of the British economy — we should join the European monetary system now. That would bring an immediate alleviation of the interest rates which our farmers face. In real terms, farmers in the United Kingdom are paying twice as much as borrowers in the United States
632
and about 50 per cent. more than farmers in France. No wonder they find themselves in such a parlous state by comparison.
The way in which the proposals for land use change were brought about in Wales was insulting and chaotic. From what I have been told — I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments— there was no consultation whatever between the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the one hand and the Welsh Office on the other. It was confirmed, in answer to a parliamentary question from me, that there was no consultation between the Welsh Office and bodies such as the farming unions or even the Development Board for Rural Wales before the document was produced.
The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): I must contradict the hon. Gentleman's statement that there was no consultation between the various Departments of State. Of course there was consultation, and it included the Welsh Office.
Mr. Carlile: I accept the hon. Gentleman's word for that. Nevertheless, there should surely have been consultation between the Welsh Office and the statutory bodies in Wales, and with interested parties such as the unions in the farming industry before those proposals were introduced, particularly given the way in which they were introduced.
The Government's prescription lacks shape. It is time that the Welsh economy was given an integrated approach. We should not put agriculture in one compartment, industry in another compartment and tourism in yet another. We should look at the economy as a whole. I suggest to the Secretary of State that a new integrated shape should be devised with some —preferably all — of the following features. First, there should be substantial public sector assistance for alternative farm use, with grants for the renovation and adaptation of farm buildings for manufacturing and service industries. Secondly, to assist farming in Wales there should be positive public sector assistance in the establishment of food processing plants in strategic locations. The Secretary of State knows only too well what happened to Welsh Quality Lamb. There is now a gap in the market. I suggest that an integrated meat and dairy processing plant, built to EEC and United States import standards, ideally in Newtown, would be a great success and would give farming the boost that it so sadly needs.
In tourism, the success of the advance factories built by the Welsh Development Agency and Mid Wales Development should be applied to hotels. As a pilot project, two advance hotels could be built at strategic locations. We cannot have them all in my constituency, so on this occasion I suggest the Ffestiniog valley and Builth Wells as examples. There should be a clear commitment that the Montgomery canal scheme, which will benefit not only Montgomeryshire but Shropshire, will go ahead by the Government ensuring that the financial package is not hamstrung by regulations about the use of rate support grant. I hope that I shall be given a sympathetic hearing on that score at least. In forestry, we should have not only the planting of broad-leaved woodlands but the establishment of tourist sites too with chalets and shooting, canoeing and fishing areas in the woodlands.
As part of the integrated package in manufacturing, there should be an increase in the current speculative

633
factory building in rural Wales, with special attention to the provision of facilities and grant aid for firms wishing to establish their research and development units in rural Wales. I suggest to the Secretary of State that the mid-Wales development grant, which has been such a success, should be not just continued but increased to a maximum of 20 per cent.
On regional strategy, I ask the Secretary of State to reaffirm the conclusions of the Beacham report in 1964 that the problems of the rural areas — depopulation, deprivation, peripherality, and so on—equate with those of unemployment and to endorse and extend the growth towns strategy which has been so successful in Newtown. The Secretary of State should consider the designation of more new towns or new town areas within existing towns, for example, in places such as Aberystwyth, Llandrindod Wells and Brecon. On the housing front, more money should be made available so that the council houses which have been sold can be replaced to provide housing for key workers.
Of course, it is no use asking for factories, hotels and key workers unless we have the necessary roads, so I also ask for an absolute commitment to the improvement of the mid-Wales east-west Shrewsbury-Aberystwyth link.
People in rural Wales are not particularly demanding, but they are entitled to expect a reasonable quality of life for young and old—in education, the Health Service, agriculture, industry and all the other arenas in which they lead their lives. The countryside feels that it is in a state of crisis, particularly because of what has happened in agriculture. There have been some achievements, but much more could have been done. Measures of the kind that I have suggested would generate jobs and income and would become self-financing, as industrial development in mid-Wales has already done. I earnestly urge the Secretary of State not to close his eyes to the possibility of the developments that I have advocated.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. As the House knows, I have no authority to control the length of speeches, but if hon Members who speak between now and 9 pm do so for 15 minutes each, I think that every hon. Member who wishes to speak would be called.
6.34 pm
Mr. Keith Raffan: I shall not take up the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), but I should like to allude to the remarks of the. hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones). He got many things wrong but the only one on which I shall correct him is when he said that the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was made to defend vulnerable seats. It was not made to defend vulnerable seats; it was made to win vulnerable seats. As many of us are aware, the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside has a majority of only 100 more than the Labour party had at Greenwich.
The annual debate on Welsh affairs provides an opportunity to review what has happened in Wales during last year, especially in our constituencies. I shall follow the speech of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) in that respect and take his points a little further. The debate also provides us with an
634
opportunity to bring out the world of difference, the sharp contrast between the way in which we on this side of the House approach the great issues and crucial problems in the Principality and the approach of the Opposition.
It is, of course, one of the oldest myths in politics, perpetuated by the Labour party, that massive structural unemployment of the kind we have experienced in my constituency in north-east Wales began in 1979. That unemployment did not suddenly emerge in May 1979 when the Conservative party took office. The massive structural unemployment in our two major industries in north-east Wales—in textiles and steel—is not a seven-year phenomenon but a 20-year phenomenon. Let me give the facts to back that up. The rundown of Courtaulds' Deeside works began in 1969. The first major job losses at Courtaulds' Greenfield works occurred in 1976 with the loss of 600 jobs. The closure of Courtaulds' Castle works with the loss of 1,500 jobs — the biggest single redundancy ever in Delyn—happened in 1977.
The attitude of Labour's leadership and of its Welsh Front Bench appears to be, "We have suffered electoral defeat in 1979 and again in 1983. We have done our act of penance. We deserve absolution. Our slate is wiped clean. We can forget our past." Labour cannot forget it. We shall not allow it to forget the past and nor will the electorate. We are entitled, just as the country is, to judge the Labour party not just by what it says but by what happened when it was in office and what it did when it had the power to act. The indisputable fact is that massive structural unemployment had already taken place and was continuing to take place in Delyn throughout the years of Labour's last term of office.
If any independent, non-partisan, objective confirmation of that is needed, let me quote from one of the Labour party's favourite documents—only this time the one that Labour produced during its term of office—the Labour party's European regional development fund report in 1978. What did it say about north-east Wales? Just this :
"Unemployment over recent years has increased substantially …there must be uncertainty about the future of the area with its dependence on a narrow manufacturing base centred on the steel, textile and aircraft industries."
Having established that, let us look at Labour's response to Delyn's mass unemployment, especially the closure of Courtaulds' Castle works in 1977 with the huge loss of 1,500 jobs. Did the Labour Government put together a special package to help the town of Flint, recognising the intense local impact of those redundancies? The answer is no. Was Government pressure exerted on Courtaulds to hand over the Castle works site to the local council for industrial development? Again, the answer is no. Indeed, the site was sold behind the council's back to a private developer from whom the council later had to buy it at the market price.
Contrast that with what happened following the April 1985 announcement of the final closure of Courtaulds' Greenfield works with the loss of 530 jobs the following August. Within a week, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had met me, then local borough and county councillors and their officers in north Wales. Within a month, the Government had prepared a special package, ultimately worth £1,450,000, to help regenerate Delyn's economy to bring new industry and new jobs to the area. Following Government pressure on Courtaulds, the

635
company agreed to hand over its No. 1 site, not at market price, but for £1 to Delyn borough council, having spent a significant sum clearing the site of hazardous materials.
Courtaulds also agreed to make a three-year commitment to an expanded Delyn business partnership by seconding staff to help to bring new companies and new jobs to the constituency. That is the sharp contrast between this Government's and our Secretary of State's response to a closure that involved 530 redundancies and the last Labour Government's lack of response to a closure involving three times that number—1,500 redundancies. One could not have a sharper contrast between the way the two sides in this House have approached massive structural unemployment in north-east Wales than the way in which we have approached two similar, though different-sized closures, in eight years.
This Government and this Government alone ensured that Courtaulds could not just up and walk away from a work force and a community that had served the company for so long and so well. There is no point in the Opposition simply dismissing this as exceptional or as one particular case history. The contrast between this Government's response and the last Labour Government's lack of response to Delyn's mass unemployment can be carried further. It was this Government in 1979 who gave Delyn the highest level of development area status. It was we who in 1983 designated the Delyn enterprise zone, backing it with over £5 million.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the enterprise zone approach has proved how effective an intensive localised approach to unemployment can be. Some 1,155 new jobs have been created since designation, 88 per cent. of them full-time, 63 per cent. of them full-time male jobs and 86 per cent. of them in a wide range of manufacturing activity. I wish that the Opposition would applaud this. They are always asking for more jobs in manufacturing. Why are they so silent? I do not expect you to intervene, Mr. Speaker, because even in the face of this good news you must restrain yourself, but surely the Opposition can applaud good news.— [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) is always fair about these matters, even if his hon. Friends are not.
The good news does not stop there. A further 530 jobs are projected for the enterprise zone and an additional 640 are to be provided on the Greenfield business park within three to four years. In north-east Wales the Government have begun to reverse the industrial decline of the last 15 to 20 years. As I mentioned at Question Time, they have achieved a significant reduction of 11·5 per cent. in the unemployment figures in the constituency of Delyn. Unemployment is down from 5,894 in January 1986 to 5,215 in January this year. That reduction is all the more dramatic when it is remembered that we had to absorb during that period the major Courtaulds closure at Greenfield.
Mr. D. E. Thomas: Does the hon. Gentleman not appreciate the contribution made by the other local authority, Clwyd county council, to this regeneration project? In that context, why does he seek the removal of the elected chairman of that council?
Mr. Raffan: The hon. Gentleman has thrown a red herring into the debate, but I shall tell him exactly why I seek that. It is completely wrong for the chairman of a county council, a civic head who should be above politics,
636
to enter the party political fray. He has been much criticised, I think today, by people from all political parties for so doing. He demeans the dignity of his high office by doing that. I am critical of Clwyd county council's spending policies because I do not believe in spending money on opera houses and castles when for a much lower cost more industrial jobs could be created in the county.
That is why I am so praiseworthy of Delyn borough council. Its activities are in sharp contrast to those of Clwyd county council, which spends millions of pounds and proposes to spend another £2·3 million on a castle that has serious revenue implications for the county because it costs £350,000 a year to run and maintain. That money should be used to buy more school books, to carry out more school building maintenance, to help further with the introduction of the GCSE and to restore the school library stock. I am sorry that in that context I do not have the support of the hon. Member for Merionnydd Nam Conwy (Mr. Thomas), but I shall say no more because I do not want to harm the chances of Plaid Cymru in my constituency. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting up a candidate and he knows exactly why.
It is no wonder that in this year's report to the European regional development fund we were able to say about north-east Wales :
"Job gains at new manufacturing plants since 1981 more than offset job opportunities lost as a result of plant closures during the same period."
In its 1978 ERDF report Labour talked about the future of the area being uncertain. We have reversed that uncertainty and have given hope.
In his speech to the Cardiff business club on 3 February my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales said :
"I offer a new measure of success, and that is how many pounds of private sector investment which would not otherwise have taken place, we can secure for each pound of public money that is spent."
By that measure, the Delyn enterprise zone is an outstanding success. The five latest companies to move into the zone have shown their confidence in its future by buying their own plants. We must build on that success with more public sector pump priming to ensure still more private investment in the zone and in the Greenfield business park.
What, however, is Labour's attitude towards enterprise zones, towards this outstandingly successful instrument for job creation? When the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) had responsibility for these matters he told us:
"We shall have no more of them."
Of course, I am aware that Labour party policy has a habit of mutating. In my speech in last year's Welsh day debate and in my speech during the debate last October on the Government's regional policy, I asked whether the Labour party had changed its policy of open hostility to enterprise zones. I received no response. If Labour is against the concept of enterprise zones., which are a proven success, what are they for?
The shadow Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside, earlier this year announced with a great fanfare that the Labour party would set up a series of council-based regional enterprise boards across Wales—more quangos. That was on Monday 5 January. But wait. On Wednesday 7 January, just two days later, the last Labour Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris),

637
announced that local councils in Wales should draw up job-creation plans based upon areas larger than their own boundaries, based on travel-to-work areas. He made no mention of regional enterprise boards. "Shock, horror", we thought. "Does the shadow Secretary of State know what the previous Secretary of State is saying?" We did not have to wait long to find out. All was revealed, as it often is to the Opposition's great distress, in the next day's Western Mail.
"Views differ on Labour's plan for jobs",
said the headline.
"The Welsh Labour party was in confusion last night…
ran the opening sentence, as if we did not already know.
More, much more, was revealed and I quote :
"The Shadow Secretary of State for Wales was authoritatively said to be exceeding party policy in pledging to set up a series of council-based regional enterprise boards across Wales…his ideas are rejected by Welsh party leaders as inoperable in Wales…"
The next bit sounds very familiar, one might almost say characteristic of the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside.
It reads :
"he is said to have taken his ideas from England and applied them to Wales without fully considering that precisely the same work was being done already by the Welsh Development Agency…party leaders have been alarmed by his pledges."
That is not exactly the white heat of industrial policy-making. There seems to be a role here for that hon. Gentleman, the clever looking one in the Opposition, whom the Leader of the Opposition now puts in charge of nearly everything—I mean of course the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould). The shadow Secretary of State for Wales is one of the few jobs in the shadow Cabinet that is not being done by the hon. Gentleman, and look what happens—chaos.
The Observer hit the nail on the head yesterday. It is an unbiased newspaper, as I am sure the Labour party would agree. After all, it is almost one of its newspapers. The Observer said that the Labour party had
"fallen victim to the oldest delusion of public relations. Carried away by their belief in images…they have entirely forgotten that politics is about substance. The electors of Greenwich looked at Mrs. Deirdre Wood"—
this is still The Observer; I do not want hon. Members to think that this is me—
"and saw at best a vacuum and at worst a mass of contradictions."
When the electors of Wales look at the Labour party they see exactly the same—at best a vacuum and at worst a mass of contradictions. Red rose images are not enough or, in the words of the old song :
"Wash me in the water
That you washed the colonel's daughter
And I shall be whiter than
The whitewash on the wall."
That is not enough, because the whitewash is peeling and is revealing the cracks and the rot that has set in beneath. A huge chunk of it peeled away at Greenwich and it is rapidly peeling away in Delyn, too.
Mr. Terlezki: And in the rest of Wales.
Mr. Raffan: Yes, and in the rest of Wales, as my hon. Friend reminds me. He will realise, of course, that I am making a strictly constituency speech.
In the words of one senior Labour councillor in Delyn :
"These 'loony Left people' have been taking over the Delyn constituency Labour party."
638
In the last few months, one Labour councillor after another has stated in the press that they believe that the local Labour party, especially in Flint, is being infiltrated by Militant Tendency. Last December, five moderate, well-respected Labour councillors, whom I also greatly respect, were booted out as candidates for the district elections in May. The present Labour leader on Delyn borough council and a former mayor of Delyn, Councillor Darrell Evans, was booted out. The present mayor of Flint, Councillor Joe Wedge, was also booted out. A former mayor of Flint, Councillor Jack Johnson, Councillor Joe Roberts of Bagillt and Councillor Vernon Parry of Flint have also been booted out. Another Labour councillor, the present mayoress of Flint, Mrs. Rosa Davies, withdrew from the selection battle because of what she called
"the undemocractic and unconstitutional methods of doing things in favour of Left-wing militants and their followers. I mean"
she added,
"Militant Tendency."
Councillor Darrell Evans, the present leader of the Labour group—though not for long—and, as I said, a former mayor of Delyn, has regaled us with details of the kind of democratic procedures that are favoured at Labour party selection meetings. He said :
"I have been at meetings where people have been insulted and physically threatened."
These are not the first councillors to go. Two other moderate councillors — Councillors Ernie Joyce and David Jones—have gone before them.
And within spitting distance of this bloody Labour party civil war lives whom? Yes, the shadow Secretary of State for Wales himself. He lives in Papermill lane, just outside Flint. Has he spoken out? Of course not. He is like the three monkeys rolled into one: hear no Militant, see no Militant, accuse no Militant. He has not the guts to speak out, but others among his colleagues have. The right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Cox) and the hon. Members for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) have had the guts to speak out. They have spelt out what is happening in the Labour party. The people of Delyn, too, will spell it out in large numbers on polling day when it comes.
6.52 pm
Mr. Donald Coleman: I do not intend to take up what has been said by the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan). He seems to have an obsession with 11·5 per cent.
We hear a great deal these days about the decay of the inner cities of Britain. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) gave a graphic description of the decay in the city of Cardiff. We heard him describe the problems that are caused by the older properties in the city. That decay has been portrayed by the commissions that have studied the inner city problem, most notably by the Archbishop of Canterbury's commission. The main thrust of that examination was the Church's mission to the inner cities, but it was inevitable that it would also demonstrate and highlight the decay in those areas. That decay manifests itself in bad housing, in inadequate health and social provision and in poor educational facilities for our children. The commission also highlighted the hopelessness of the dead hand of unemployment that is felt by those who live in those places.

639
I am sure that the Government do not thank the Archibishop of Canterbury or the members of his commission for showing up the realities of life in the inner cities. If our newly elected Archbishop of Wales were to set up a commission to look at faith in the south Wales valley communities, I suspect that his report would highlight in an equally dramatic way the dire problems that face the valley communities. The decay there manifests itself in bad housing, in inadequate health and social provision, in poor educational facilities and in the hopelessness of unemployment.
The neglect of the south Wales valleys communities has led to the same decay as is to be found in the inner cities. As happens so often on these occasions, the Secretary of State catalogued his Government's achievements. Although they may satisfy him, they do not satisfy us. We see with our own eyes what is really happening. If we are not deceived, those who live in the neglected valleys communities are not deceived, either.
Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The hon. Gentleman seems to be putting the responsibility for the condition in the valleys entirely on the Government. Does he feel that the Labour party, which has had political control of the valleys for more than half a century and has run almost everything in the valleys, has no responsibility at all for the conditions there?
Mr. Coleman: Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, I do not place the entire blame on this Administration, but I suggest that before the Secretary of State comes before the House wearing rose-tinted glasses and trying to make us believe that everything in the valleys is OK —
Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I have not.
Mr. Coleman: The right hon. Gentleman has, and he has tried to do so on more than one occasion. I shall make my own speech and develop my own argument.
Those of my hon. Friends and I who represent the south Wales valleys communities are not immune to the complaints of our people about bad housing, almost nonexistent transport facilities, decaying school buildings and inadequate health care facilities. The south Wales valleys communities are saying that they are forgotten up here. The Secretary of State should listen to them.
Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Each of those authorities is Labour-controlled.
Mr. Coleman: The people in the valleys communities have been as badly hit by unemployment as people anywhere else in Britain. Unemployment hurts just as much in the valleys of south Wales as it does in the cities, and in many cases the bitter experience of unemployment has hit the people of south Wales for a much longer period. Therefore, I ask the Secretary of State to humble himself a little and to remember that he has had responsibility for Wales for nearly eight years. It is just not good enough for him to come to the House or to go to the Welsh Grand Committee and read off this, that and the other. We know that things are not happening in the valleys communities, as he appears to think they are.
The right hon. Gentleman refers time and time again to his valleys initiative, but I receive cynical complaints about it. He should go and find out for himself. Money ought to have been allocated for urban aid. This afternoon the right hon. Gentleman told us that the Welsh Office
640
targets specific areas for assistance. However, I have received complaints about insufficient money being provided to carry out remedial work on the dereliction in south Wales valleys areas. The only place in west Glamorgan that has benefited is in my own constituency. I refer to Pontardawe. My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) and if do not believe that real value will come from this initiative. In Neath money was refused for housing renewal and for the clearance of tips.
The money that has been spent does not create revenue expenditure for the maintenance of projects. Neither does it cover the decaying schools, sewers, highways or footpaths. The Secretary of State should understand that that is the reality in the valleys of south Wales, not the catalogue thumbed through from time to time whenever he appears at the Dispatch Box or in the Grand Committee.
I shall now deal with another matter of concern to the valleys communities, opencast mining. I raise that matter not as a result of the promptings of any protest or action group, but as a means of highlighting the feelings of the communities that I know, about how opencast mining affects life in those communities. Every one of us in the Chamber should understand that the people in those communities have a considerable dilemma to deal with. They recognise that they live in places where valuable coal is found. They recognise the importance of that coal to the nation's energy needs and to the economy of Britain. They are only too aware that opencast sites are the means of employment in places where employment is not in abundance. That is one side of the dilemma. The other side is the disruption to their lives that opencast operations bring—the dirt, noise and ugliness.
In several parts of my constituency opencast mining .has gone on for over 40 years and for most of that time such operations have been embarked upon with not too much concern about how they affect the lives of the people. The National Coal Board has not been the most considerate of neighbours. I shall recount one instance of its lack of consideration.
Some years ago the Coal. Board wanted to undertake opencast mining behind the 'village of Pant-y-ffordd in the Dulais valley. The proposal was to bring the site right to the boundary fences of houses in that small village. We had a public inquiry which resulted in the Coal Board being deterred from doing that. During that inquiry I was challenged by counsel for the Coal Board with the taunt that it was inconsistant of me to complain about unemployment in the valleys and to oppose the board's application for opencast mining. That was rich, coming from the Coal Board at that time, since it was NCB policy, before the early 1960s, to oppose the introduction of any form of industrial activity in valleys such as the Dulais valley lest it attracted labour away from the mining industry.
It is that sort of arrogance that lingers on in the minds of many in the valleys, which fuels opposition to opencast mining operations, even though, in many cases, it is clear that the improvements in the environment after the extraction has taken place have been beneficial.
During a recent Welsh Question Time, we asked how decisions for planning applications for opencast mining were to be proceeded with and dealt with. Opposition Members demand that the Secretary of State uses the same

641
criteria in respect of applications for planning permission for opencast mining in the valleys communities as he does in his own constituency.
Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I will.
Mr. Coleman: I am glad to hear the Secretary of State say that, and I hope that all the communities will recognise that and keep the authorities to that point of view because we believe that there must be an end to the ringing of villages by opencast sites, which have been a curse in the past. We demand that there is the closest examination of planning applications by planning authorities. What is more, we believe that the environmental work should begin before mining operations start so that those sites do not become the dirty, noisy eyesores that they have been in the past. There must be a new approach to opencast mining operations. If it is, as it is, a means of securing the nation's energy and economic needs, there must be a recognition that there is a debt to the communities affected which must be paid to them. The rest of the country, which is not affected by those activities, has a responsibility to pay that community charge because the country is benefiting from opencast mining.
The time has come for councils in the communities affected to take a more positive role in those matters. They are statutory bodies. They should be making demands of the National Coal Board and expecting to receive every support in their demands from the other authorities involved, including Her Majesty's Government.
I hope that before the end of the debate we shall have spelt out for us that the Government support those objectives and it will be stated that we shall have a level of opencast mining which is compatible with life in those communities so that there is not simply extraction for the sake of it. There should be a level to which the National Coal Board will be allowed to go, and no further.
The mining valleys of south Wales were the foundation upon which past prosperity was founded. In most cases, the means of producing that prosperity has gone. However, let no one forget that the people who produced that prosperity are still in the valleys communities and it is the job of the Government—soon, I hope, a Labour Government — to protect them and preserve those communities properly.
7.6 pm
Mr. Stefan Terlezki: I shall not follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman) except to say that, having listened to Labour Members who have spoken, it is evident that the Greenwich by-election has made them nervous and that they do not know whether they are coming or going. They realise that the Labour party in Wales is crumbling. As for the SDP—semi-desperate people — it has not got a cat in hell's chance of winning that seat again when the general election comes.
Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Terlezki: No, I will not.
I make no apology for speaking about the achievements in Wales that have been brought about by the Welsh Office and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
The Cardiff bay development scheme is likely to attract features such as speciality shopping, sport and restaurant
642
complexes, hotels, an arts centre and an aquarium. That would blend in with existing developments such as the industrial and maritime museum, the South Glamorgan county council headquarters and the Penarth marina. The development corporation has been allocated £45 million in addition to the substantial capital expenditure on urban development grant and through the urban programme. The Government are looking to substantial private sector investment in a development which, over the decade ahead, is likely to produce a total investment of well over £1 billion.
The estimated income from tourists visiting Wales in 1985 was about £600 million. That is proof of the significance of the industry to the Principality. It is calculated that between 80,000 and 90,000 people — 8 per cent. of the working population — work in the tourist industry in Wales. We are very proud of that and I, as a former hotelier and caterer, am proud of that. I am closely involved with that section of employment.
The Welsh tourist industry has undoubtedly benefited from the Government's ambitious road programme, which has made the Principality much more accessible. Tourism is also a central part of the rural enterprise initiative and is prominent in many urban renewal projects, such as the proposed Cardiff dockland development, which is designed to make Cardiff one of the most attractive cities in Europe, and the 1992 garden festival in Ebbw Vale.
Since 1970 the Government have invested more than £450 million in renovating old housing in the private sector through grants and housing association rehabilitation schemes. There has also been a capital investment of £270 million in repairing and modernising council houses. The Labour Government spent only £57 million on renovating private sector houses and only £86 million on the public sector housing stock. That shows that Labour's constant allegation that the Government have neglected the housing stock in Wales is without foundation and is a deliberate falsification of the truth.
Mr. D. E. Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Terlezki: No, I will not.
Houses in Ely and Caurau in my constituency are not 100 years old, as was alleged by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan). They were built under the Labour Government and under a Labour-controlled city council. They are in disrepair and need urgent repairs. The right hon. Member, who has left the Chamber, should not say that all houses in Cardiff are 100 years old. Why did the Labour Government not provide the necessary capital to repair and renovate houses in my constituency?
There are many examples of successful enveloping schemes, involving the repair and replacement of whole streets of homes in housing action areas, at no cost to occupiers. Block repair grants are paid for single projects, with a financial contribution being made by each householder. By the end of 1986–87 a total of 35 enveloping schemes, covering 3,684 dwellings, should have been started in Wales. That is a highly cost-effective form of repair. Supplementary allocations of £20 million have been made available for such schemes in 1987 and 1988. That will allow for the completion of the present programme and the start of a further 27 schemes under the block repair scheme by the end of 1986–87.

643
The Government's record of support for housing associations in Wales is equally impressive. Between 1979 and early 1986 the Government had committed £269 million to the movement in Wales, which has led to the building or renovation of 11,700 homes. That record compares favourably with that of the Labour Government under whom only 2,200 homes were built or renovated by housing associations, at a cost of £58 million.
In 1986–87 the net provision for housing associations in Wales has been increased by almost 15 per cent. to £44·7 million. Why did not the Labour Government do likewise? Labour Members tell us how badly the Government are doing, but we have done 100 times better than they did.
The Government's policy on the sale of council houses has been an unqualified success in Wales. More than 55,000 public sector tenants in Wales have bought their own homes since 1979 and about 66 per cent. of homes in the Principality are owner-occupied. I am proud of that. In my constituency, people in Ely, Caurau, Canton, Riverside and Fairwater have bought their houses and turned them into little palaces. I am pleased for them. I hope that more people will buy their own houses. As a former Cardiff city councillor, I remember that when the council was Labour-controlled people were not allowed to buy their own homes. Councillors who owned their own would not let tenants buy their homes. That was hypocrisy.
The Conservative-controlled Cardiff city council has spent, in the last three years, £25 million on housing improvements and £3 million on enveloping schemes. Those are great achievements. I am convinced that at the May elections the ratepayers and taxpayers in Cardiff will remember the good deeds of the council and the care that it takes of its people.
However, I am sorry that more money has not been made available to Smith houses in my constituency which need to be repaired and made habitable. I urge the Secretary of State to ensure that more money is made available so that the occupants of those houses can live in a proper and decent environment.
An article in the South Wales Echo a few days ago reported a boom in private house building, which led to starts being made on more than 7,000 homes in Wales last year — the highest level since the Labour Government were voted out of power. Builders said that the 10 per cent. increase on the 1985 level meant an extra 2,000 jobs and firms say that they are optimistic about the new housing market during 1987. Barratts, which opened five new developments in 1986, has plans for another seven this year, including pioneering schemes in Rhondda.
Last year also saw a growth in retirement housing schemes, with local companies such as the Bailey group in Cardiff leading the way. The New Homes Marketing Board said that 9,000 jobs had been created and maintained since 1980, when housing starts were just 4,000 a year. Its chairman, Mr. Don Lewis, said:
"History will recall that time and time again the house building industry has been the barometer of future economic trends, and that is why these figures should be seen as extremely encouraging for the whole Welsh economy."
Like other hon. Members, I am concerned about a second Severn crossing. Approval for a second bridge has been given by the Government and it is estimated that the crossing will cost about £200 million at 1986 prices. The
644
bridge will carry a dual two-lane motorway with much-needed hard shoulders. It will be the largest estuarial crossing in Britain, spanning three miles between the shores.
A second crossing is imperative. It must be provided as soon as possible, because south Wales is an industrialised and expanding area. A second crossing will be used extensively and will encourage more industries and industrialists into the area.
We are no longer at the mercy of the International Monetary Fund in Wales or in the United Kingdom as a whole. We are no longer riddled with political strikes and we are no longer the sick country of Europe. We are now in the first division and we intend to stay there. My message to the people in 'Wales is loud and clear. They should watch out for the loony Left, the militants, CND, the disarmers, the Labour party and its policy for Wales.
What is the Labour party's policy for Wales? It involves scrapping the Government's trade union reforms, sweeping nationalisation and the re-nationalisation of everything that is now privatised. It involves the total dismantling of Britain's nuclear defences, the nationalisation of Britain's armed services, and the control of the police by local councillors on salaries of £30,000 per councillor. The Labour party will outlaw jury vetting. The Labour party policy involves legalising homosexual acts for 16-year-olds and a vigorous drive to promote homosexual, lesbian and gay rights policies. That is the Labour party's policy for 'Wales. The Labour party will penalise private firms that have won contracts for providing services formerly carried out by the public sector. Under the Labour party, pensions and life insurance fund money will be directed towards the national investment bank. That is the Labour party's policy for Wales.
I would say further to the people of Wales, if they want higher taxes, do not vote Tory. If they want higher inflation, do not vote Tory. If they want horrendous nationalisation and renationalisation, do not vote Tory. If they want to give power to the trade unions and to the militant barons, do not vote Tory. If they want a defenceless Britain, do not vote Tory. If they want Britain to become another socialist state like the Ukraine, Poland or Czechoslovakia, do not vote Tory. Voting for the Labour party is not tactical voting; it is national suicide.
7.22 pm
Mr. Leo Abse: My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardif, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) made a valedictory speech. It is not my intention to follow his example. It is true that he will be leaving the House, and so shall I, at the end of this Parliament. Indeed, so will many Tory Members. We shall be leaving voluntarily and they will be leaving involuntarily. I will not follow my right hon. Friend, because I am only too well aware, as he would be if he was in the Chamber and I could prompt his memory, that Prime Ministers have a strange habit, in times of difficulties, of postponing elections. Therefore, he will understand if I do not say my farewells just yet. Rather, I will follow the example of the Secretary of State for Wales who has been his usual polemical, acerbic self. Although I cannot match him in those qualities, perhaps I will be able to match him in his insouciance that I noticed a few weeks ago when he allowed us to discover that a review existed—which he distributed to us—praising the work of the Welsh Development Agency.

645
Apparently there had been a detailed scrutiny of the Welsh Development Agency. Of course, as the Secretary of State explained, all that he gave us was a summary. Bowdlerised versions of documents is something for which the right hon. Gentleman has a particular penchant. Usually, however, he is able at least to give some reason, either commercial or judicial, why a whole report cannot be published. On this occasion he was completely brazen and more, gave no reason, and said that the report was just part of the Government's programme for improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the WDA.
No suggestion was made that the catalyst or the report—
Mr. Nicholas Edwards rose—
Mr. Abse: The Secretary of State need not bother to interpose because I do not intend to give way. I will make my speech and the Minister will give a reply.
The Secretary of State presented the report as if it was some general review. We would be ingenuous if we did not realise that the real catalyst for much of the content of the review was the appalling, miserable scandal of the Parrot Corporation. That matter still remains completely unresolved and is still in the air.
The report states quite clearly in its synoptic account, despite the headline, that the review praises the WDA's work, and that it recommends :
"Ways in which the WDA could achieve improvements in the planning and execution of its function."
However, the officials concluded :
"there is scope for further efficiency and economy and have made appropriate recommendations."
There is little sign of those recommendations in the report.
Towards the end of the report some of the consequences of the Parrot scandal are revealed. It becomes clear how seriously the matter has developed. The report states :
"The Welsh Office is the sponsor department for the WDA. Its role is to ensure maintenance of high standards of management and financial control."
It must be said that for more than a year the Secretary of State has been trying to distance himself from his firm responsibilities for the Welsh Development Agency. The
report continues :
"It is recommended that the Welsh Office and the Agency agree—"
in words that are worthy of the Secretary to the Cabinet—
"a taut profile of anticipated monthly spend at the beginning of each financial year and that the WDA provide explanations of any in-year variations with its monthly expenditure returns. Those returns ought also to include information on the commitments entered into by the Agency in the previous month. The Agency's reporting of its investment expenditure should be improved and it is recommended that funds for investment are not released by the Welsh Office until the required information is provided."
That "taut profile" means that the Welsh Office in future does not release a penny until it is sure into whose pocket that money is going. As the report states, there is a need to intensify monitoring. That report gives us only the creaking of the stable door long after the horses have bolted.
The blunt fact is that the Secretary of State failed in the role that the report rightly says falls upon him. For years he permitted the WDA to carry on with a reckless disregard of the commercial and financial disciplines which any large company would insist were essential. The
646
inheritance of the shambles has fallen upon the new executives who are evidently making valiant and considerable efforts to create a discipline now where none previously existed.
If disciplines had been imposed and if genuine monitoring had taken place, it would never have been possible for more than £2·5 million, given as a soft loan from the European Community and intended to be used as working capital in the Parrot factory in my constituency, to have ended up effectively frozen in an American bank earning money for that bank and doubtless, by way of backhanders, for all who had conspired and colluded in that mafia-like transaction. The House must consider what the Secretary of State's culpable negligence and subsequent efforts to obfuscate the scandal has cost and is costing the taxpayer.
Recently, I asked the Secretary of State about the total cost to public funds of each current job at the Parrot factory in Cwmbran new town. He replied blandly that it was about £6,900 per person. Such a reply is as impudent as it is misleading. It is based upon the direct financial assistance from the Welsh Office and rent concessions made for the factory. It completely excludes the £1·7 million which the Secretary of State supposed would be a so-called commercial investment, but from which, unhappily, there has been not a single penny of return. It excludes the millions that came from Europe. It fails to make a contingency provision for a £13 million claim being made against the agency in the American courts by the former managing director of Parrot, Frank Peters, even as it does not take into account a substantial claim, against the corporation, as part of the backwash of the murky events, by the German sales manager at Munich. It makes no provision for a separate action in this country by Mr. Peters, which is due to start in June.
The reply totally ignores the cost to public funds of the massive police trawl, which has led the police to spend weeks in Chicago. It totally ignores the cost of the lawyers in the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, not to mention the heavy legal costs incurred in defending the American action. It does not include the loss to the taxpayer caused by the approval of a tax-reducing element whereby the huge salaries given to Peters and other directors and employees were paid into a United States-based corporation as fees for consultancy services to Parrot.
With a few more than 100 jobs created in my constituency, we have witnessed a first for the Secretary of State for Wales, for this is the most expensive job-creation scheme in Europe. One of the most disagreeable aspects of the affair is the Secretary of State's attempt to evade his personal responsibility by throwing a cloak of secrecy over the squalid bungling. When the project was mooted, the Secretary of State was ready to claim all the praise for what has proved to be an ill—considered initiative. As the Financial Times said bluntly, recalling the occasion when the factory was opened :
"As champagne corks popped and hundreds of guests enjoyed a fine lunch in a sun-baked marquee, the royal opening appeared to put a final seal of approval on the harnessing of US technological know-how and management, and a partnership between UK public and private sector finance."
I did not attend that opening, but I believe the Secretary of State did—
Mr. Nicholas Edwards: No
Mr. Abse: Perhaps he did not, but I have no doubt that he was well represented. I did not attend, even though it was in my constituency, because the alarm bells were ringing for me. Within two months, the director who had proudly shown the Duke of Kent round the new facility found the hospitality being returned by Her Majesty's Government in a cell at Chelsea police station.
It is especially disagreeable that we had to force an explanation out of the Secretary of State. The Opposition had to force him to mount an inquiry, but what a limited inquiry it was. He certainly intended that his personal responsibility could not be called into question, and when the report was issued it was a bowdlerised version hiding behind the idea that there were legal and commercial reasons for not publishing the entire report.
Recently, I have been pressing—not for the first time —the Attorney-General to take some action. About a week ago, he replied :
"I am advised by the Director of Public Prosecutions that police inquiries into the affairs of the Parrot Corporation have been completed and a decision has been made regarding the institution of criminal proceedings. It would, however, not be in the interests of justice were I to divulge publicly any further information regarding this matter at this stage."—[Official Report, 24 February 1987; Vol. 111, c. 6.]
That is a cabalistic reply. We still do not know whether proceedings will be started, whether the report has been published or whether an attempt will be made to extradite Peters. All that we know from the HTV interview—HTV has probed well into the matter—is that Peters has said that, if his expenses are paid, he will return to Wales. I hope that the Secretary of State is passing that information to the Attorney-General. I hope, too, that he is not being coy, as he appears to have been, about asking the Director of Public Prosecutions to expedite matters. Is the Secretary of State playing for touch? Does he not want the scandal revealed before the general election?
The attempts to enforce silence continue. In recent days, the WDA, no doubt with the approval of the Secretary of State, sought an injunction against the BBC to prevent the broadcasting of Peters' allegations against the corporation. It is attempting to suppress his claim that the WDA was guilty of fraudulent misrepresentation in the prospectus that it issued to induce investors in the City to put money into the Parrot Corporation. He claims that the true conditions imposed by the Community soft loan were deliberately concealed and misrepresented. I have met Peters only once—in the autumn of 1985—and I would not accept his bare word for such a grave allegation. I left him with a far different assessment of him from that of the Secretary of State, who was foolish enough to put millions of pounds of public money in his care. Without presuming to judge whether Peters is guilty of criminal conduct, I can say that I would not have entered into a partnership with him to run an ice cream stall.
My experience as a solicitor who has prosecuted and defended criminals is that when thieves fall out they make allegations against each other that are often true. The relevant question that I put is this: if Peters' allegation is false, why, when the unavailability of the European millions became apparent and when the threat of writs from the institutions claiming that at the very least they had been misled was descending, did the Secretary of State tumble over himself to beg yet more public money from the Treasury for the Parrot Corporation? Was it because of his concern for some jobs in my constituency or was it
648
because he and his officials were afraid of the consequences — certainly civil and perhaps criminal —that could arise if the threatening City institutions took action?
Many other questions must be asked which remain unanswered. What was the sinister role of Mr. Neil Taylor, one moment a member of the Welsh Development Agency's investment staff while the Parrot deal was being stitched together, and the next moment a so-called independent financial consultant working for Parrot? Who approved of that in the WDA and why? Did the Secretary of State inform himself of the clogs in the service contracts of his staff? Did he approve of such ambiguous mobility? What did Neil Taylor's superior at the Welsh Development Agency, Allan Sutton, know of that extraordinary transaction? What was the real role of Mr. Faulkner of the Development Capital Group? Why was he used by the WDA, and did he obtain £35,000 for becoming involved in what the report described blandly as an "unusual transaction"? Was the transaction well rehearsed at a Parrot board meeting in February 1984, when, among others, Mr. Shakespeare of the WDA was present?
Those involved in this murky transaction—I do not believe that only one person is responsible—almost got away with their scheme. But the financial projections prepared in late 1983 were absurdly over-optimistic. The fall in the world market price for flexible diskettes, the poor performance of the pound against the dollar, the increasing costs of capital equipment, the delay in the completion of the Cwmbran factory by the WDA and the late funding by the WDA of £300,000 of its equity meant that the company ran out of working capital by the summer of 1985, and the conspiracy was exposed. The conspiracy that had been hatched fell apart, and it was revealed that the equivalent of the European Community funds were frozen in the American bank. None of that could have come about if the Secretary of State had insisted long before now, as was his duty, upon proper financial controls at the WDA.
With more than 6,000 unemployed people in my constituency, the overriding concern must be that the past fiasco is not followed by collapse but at least by some success. That must be the concern. Are the new directors, acting as accountants, lacking the imaginative, technological skills that are needed to expand the company operating in the highly competitive high-tech field? Will they act to build up a credibility that has been damaged? Certainly, I have misgivings when I hear the treatment now being meted out to Dr. Langler, the man recruited by the original directors to promote German and Austrian sales. I gained the firm impression that he has been made a victim of the deviousness that informed the former hoard at Cwmbran. If confidence is to be restored in Parrot's integrity, I hope that Mr. Gareth Luke, the present financial director, will have the wisdom to handle the Langler matter in a way that will not inflict further litigation costs upon Parrot and, hence, indirectly upon the taxpayer.
We have heard speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. Their speeches indicted the Government because of their lack of concern. My speech is an indictment of their lack of efficiency. The conjuction between their lack of concern and their inefficiency has led to the present situation in Wales where there are 200,000 unemployed, our housing

649
is in a disgraceful state and our hospitals are run-down. It will not be long before the Government get their due reward from the electorate.
7.41 pm
Sir Anthony Meyer: The speech of the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Abse) reminded me of "Finnegan's Wake". Had it not been so obscure, I am sure that it would have been obscene. The best commentary that I can make on it relates to the chap who threatened to publish a key to "Finnegan's Wake" and was told that that book wanted not so much a key as a lock.
I wish to make two specific points and then a general comment about the Government's policies. First, I wish to say a word about the Bodelwyddan castle project, against which my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) has argued often and passionately. I make no complaint about the matter, although Bodelwyddan castle is wholly within my constituency. It will do Clwyd county council no harm to have my hon. Friend snapping at its heels and urging it to be more cost conscious than it sometimes is. The project is valuable to the economy and to job prospects in north Clwyd and could serve as a major tourist attraction all the year round, bringing in the kind of tourists whom we need to attract and raising the tone of the tourist industry in the area. Private and public money spent on supporting the arts is money well spent, even in comparison with other such deserving causes as industry or social welfare. The arts is one field in which we are still world leaders. Money spent on the arts is money spent on backing success. That success has a spin-off effect which benefits many other activities both locally and nationally. By all means let my hon. Friend carry on with his campaign, for I am by no means satisfied that Clwyd's management of the project is as economic as it could be, but I shall continue to give it my backing.
My second point, which will perhaps be more controversial for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, concerns the all-Wales strategy for mental handicap and illness. I can understand the thinking behind the new policy of getting everyone possible out of institutions and into the community, but a niggling suspicion is beginning to form in my mind that we are all going along just a little too unquestioningly with a policy that is fashionable among psychiatrists but may not have been fully thought through and could turn out to be as dangerously mistaken as the wholesale clearance of so-called slum areas and the construction of residential tower blocks in their place. The visible fruits of the policy at present are that the magnificently sited and well-built North Wales hospital at Denbigh may be closed, with dramatic consequences for employment in Denbigh. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Harvey) for straying over his border, but many of my constituents also work there.
Of more direct concern to me is the fact that all too many former patients will land up in less than ideal accommodation in Rhyl—very probably in the west end of Rhyl — which already faces a crisis from the uncontrolled spread of multi-occupation and where the local authority's powers of inspection, even for such vital purposes as fire precautions, are simply not adequate. I am bound to say that my experience of visiting even some of
650
the better equipped and supervised private homes into which mentally handicapped patients have been discharged from institutions has sometimes been less than cheery. I shudder to think of what the arrival of dozens of ex-Denbigh patients in the so-called flatlets of west Rhyl will do. A great deal more thought needs to be given to the availability of suitable and appropriately supervised accommodation for the supposed beneficiaries of the policy of dispersal.
On a more general theme, Labour Members —clutching at straws like the drowning men that they are — would have us believe that there has been steady economic decline in Wales and that social services are in ruins. It is true that there is a worrying situation in our schools, due to the form of industrial action taken by the teachers' unions to press their pay claims and enthusiastically supported by the Labour party. I am delighted that my party intends to press on further and faster with restrictions on the power of trade union bosses to bully their own members' and the rest of us.
In the social services generally, however, there has been steady progress, as promised by the Government when they first came to power in 1979, although progress in this field always falls short of expectations. I have before me the health and social security services statistics for Wales. One may open the document at random and find on every page and in every column statistical evidence of steady, sometimes dramatic expansion of the health and social services in Wales under the present Government.
What of the Government's general economic policies in Wales over the past seven years? In Wales, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, health and social services policies have been harsh and, sometimes, unfeeling. When the Conservatives came to power in 1979, British industry, despite the all too short lived efforts of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) to get it to modernise, was still heavily overmanned and riddled with restrictive working practices that were enthusiastically maintained by workers and management alike. Much has been done during the past seven years to put this right, although much still remains to be done.
Even bearing in mind what has been done so far, however, which has led to Llanwern Steel, for example, being competitive with just about any steelworks in the world, the cost in terms of unemployment, loss of hope and social division has been terrible. If one has a gangrenous limb, it has to be amputated. That is the only way to save life, but it is no use pretending that the cost is not appalling. One must make the best of it. In Wales, the cost of the ruthless process of modernisation has been exceptionally high because Wales was exceptionally dependent on coal and steel, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out in his superb opening speech. Both were public sector industries and both were riddled with restrictive practices and overmanning, largely because they were public sector industries. Inevitably, old jobs were lost a great deal faster than new jobs could come in.
The social consequences for Wales have been grave. That they were not catastrophic is due in no small measure to the efficacy, determination and adaptability of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. As this may well be his last appearance at a Welsh affairs debate, it is right that public tribute should be paid to his immense achievement. I do not think that I do him any wrong if I say that he took

651
office as a pretty convinced free market man, but that he was swift to perceive the need to temper the wind to the shorn lamb and to fight for Wales to have far more than its fair share of help to bring in the jobs to replace those lost by modernisation and to ensure that the social services in Wales were sufficiently supported to stand the shock thrown on them by the huge upheaval of modernisation.
The loss of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be a blow to the Government, to the Conservative party and to Wales. At the risk of rushing in where angels fear to tread, 1 believe that the next Secretary of State must be a Welsh Member elected for a Welsh constituency and that on both counts my hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Mr. Roberts) fully fills the Bill. 1 hope that he will get the job. I hope still more that my saying so will not spoil his chances. It could be said that he and I belong to opposite wings of the Conservative party, but like any well-constructed bird it needs two wings if it is to fly straight. If my hon. Friend gets the job, as I hope that he will, he will need to learn, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was so quick to do, that a Conservative Government dare not concern themselves solely with enabling the successful to get ahead and create wealth without hindrance, but that something must be done to help those who get left behind. That was a lesson of which the old-fashioned Conservative party was ever mindful—perhaps excessively mindful—and, whatever the economic imperatives, we dare not forget it now.
7.51 pm
Mr. D. E. Thomas (Merionnydd Nant Conwy): The hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) has been a consistent critic of the Government's policies. He has repeated those criticisms today, although, like all critics, now that a general election is coming, he has tempered his comments with some praise. Nevertheless, his political antecedents show clearly that his support lies with the more humane type of Conservatism—of which there are still some representatives on the Conservative Back Benches, if not on the Front Bench. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman's endorsement of my colleague the hon. Member for Conwy (Mr. Roberts) as the next Secretary of State will do harm or good, but when I say that I remember the hon. Member for Conwy in the days before he was a Right-wing Conservative his chances may be irreparably damaged.
Whatever may be the outcome of the next general election—I do not wish to talk about the Greenwich factor or any other factor—we have heard two major speeches today. One came from the retiring Secretary of State, the other from the retiring former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan), and both speeches matched the occasion. In their different ways, both were speeches about the state of the nation. I shall try to follow their example, although I do not hope to emulate the quality of the speech made by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth.
The right hon. Gentleman, in a constituency speech, gave us a vision of what the representative work of any Member of Parliament must be about. He conveyed graphically the plight of his constituents and their housing problems. I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to him for his work in the House as a representative, for his stance and for the way in which he kept his word to those of us who supported the Labour Government in 1978–79. Many of my constituents are to
652
this day grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, just as they are grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, who as Minister of State, Department of Employment, in the last Labour Government played a leading role in ensuring compensation for people who suffered from industrial disease. That example demonstrates the compassion with which we have come to associate the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, although I may disagree with what he says about defence policy.
I have said privately, so I may as well say it publicly, that I recognise the Secretary of State as the longest arid in many ways the most effective and interventionist holder of his office. That is not necessarily a tribute to him as I do not agree with the form of his intervention. He has tried to present his vision of the modernisation of Wales, arid he will not be surprised to hear that I disagree with many aspects of that vision. He has stressed the gains that have been made during that modernisation. I want to stress the costs in human and community terms, as did the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West. I have in mind the cost to the community of the long and bitter struggle in the coal mining industry to which many Opposition Members, leaders in the mining industry and community leaders devoted themselves. It was a struggle which showed the courage of the Welsh people in the face of oppression from the Coal Board, its management and the Government. That was the unacceptable face of the Secretary of State's tenure of office.
The Secretary of State has stressed the gains of modernisation in terms of new jobs, but he has failed to remind us of the losses. We experienced a 17 per cent. job loss from June 1979 to June 1986, we suffered 36 per cent. job losses in manufacturing, and gross domestic product per head in Wales has remained at 88 per cent. of the United Kingdom average. He might argue that that level is increasing, but it is increasing from an extremely low base. Public sector spending on research and development, especially scientific research, has remained abysmally low. The figures that have emerged from parliamentary questions that I have tabled show that only 2·5 per cent. of United Kingdom scientific research is attributable to Wales. Whether it be employment, income per head or scientific spending, there is a lack of strategy for revitalising the Welsh economy. Such a strategy must take into account the key industrial sectors, including agriculture, which has suffered from a lack of representation under the Conservatives.
The Secretary of State told us about crucial decisions on agriculture policy that are being made in the European Community this week. Not once has he seen fit to represent Wales as its agriculture Minister at that key decision making. If we have the disadvantage of another Tory Government, and the hon. Member for Conwy succeeds the right hon. Gentleman as Secretary of State, I hope that he agrees that there must be Welsh representation in the Community if we are to ensure that our agriculture is adequately represented. I know that my colleagues in the Liberal party agree that there should be an immediate and substantial increase in the suckler cow premium. We also need increased headage payments in less-favoured areas and the Government should give their likely reaction to the continuing effect of Chernobyl on Welsh sheep. I have the misfortune to represent more irradiated sheep than any other hon. Member, and the farmers whose livelihoods are directly affected. There ought to have been much quicker action. The Government

653
must now respond to what a radiation expert at University College Wales, Bangor has said about the possible need to shift soil in the hills. That would seem an impossible task. It would be the most massive derelict land clearance scheme in Wales if it happened. The Government must inform farmers of their prognostications for the worst incidence of caesium radiation on the hills.
Agriculture is not the only industry in which we need a strategy. We need an energy policy and strategies for steel, fabrication industries and engineering related to steel and coal. We look to the new sectors of high technology and micro-electronics and to the data storage industry, which is a major growth area in Wales, and also to the service industries that bring in income, particularly tourism. I hope that the Select Committee, when it comes to report on the subject, will initiate a new debate because it is high time that in this sector Wales was able to project itself directly overseas.
What is needed is an integrated approach to the Welsh economy, where growth in the various sectors is planned. The planning of development centres and of the so-called third sector of the economy, which includes new industries is missing. I endorse what the Secretary of State said about the Rank Hovis McDougall bid for Avana. We do not want to lose decision-making and investment centres, and in particular we do not want to lose from Wales control of capital. The Avana argument is a sign of what has happened so often in the Welsh economy, when centres of capital and decision making are outside Wales and we have suffered from job losses.
There is also the problem of lack of research and development in new projects. A recent constituency example is ICI bringing about redundancies. A major reason for not putting in reinvestment has been a lack of new products, because there has been no research and development or scientific innovation on that site. That is clearly part of the economic failing in Wales.
We look to the growth of the third sector of these indigenous industries, of small businesses, of the self-employed sector and of co-operative enterprises. I agree with the Government's rhetoric—although not with their way of practising it—about the need to encourage an enterprise culture. Any culture that is not enterprising cannot survive. It gives me much pleasure to see, in north Wales and the Gwynedd area in particular, the way in which there is enterprise, both culturally and progressively in terms of development of the media. The Government's investment in S4C has brought about not only far more Welsh programming, and an internationally recognised film industry, but real jobs in culture in Wales.
There are reasons for a lack of coherent economic strategy. One is that the government of Wales is not organised in a way that lends itself to the future model of democracy. We are labouring with institutions that were created in the early 1960s for executive decision making in Wales, but have not caught up with the situation in the 1980s. I know that the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist) will say that I am raising the spectre of devolution, and I am. The issue of the national government of Wales and its democratic and bureaucratic nature is one to which we must continually return, because it is the essence of the problem of how one organises the modern economy. Does one do it by diktat from a Cabinet
654
Minister operating through quangos or through democratically elected representatives coming together and agreeing on a strategy?
I ask the people of Wales, through the House, how long the present system of governing Wales can continue. We have had a Welsh Office since 1964. The Secretary of State has to handle spending of £3 billion, there is a staff of over 3,000 civil servants and more than 1,200 people are selected and nominated for various quangos and bodies. This is the nature of Welsh government. We have elected government for communities, districts, boroughs and at county level, but we have a massive structure of nonelected government at the Cardiff or Welsh level.
It is not enough for hon. Members to say that we have a Welsh affairs debate once a year, we have a Welsh Grand Committee and a Welsh Select Committee. The scale of the Welsh Office is such that accountability cannot be possible through the traditional channels of the Westminster Parliament. Many of the criticisms of housing policy, the economy and aspects of the WDA are about accountability and how people can scrutinise what Government are doing and how policy is devised. The present system of administration by the Welsh Office with three Tory Ministers, which includes the hon. Member for Conwy, is hardly an effective way to control a £3 billion budget and 3,000 civil servants.
Mr. Grist: Does the hon. Gentleman remember the St. David's day vote in 1979 when the Welsh people overwhelmingly rejected devolution? Does he agree with those who nevertheless have said that devolution should be foisted on the Welsh people next time round without asking their opinion?
Mr. Thomas: I have a dim recollection of 1979 and of the devolution vote. I do not believe in foisting anything on anyone. Any changes in the government of Wales should be subject to ratification by the Welsh people. One way would be through the opportunity for people to vote at a general election for the parties that have this as part of their programme.
Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman recall how the Government supported by the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist) voted for taking Britain into the Common Market without the consent of the British people?
Mr. Thomas: I have a dimmer recollection of that event. Democracy cuts both ways. I want to stress the argument for elected democracy as part of the modernisation of Wales—the vision of the Secretary of State.
It is not acceptable for "quangocracy" to continue. Wales can be summarised as a country with a bureaucracy run by a quangocracy, with little or no direct democracy. That has to change and it will in the coming years, because whatever one may think of opinion polls—we are all subject to the Greenwich factor during political campaigns—recent opinion polls have shown majority support for some form of elected body for Wales. Public bodies that are accountable to the Welsh Office range from the Welsh Development Agency to the national museum. Those for which the Secretary of State has responsibility for making appointments range alphabetically from the agricultural dwelling house advisory committees through the place names advisory committee to the Welsh water authority. Those bodies to which the Secretary of State makes

655
minority appointments range from the Audit Commission to the independent scientific committee on smoking and health, to the veterinary products committee. There are nominated bodies that take action in Wales but to which the Secretary of State has no responsibility for appointing members. All these nominated bodies should become accountable to the people of Wales.
That is the key to the argument. If we are to have a modern economy, it must he operated democratically. If we are to have a tolerant and bi-cultural society in Wales, the opportunity must be given at the all-Wales level for policies to be determined and for tension to be resolved democratically. If we are to have all-Wales strategies in health and personal social services and housing, those strategies should be democratically agreed at the all-Wales level and should not be imposed by nominated persons or by the Secretary of State.
The period of the Welsh Office has been important in the growth of government in Wales. We now have a Welsh state. It is there in existence and visible. Its architecture dominates the centre of Cardiff. It is part of a complex of buildings in the centre of town. However, the Welsh state does not have an elected component. It is a state without an elected Government. I firmly believe that, as we enter the late 1980s, with the deepening crisis in the Welsh economy and in Britain as a whole, the demand for national status for Wales and control over the state of Wales will continue to expand.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. If speeches do not exceed 10 minutes, all those who are seeking to catch my eye will have a chance to take part before the Front Bench spokesmen start to wind up.
8.9 pm
Mr. Gwilym Jones: If I may, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall refer initially to a local subject, which I might describe as the relentless march of concrete as our cities expand. Every week hon. Members return to their constituencies. When I arrive home on a Thursday evening or a Friday morning, I reach Cardiff on Eastern avenue and then leave that avenue to go up to my part of my constituency. I join St. Mellons road, which still manages to he something of an old country lane, and a spendid panorama spreads out in front of me. If it is at night, I see the lights in the whole of Cardiff, running down to the Bristol channel and the view that I would have in daytime on a Friday goes right over the Bristol channel to the west of England.
However, I think of the south Glamorgan structure plan and of the North Pentwyn plan which is an amendment to that structure plan. It would cover that point with new housing and a massive shopping development that would go far towards imperilling the whole of the city centre's shopping development, and with new roads, including a motorway link. I regret that not just because of the view but because that wide expanse of pleasant greenery will be concreted over.
A mile or so further on there is a similar situation where the Land Authority for Wales has built up not insignificant land holdings and is now coming forward with proposals for housing development, just like any other property developer, on the pretext of the circular issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about
656
the need for executive homes. However, I wonder whether it is appropriate for the Land Authority for Wales to act as a property developer instead of as a form of catalyst for bringing about more quickly that which is largely wanted by everyone.
However, that is not the example in Cardiff, North where, there is substantial opposition to what the land authority wants to do. I know of three developments that are already taking place on existing housing sites. On one development at Thornhill, the price of £96,000 per house has been quoted. On another development at Lisvane the starting price of houses is £105,000. On a third site we have no idea what the price will be per house, but it would not be unrealistic to estimate that it will be £200,000.
Does that not represent a sufficiency of executive homes in that part of my constituency? Surely there conies a time to say "Enough is enough". After all, Cardiff has physical limitations. We have the mountains to the north and the sea to the south. Therefore, we inevitably have barriers. Are we to make another decision before we concrete over everything between the mountains and the sea?
I was heartened to read that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had addressed a conference this weekend on the future use of agricultural land. .1 congratulate him on a particular paragraph in which he referred to the south Cardiff redevelopment and stated :
"One of my aims in pressing ahead with our major redevelopment in South Cardiff is because I believe that that will help to ease the pressure on green land in the Vale of Glamorgan and around Cardiff."
Despite the statistics that can always be brought out to demonstrate an endless need for housing land, I believe that that answer is preferable, because in the interests of the quality of life there comes a time to call a halt. We should, instead, encourage the investors who wish to build on that green land to consider some of the other housing that is not receiving investment at present, for example, some of the housing to which my neighbour the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) so rightly referred earlier. I hope that my right hon. Friend can respond in the way in which he spoke at the weekend when he comes to adjudicate on South Glamorgan county council's North Pentwyn plan, and in any involvement that he might have in the proposal by the Land Authority for Wales.
Many of the important features of Wales have been touched upon in the debate and earlier at Question Time. I noted that at Question Time we went through a variety of subjects, including unemployment, new jobs, Government assistance, youth training scheme, the job training scheme, housing spending and enterprise zones. All those subjects were rightly raised. However, I venture to suggest that an impartial observer would judge that there is a sharp difference between the way in which such questions are handled by Conservative Members and the way in which they are handled by the Opposition. A wholly negative approach was shown to each and all of those questions by Opposition Members.
When can any of us remember not having seen identical questions tabled time after time by the hon. Members for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) and for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes)? It is always the same question despite the futility of it because no right hon. or hon. Member needs reminding that unemployment is still too high. Nonetheless, there are some heartening signs in the trends

657
in unemployment. As my right hon. Friend said earlier, since we last had the opportunity to debate Welsh affairs there has been a worthwhile reduction of 13,500 in that unemployment figure. Likewise, the seasonally adjusted figure has fallen in nine of the past 10 months. I am sure that we would all straight away say that that was not good enough. However, that is a far better response to make than the one from Opposition Members of "fiddled figures", which is the highest intellectual comment from those who do not care about that matter but merely want higher figures in the vain belief that somehow that will improve their political chances.
It is said that nothing succeeds like success but, in turn, surely nothing fails like failure. We should be doing everything possible to capitalise in every way on our successes. There was an interesting comment on the business page of the Western Mail this morning, which stated that Wales is doing better than Scotland at achieving grant money. That came out in a comment made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). Of course, it did not come out as a positive comment on Wales, but as another negative, whining and carping comment about Scotland. I congratulate the Western Mail on reprinting it so that it could be read in Wales.
The spirit of our country is so important. In his speech, my right hon. Friend contrasted the quality and length of our debate today in relation to the performance of the Welsh National Opera company on Saturday night. However, I shall bask somewhat in the reflected glory of the concert that I attended last night at St. David's hall. That magnificent St. David's day concert from St. David's hall had the first-class BBC Welsh symphony orchestra, the outstanding singing of Stuart Burrows and Eirian James, not to mention the Pendyrus male voice choir and the children of the east Glamorgan schools. The second half of that most excellent concert went out live on S4C and recorded highlights were shown on BBC Wales. All in all, it was a magnificent evening which showed that the best spirits of Welsh culture have never been better. The fact that it was shown on television was surely a wonderful advertisement for the capital city and for Wales.
After the concert was over, as audiences will, we discussed the concert and other aspects. As many people were present whom I might describe as being in public life or in the business community, our conversation turned to our attitudes towards business prospects and the prospects for our Welsh economy. Once again, those conversations confirmed to me that the view held by such people is the same as all the expert forecasts that are now emerging—of the real confidence that we can feel as we look forward.
One of the best comments that I have heard in the last few days came from Mr. Geoffrey Rich, the editor of the South Wales Echo—dare I describe him as a cynical source—who, in conversation, said to me, "Cardiff is cocky now, but cocky in the best and nicest possible way."
The way that we approach things is most important. In Cardiff, we are truly a city that is on the move and, as the capital city, we are and can be the flagship for Wales on the move. Such rightness of attitude is necessary.
What is happening in Cardiff and south Wales comes about almost entirely because of the Conservative party's determination. The present changed face of the city centre
—St. David's centre, St. David's hall, the Holiday Inn
658
and the ice skating rink—came about because of the determination of Conservative Cardiff city council. Yet another development in the past few weeks has been given the go-ahead—the new world trade centre. That is another tremendous contribution towards Cardiff's growth. Not just the city council in Cardiff is making a contribution. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made a substantial commitment to the redevelopment of south Cardiff. It is amazing that we have a Secretary of State who is so formidable in making sure that that project, like so many others in Wales, goes ahead.
We heard an excellent speech from the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. He said, while electioneering, that he was making a constituency speech. He was comparatively lukewarm about that major development, which will be almost entirely in his constituency. We should compare his commitment with that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Wales has never had a stronger Secretary of State or one who has fought harder for all parts of Wales. He has fought hard for the south Cardiff redevelopment. But there is great cause for alarm. If we were to have a Secretary of State from the Labour Benches, after an initial approach towards public spending of break the bank, which was exactly the line that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) put around Wales when he was a junior Minister at the Welsh Office, that approach would soon tail off. At best, the money would be siphoned off to pet projects. I do not think that I am scaremongering in any way if I say that in one way or another the lid would come slamming down. Under a Labour Government there would be no south Cardiff redevelopment, no second crossing to match the present bridge and no Severn barrage. It is clear that the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside will not be the next Secretary of State for Wales. There is substantial room to doubt that he will be even the shadow Secretary of State in the next Parliament. It may be left to the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) to take on that role because at least he seems to have the courage to tackle the extremists in his own party.
There is yet a grim prospect about having a Secretary of State from the Opposition Benches. It comes from the fraudulent concept of a hung or balanced Parliament. It is fraudulent because there is no such thing. It means a minority Labour Government supported by their fellow-travellers in the Liberal party. Already around the watering-holes in the House Labour Members of Parliament are talking about doing a deal with the Liberals. Often they add—provided that they do not have to do any deals with the renegade Social Democratic party. Little wonder. I see that Mr. Neville Sandelson, a former Labour Member and a founder member of the SDP, is currently running a campaign within the SDP describing the Liberal allies as unpredictable, untrustworthy and on the make. However, surely that problem could be overcome, and in a hung Parliament that unholy alliance would hang together.
Mr. Best: My hon. Friend will have seen the news that the former Labour Member of Parliament and then SDP Member of Parliament, Mr. John Horam, recently joined the Conservative party. My hon. Friend may not be aware that my former SDP opponent in my constituency has also joined the Conservative party.
Mr. Jones: I am most pleased to hear that. It shows that there are some men of principle left in the alliance. They now recognise that the only prospect is to join the Conservative party.
The alliance's latest slogan in the attempt to relaunch the party is, "We are going for gold." What better sums up a political grouping of egocentric politicians who are desperately frantic to get their fingers on the levers of power? What would be the result of another Lib-Lab Government? The same old, tired, failed policies. We have the price tag of expenditure—£28 billion. The project is built around artificial jobs, with overmanning in local councils and in nationalised industries. However, I notice that even the plans are not working out because the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside has been warning that local councils are not ready and are not doing what is necessary to create that artificial overmanning. I should imagine that by now the hon. Gentleman is getting fed up with Scottish Labour Members of Parliament interfering in Welsh affairs. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) was in Cardiff recently to explain that manufacturing jobs play little part in Labour's programme. That was confirmed by the Wales TUC.
None the less, we know what the cost will be—high taxation and high borrowing, which will push up interest rates, with the obvious consequences for mortgage rates and effects on the family budget. The various Opposition parties also intend to attack mortgage interest relief. The consequence will be an increase in unemployment and a decrease in real jobs. We shall be back to cuts in the National Health Service and the ultimate approach to the International Monetary Fund to be bailed out.
The Government's job still has to be done, with the essential objectives of continuing with the economic regeneration of our country and of maintaining at the top of the agenda the unacceptably high level of unemployment. While there are various forecasts, which are increasingly bullish and are now serving to confirm original forecasts, it is fair to say that there are qualifications in many of those forecasts. One became apparent when Welsh Conservative Back Benchers had a meeting with the Institute of Directors last week. The institute made a point that was repeated by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Thomas), that Wales does not have enough of an enterprise culture. As the hon. Gentleman so correctly described it, without an enterprise culture, how can a culture progress, develop and reach the desired level?
We keep coming back to the matter of having the right attitude and the right spirit. Despite the apparent movement in moderation by the hon. Member for Merionnydd Nant Conwy, that necessary attitude and spirit are missing from Opposition Benches. Instead, the Government have the policies of realism and hope that are the best prospects for the future. It is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's last debate on Welsh affairs. I take the opportunity to record my estimation that he has been the best Secretary of State for Wales. I know that in whatever way he can, he will go on fighting and doing all that he can for Wales, and even perhaps for the Conservatives. However, we can reassure him that with his policies we shall go from strength to strength. Whether it is a case of winning with Wyn or making our Mark, I am confident of the future.
8.28 pm
Dr. Roger Thomas: It is remarkable what an effect a Gallup poll carried out in Newport, West, giving a Labour majority of 5,500, has upon the morale and some of the tempers of Conservative Members.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) mentioned the cultural facilities of Cardiff. It is not all that long ago, under a Conservative Administration, that symphony orchestras from London refused to come to Cardiff to play because they would not play in that barracks of a place in Sophia gardens. It is not all that long since the Covent Garden opera company, on its tour, refused to come to Cardiff, which was then run by a Conservative county council. The company did not come because there was not a theatre big enough and with enough facilities for first-rate opera. I agree that now people in Cardiff have something new, but people in other parts of the world have had it for far longer. We understand that that is a new toy to people in Cardiff, and we are happy that they have it.
We hear a great deal about a north-south divide. This afternoon, we heard the Secretary of State being congratulated on being able to provide opera facilities in Cardiff. Yet, from the Back Benches, we heard the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) castigate Clwyd county council because it intended to provide opera facilities. What a magnificent example of' a north-south divide. This afternoon we had another example of a north-south divide in the opposite direction. We had a wonderful speech from my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan), which was a mixture of compassion and caring. What did we have from the hon. Member from the north-east part of Wales? We had a speech which proved that the umbilical cord between the hon. Gentleman, the Daily Express and William Hickey has not yet been cut. That is the type of contrast that we have between north and south.
I shall now speak about matters that are important to Wales. Few Select Committee reports have been more relevant to Wales than the report by the Energy Committee on the coal industry. I found the introductory paragraphs to the report quite moving and even emotional. The present and previous Tory Administrations challenged miners, their families and communities head on in a struggle that produced bitterness, dissension and no outright victor. Government Members of that Committee, in supporting a report that challenged the wisdom of grinding those communities into the ground, have to be congratulated on their courage.
Chapter 5 of the report concentrated on the wider costs of coal mining, on the need of meeting the nation's energy demands and on the far wider costs of coal mining. More fairly and comprehensively than I can remember, it recalled the social and topographically disruptive human effects of gleaning our prime indigenous energy source. Those effects are analysed in a most fair and dispassionate manner.
Many of our mining communities have all their eggs in one basket. I shall quote from the coalfields community campaign, which says:
"Mining areas are small dispersed communities, heavily self-dependent and totally dominated by a single industry, often over several generations."
When, in the 1980s, redundant miners were forced on to the sidelines by the thousands they found that there were no existing manufacturing jobs available and they had to

661
compete with others whose jobs were falling by the wayside. Pit closure decisions have, for a long time, been highly suspect, but latterly they are being challenged. British Coal's accounting procedure has been far too secretive, and here the Committee calls for maximum disclosure. Maximum disclosure is common sense if good worker-employer relationships are to be attained.
Jobs that have been created by British Coal Enterprise, while not insignificant, are still small compared with the job losses that have been created. Even the doubling of the money available in 1986 was substantially inadequate. Stated simply, Government financial commitment must match the enormous size of the problem which is created by the most logically argued pit closure. Hitherto, that has not been the case. Nowhere has that been better exemplified than in the valleys of west Wales since the coal strike.
An open-cast site is not in an area for two or four years; it is there for 15 or 20 years. The present planning system is delaying and, frequently, embarrassing to British Coal. The Select Committee agreed that open-cast mining is one of the most environmentally destructive process that is carried out in the United Kingdom. The sites are among the most ugly examples of the ravages of industrial exploitation.
At present, British Coal is not well placed to make judgments about the relative costs and benefits of opencast developments. Here the Secretary of State has the last say as to whether work at an open-cast site can proceed after he has received the report of the inspector. I can assure him that the overturning of the recommendation of the impartial inquiry on the open-cast site within his own constituency has gone down badly in areas which are now being worked for the third and fourth times. The Secretary of State is aware—not only in the open-cast sector—that he must look after his own patch of territory.
Latterly, the socio-economic pundits have been drawing attention to the presence of, even within Wales, a south-east versus remainder divide. That is a divide even within the United Kingdom. It is little wonder that such a deep depression exists within the peripheral parts of an area that, as a total entity, is suffering the disadvantages of the magic centrifugal force of south-east England.
I welcome the highly relevant and lucid first editorial of the Western Mail of 17 February, which emphasised the chronic lack of work availability in rural south-west Wales. How would such an area fare under Government proposals to introduce regional differential pay proposals, when in such areas as unfashionable west Wales employers may be more positively attracted if wage costs there were palpably less? We reject that proposal vehemently in my part of Wales.
These are the areas where the Government's wicked agricultural proposals have a most penetrating knock-on effect. Measures to cut back production are not allowing sufficient time for alternative and transitional measurements. The determination to charge £90 for a dairy inspection is interpreted as further Government indifference to farming. Even a sliding scale to protect the small farmer is treated dismissively. Further bankruptcies are the order of the day, with the Welsh grassland sector paying the price for surpluses, to the charge of creating which they plead innocent. Welsh farmers are dead tired of ministerial platitudes and vague promises.
662
Alternative policies have to be far more definite than just the planting here and there of a few deciduous trees. The lack of long-term policies with regard to diversification and alternative land use may take many years before coming to fruition.
This is the season when health authorities are beginning to balance their books. Our local health authority chairman appealed to the Welsh Office for more sympathy. His Griffiths-style manager talks of dire consequences if such help is not forthcoming. We are not accustomed in west Wales to wards being closed with little notice. These days living within resources means exactly that—bed and ward closures. Money channelled to health education and much—needed surveillance and early diagnostic schemes are much advertised by Ministers. We hear little of the Government attacking that great source of ill health—general misery and suffering in our communities caused by the effects of unemployment. They are not prepared to deliver money into creating what the Prime Minister, when she was in opposition, used to call "real jobs".
The Under-Secretary of State might concentrate in his reply on Professor Catford's findings, which have recently been published, on the major health inequalities between the social classes in Wales. It is many years since the Black report was placed on the shelf to gather dust. Under she with whom the Health Service is apparently safe, these inequalities and diverging standards have grown even wider over the past eight years. The great contributor to that is the widening gap in living standards between those who have and those who have not got work to which to go. I have confidence, however, that the Minister responsible for health in Wales—the Under-Secretary of State—will not trot out strings of irrelevant platitudes such as those that we have been receiving in the House from the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security—the hon. Member for Derbyshire. South (Mrs. Currie). Professor Catford stresses the need to establish policies to reduces these inequalities.
Health is about resources as well as about voluntary lifestyle. The population over 75 has increased since 1979 by between one fifth and one quarter of the population; the number of geriatric beds has been practically static and increasing numbers of patients have been discharged because of the lack of specifically designated geriatric beds. As a result, more and more acute geriatric cases have to be admitted into the ordinary acute beds of a hospital. These beds are being taken up by emergency social admissions. To admit high priority patients from urgent waiting lists, these elderly patients are discharged into the community, the services of which are not comprehensive enough or sophisticated enough to cope with them.
Whatever figures are quoted of Government commitment, patients and their relatives feel distinctly less satisfied as each year of Conservative Government goes by. Early discharges lead inevitably to readmissions because certain complications are not detected early enough in the community. This compares with what happened when a certain period was regarded as a natural and sensible length of convalescence. It is sad to see patients forced out of hospitals to make room for others when they and their relatives at home cannot provide the necessary follow-up care. Under this new, managerial-style regime, consultants and senior hospital staff have been coming under more pressure than ever before. So often the management-consultant relationship is at a low

663
ebb, and at some hospitals, I assure Ministers, it is nonexistent. I assure Ministers that that is the reality. Morale in some district general hospitals is as low as it has ever been.
The management is totally committed to business standards and is not paying sufficient attention to clinical problems. We must face up to the fact that many consultants feel that what is financially justifiable is totally incompatible with medical efficiency, and nothing affects the latter more detrimentally than continual pressure from management, with management breathing down consultants' necks. Consultants are highly trained people who know how to go about their business. Developing Marks and Spencer techniques in running and organising operating theatre sessions will not do for the people of Wales.
The Government's policy has been one of encouraging those in work to forget those who have no work. The south-east prospers when the remainder of the country is betwixt stagnation and impoverishment. Progress towards a less just, less fair, less caring and less socially aware society has been accelerated by the Government, and the people of Wales will finally turn them out.
8.44 pm
Mr. Robert Harvey: In industrial Wales there can be few St. David's days with more to cheer about than this one. The Welsh CBI quarterly trends survey shows that 13 per cent. of businesses are more optimistic than before, 19 per cent. expect a growing volume of output, 36 per cent. expect an increase in total new orders and 16 per cent. expect a rise in employment. Wales's industrial economy is booming, thanks to the economic policies adopted by the Government and to the stimulus given to the Welsh economy by the pragmatic policies of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I reiterate what other Conservative Members have said : how lucky we are to have had such a great Secretary of State during the past eight years.
Yet in one part of the Welsh economy there is something approaching despair. and that is in the traditional mainstay of rural Wales, farming. It has become harrowing to observe the most severe farming crisis in post-war history as it strikes, not the rich barley barons ploughing up hedgerows, about whom one reads so much in the media, but Welsh smallholders in my constituency who work their lives out in back-breaking conditions on the worst of land. These are people who think nothing of working a 14-hour day in the most extreme conditions, whose every asset is tied up in the land, who never go on strike, who do not belong to a trade union, whose small businesses are among the most efficient in the land and who do not qualify for dole money. In a bad year, many of them earn considerably less than the national average wage. I have visited farms where the net income last year ranged between £3,000 and £5,000 and others that are only just managing to break even. A whole rural way of life is in danger of disappearing altogether unless action can be taken to stop it.
As we all know, the crisis began when the European Community took action to stop the accumulation of food surpluses in Europe through the imposition of milk quotas. That action started in 1983. However justifiable in principle, it was precipitate and far too sudden, yet Welsh farmers tried somehow to stagger on and survive. They cut their production and borrowed more. By 1985 farm
664
income had declined by nearly half, hank lending was at a record level, and many farmers were teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. Meanwhile, the value of the land began to plunge. Last year some welcome stability returned to the market. However, the imposition of a further milk quota reduction of 9·5 per cent. in December has once again increased the worry and depression facing the industry, although at least this time—this is an important advance—the European Community has accepted the principle of compensation. But the position of many farmers in my constituency is desperate.
I know of one milk producer who can make ends meet only by overproducing and gambling that a super-levy will not be brought in. If it is, and the signs are that it will be, he stands to have to pay several thousand pounds. If that happens, similar farmers will be driven out of business. Producers are so desperate for quota that it is changing hands at the absurdly high price of 30p a litre.
Other farmers are also facing deep uncertainty. Beef producers were hit last year by an overvalued green pound, although they welcomed the retention of a variable premium in the last deal. Welsh sheep farmers fear that as dairy and grain farmers move into sheep production—there were 3,000 new entrants into sheep production last year—the market could be swamped by cheaply produced lowland sheep. Sheep farmers are calling for some kind of restriction on new entrants. It is urgent that the depths of the crisis be understood. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will address that problem in his forthcoming White Paper.
What are the immediate measures needed to restore confidence in Welsh farming? First and foremost, there must be a devaluation of about 20 per cent. of the green pound to ensure that our producers are not unfairly penalised and that our European competitors are not unfairly helped by currency misalignments. The whole problem could be resolved in the long term by British membership of the European monetary system. That is long overdue and would ensure that such differentials never arose again. Secondly, the principles of compensation for lost production and incentives for environment improvement need vastly to be extended beyond the welcome but insufficient package of measures announced last month and beyond the compensation for milk producers announced in the EEC package.
Every other major industry which has been overproducing in Europe has been granted substantial sums in redundancy money for the workers who have suffered. One thinks here of the mining and steel industries. Up to £40,000 has been paid to laid-off miners. Farmers who may be hit by the reduced quotas deserve no different. Thirdly, it is high time that Britain was brought at least to self-sufficiency in milk. It is absolutely wrong that under the original quota deal in 1983 West Germany was allowed 24 million tonnes, France 27 million tonnes, and Britain only 16 million tonnes.
These are the three things that my right hon. Friend and his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should consider to restore confidence in an industry which was once the pride of Wales : green pound alignment, compensation and self-sufficiency. It is all too easy to knock the common agricultural policy and the Community surpluses and to forget that Community spending as a whole accounts for less than 1 per cent. of GDP of member states, compared with 51 per cent of GDP

665
of member states that goes into national Government spending; or to forget that since Britain joined the Community farm prices have shown unprecedented stability, rising by considerably less than the increase in the general cost of living.
Some people say that farm prices would have risen by still less in a free market, but a free market would have been characterised by disastrous farm failures that would have ensured that over-production and low prices one year were followed by under-production and skyrocketing prices the next year—as used to happen in the past. Farm price stability is in the interest both of consumer and producer. The amount spent on the common agricultural policy is a small price to pay for that.
Critical as I am about some aspects of the Government's record on farming, I am certain that the situation would have been far worse if any other party had been in power. What, for example, is the alliance policy on farming? After all, that all-things-to-all-men party spends a good deal of its time wringing its hands about the plight of Welsh farming. However, the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) has made it absolutely clear that he is committed to slashing EEC food surpluses far faster and far more effectively than the Government have been able to. That would put thousands of farmers out of business.
In addition, the alliance has set out a ludicrous proposal for a two-tier structure of farm quotas which, because someone in the alliance has not done his sums, would penalise three quarters of British grain producers while penalising only a fraction of continental producers. Presumably the same applies to milk. This proposal has been described as disastrous by the president of the National Farmers Union, Mr. Simon Gourlay.
What of the Labour party's policy? It is also committed to slashing surpluses, as has repeatedly been made clear by the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock). Like the alliance, the Labour party is committed to greater planning controls over agricultural land and to a policy of taking control of land usage from farmers and handing it to local councils with all the sensitivity that urban bureaucrats display to the needs of the countryside. The Labour party's policy is nothing less than nationalisation, state control, by the back door, and nationalisation not just without compensation but with farmers having to pay for the privilege. The Labour party's policy document on farming which was approved at their party conference is absolutely clear that there must be rating of agricultural land. If a Labour Government were to come to office, a £5,000 a year earner on the Denbigh moors would not only be clobbered by swingeing quota cuts, or deprived of the right to do what he wants with his own land and lose the ability to hand it on to his children under Labour capital taxation proposals, but would also have all the iniquities of the present domestic rating system thrust upon him.
We all know why Labour has it in for the farmer. That party hates the farmer, with his tradition of independence, hard work, efficiency and private ownership. At least the Opposition should be honest about it and not pretend that the party of urban minorities harbours anything but hostility for farmers. Gumboots do not suit the Opposition. It is time to take urgent action to help some
666
of our most hard-working and deserving people, lest the countryside of Wales as we know it becomes a barren and empty wasteland.
8.55 pm
Mr. Gareth Wardell: I agree with the last sentence of the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Harvey)—that it is fundamentally important that the family farm in Wales should not be allowed to disappear. The support for agriculture is of paramount importance.
I should like to comment on some of the speeches in the debate. The hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) was right in what he said about the problems of the mentally ill and about the lack of facilities available for such people when they are discharged into the community. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying those things.
The health advisory service report on the mentally ill in Gwynedd appeared in August last year and painted a dismal picture. A private home in Llandudno was shown in a particularly bad light. I hope that the Minister will tell the House when the consultative paper on the mentally ill will be produced by the Welsh Office and whether it will heed the advice contained in the Welsh advisory service report.
The points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman) about open-cast mining are well taken. It is a pity that the Government did not accept the recommendation in the energy commission's report on coal and the environment, especially that which said that there should be a continuation of the limit on the ceiling of 15 million tonnes a year of open-cast coal with a reduction thereafter. Instead of that, we saw last week the publication of the report by the Select Committee on Energy. It shows quite clearly that the open-cast executive intends to raise production from 15 million tonnes a year in the United Kingdom to 18 million tonnes but it does not accept that ceiling as sacrosanct. It is a great shame that that is so.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) referred to cervical cancer. Last Wednesday the Secretary of State for Social Services came to the Dispatch Box and made his statement about additional screening for both breast cancer and cervical cancer. I was delighted by his statement, but I thought that it was rather unsatisfactory, to put it at its mildest, that a press release was issued about what is to happen in Wales and that there was no opportunity to discuss what is to happen in Wales in the House. Again, it is a great pity that the Secretary of State for Wales has not yet come to a decision on a report that has been in his hands since before Christmas regarding the radiotherapy services in Wales, in particular those for cervical cancer at Singleton and Velindre hospitals.
When the Prime Minister addressed the annual convention of the Institute of Directors last week she painted a picture of Britain that is unrecognisable by many communities in Wales. By the careful selection of statistics, the Prime Minister glossed over those sectors of the economy that she has caused to be decimated—the small businesses that have been hit by the recession and high interest rates, resulting in a record number of bankruptcies, the decline in our manufacturing industries, the penalties and the deprivation, and the high levels of unemployment and poverty.

667
For the last eight years, this Government have overseen a massive multiplication in the number of those who are living in poverty. By the pursuit from 1979 to mid-1986 of monetarist policies, the Government have increased unemployment in Wales from 6·9 per cent. in 1979 to 16·4 per cent. today. To make the point that a 10 per cent. increase in unemployment means that for every 10 people in Wales who are wage earners an extra person is on the dole is in itself a sufficient indictment of the Government's policies. I do not need to elaborate on the thousands of unemployed who no longer are counted, following the Government's retreat into cheap statistical manipulation.
If we look back to 1979 when this Government came to office, we can see the inexorable decline in manufacturing industry. Government figures, released in January, show that there was a net loss of 1·57 million jobs in Britain between June 1979 and June 1986. While there was an increase in the service sector of 861,000 full and part-time jobs, there was a fall in the manufacturing sector of 1,968,000. Every region, except East Anglia, shared in the decline, but Wales, together with north-west Yorkshire and Humberside, has lost most—more than 35 per cent. of our manufacturing jobs. We have also lost service sector jobs.
It is this callous neglect of manufacturing industry in Britain—which, as a trading nation, we shall always need—that has emphasised and encouraged the north-south divide that is now so starkly evident in Britain today. Conservative Members have rightly said that there are areas of prosperity in Wales. For example, before 1960 the Swansea valley was designated the largest area of industrial dereliction in Britain, with 60 per cent. of it covered by slag heaps, ruined buildings and abandoned railways and canals. Much of it was contaminated land. With both public and private investment, Swansea city council and West Glamorgan county council have transformed the area. They have created over 1,000 new jobs in the tourism and service sector in the marina-linked projects. They have created 2,000 new jobs so far in the enterprise park. However, that has been achieved despite the Government. It has been achieved despite the cuts in rate support grant, threats of penalties and ridiculous restrictions on capital spending.
The north-south divide debate is about the Government's abdication of responsibility. It is about cuts in public spending which meant the abandonment of an effective regional policy. It is about a lack of investment in proper training for new skills and a lack of investment in infrastructure.
Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I do not understand how the hon. Gentleman can say that that has happened in Swansea despite the Government, when the marina development was made possible largely by the urban development grant scheme initiated by the Government. The enterprise park to which he referred was the creation of the Government and it was opposed by his own party.
Mr. Wardell: As I said earlier, I accept that there was public and private investment. However, the work that has taken place there has been against a background of general economic cuts. That has made the job very much more difficult.
I have to tell the Secretary of State that the north-south divide debate is about the net loss of 1·1 million jobs north of the Wash against the net job creation of 356,000 in the
668
southern belt. It is about all that that implies for increased poverty and increased inequality in all sorts of ways, but especially health.
The Government say little, if anything, about the link between inequality, unemployment and ill health. There has been the Black report "Inequalities in Health", which produced detailed evidence of differences in health and life expectancy between social classes. Sir Dugald Baird, in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, showed that having a healthy baby was related to the health care and social class of the mother when she was growing up. The Manpower Services Commission paper "The Long Term Unemployed" said that there was evidence that long-term unemployment has indirect effects on the health of longterm claimants and their wives. The report of the House of Lords Select Committee on unemployment found that rates of infant mortality in Northern Ireland, higher there than in the rest of the United Kingdom to start with, became higher still in unemployed families, perhaps because of low nutrition as a result of lower income.
In the World Health Organisation's report "Health Policy Implications of Unemployment", which is a compilation and assessment of various international studies of the links between unemployment and health, the editors say that
"Experience from many countries indicates that insecurity at work, unemployment and under-employment can seriously affect social functioning, health and well-being".
The editors summarise by saying that the evidence showed that there was a vicious circle of poverty, unemployment, other social and economic symptoms of inequality, discrimination, social vulnerability and chronic illness.
Only last month Professor John Catford of Heartbeat Wales told us:
"health is not just about making choices concerning the lifestyle we lead. It is also about the opportunities and resources available to carry them out. In Britain, the healthy choices are not the easy choices. The result is that those in a more favourable position because of education and income have a head start."
That is what all the latest research shows and that is why the Government's abdication of responsibility for protecting employment opportunities and for creating employment in Wales and other such areas is so diabolical.
There is no commitment by the Government to alleviate the inequalities in health and opportunities stemming from high levels of unemployment and poverty. The Government's so-called anti-poverty strategy has been mere propaganda. Think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of how many times the Government have used their majority to change the law when their interpretation of regulations has been illegal. One current such case involves the unemployment benefit for part-time community scheme workers. The Government have built up an industry of masking cuts in entitlement to benefit and reductions in benefits. Instead of defending well-being, they have created increasing poverty among groups such as pensioners, the disabled, single parents and the unemployed and their families.
However, the Government have begun to see the light. The light in this case is election day. Despite the facts that the Prime Minister still has 15 months to go, has a majority of almost 140 and can, as she did on Thursday in the final stages of the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill, enshrine in legislation her slightest whim about what she thinks is best for Britain, everyone says that we are in an election

669
year. That conjures up one of the Prime Minister's election date dilemmas. She can hardly go to the country after the cuts in pensions and in benefits for the sick and disabled, for single parents and their children and for the unemployed and their families contained in the Social Security Act 1986 which is to be fully implemented in April 1988. Or does the right hon. Lady really think that hammering the poor while they are down is a vote winner? I think not.
I think that the Government know that the Act will be an edict which will condemn yet another generation of parents and their children to the deprivation and health risks associated with poverty and increased inequality. In Wales we have more than our fair share of communities that will, if the Act is implemented, be yet another generation of parents and children condemned to deprivation and health risks associated with unemployment and poverty.
If the Government really believe that their policies are right, let them wait until May 1988 for an election. Let the Secretary of State for Wales fight in the Cabinet and issue a challenge to the Prime Minister, saying that if she is the brave lady that she claims to be she should wait until May 1988, when we will know what the Government's antipoverty stategy is all about. The problem for the Government is that they would then be sent packing.
9.14 pm
Mr. Keith Best: The misery spread by the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) is typical of the Labour party, but it does not relate to the facts.
What a contrast we have seen in the debate. We heard first from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State who is, by common consent, the best ever Secretary of State for Wales. That point has been made by Opposition Members during the debate, not only quietly to me in the Lobby outside. Next we heard from the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), the shadow Secretary of State. What an apt description that is, and what a shadow the hon. Gentleman is. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside does not have a mirror in front of him on the Dispatch Box. I do not accuse him of narcissism, but if he had been able to see the faces of his hon. Friends behind him when he made his speech he would have been even more miserable than he was.
I thought that it would be appropriate to look up the debate held in the House exactly 10 years ago, in 1977. The Government did not then provide time for a Welsh day debate. In fact, it had to be taken out of Opposition time, and only some two hours and 40 minutes were allowed for the debate. My right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State complained 10 years ago that Wales used to have an annual Welsh day debate, but that the Government put it off until the tail end of the Session and then only late on a Friday evening. That was the action of the Labour party in office, but the Labour Opposition are now asking the people of Wales to put their trust in them after the next election.
Ten years ago, there was an inflation rate of 23 per cent. under the Labour Government. The consequences of the Labour Government's economic policies meant that inflation was double the rate of that of our competitors overseas. Industry was producing less than it had produced in 1971. Indeed, it was producing less under the
670
Labour Government than it produced with the three-day week. What answer did the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) have? He said :
"We begin, rightly so, with the present level of unemployment. It concerns all of us. To listen to the hon. Member for Pembroke one would imagine that only the Opposition were concerned with the economic situation and unemployment. Unemployment cannot be divorced from the economic situation. It flows from it. It is not a peculiarly Welsh problem. It is not even a peculiarly British problem. Not even an Offa's Dyke, the English Channel, or the Atlantic Ocean can shelter us from the world-wide effects of a recession."—[Official Report, 28 February 1977; Vol. 927, c. 62.]
How true those words were. One has a sense of déJà vu.
This Government have achieved lower inflation and lower unemployment. It is obvious that the Opposition do not like that. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan), a former Prime Minister, said with characteristic frankness that he did not know the answer to unemployment. That was a frank statement and I commend him for that. It is a shame that that was his last speech in a Welsh day debate. However, I know that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that the way forward to future employment can come only through growth. Indeed, he has said it himself on many occasions.
I want to mention an example from my constituency to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred. My right hon. Friend referred to the DRIVE project, in which £200,000 will go from the Welsh Development Agency towards the Pringle scheme of £2 million which will transform Llanfairpwll station and create a manufacturing unit with 100 jobs. That is proof positive of a company set up outside a development area. Opposition Members make great play about the restriction of development area status, but they fail to appreciate the amount of selective assistance for companies outside.
There is now an urban renewal unit in the WDA and I am optimistic that money will be forthcoming to help Holyhead, which needs that money. We have had £220,000 urban development grant to aid the fishing industry in Holyhead with all the capacity for downstream packaging and other industries that will provide employment in the area. A company in Holyhead called MEM is working overtime four days a week. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside, who every so often trespasses into my constituency, appears not to visit companies of that kind to witness the success being achieved there.
Wales is undergoing a great period of change. I cannot resist responding to the comment by the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside that I will lose my seat at the next election. I know that the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) does not like opinion polls, and he will not like this one either. An accurate opinion poll was taken recently and, for all I know, the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside may have watched the television programme on BBC Wales last Friday which showed that in my constituency at the moment 38 per cent. of people would vote Conservative, 20 per cent. would vote Plaid Cymru and 30 per cent would vote Labour. The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside frequently says that the seat must be taken by the Labour party—indeed, the brother-in-law of the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) is standing as a candidate against me—but it would appear that the Labour party has blown that one as well.

671
All that the Opposition can say in answer to the good news that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State imparted at the beginning of the debate about the new jobs that have been created in Wales—not by my right hon. Friend but by the private investment that has been stimulated through the pump-priming public funds provided by the Government—is that the Government are fiddling the figures. My advice to Labour Members is to continue accusing the Government of fiddling the unemployment figures. It is their only chance, however disingenuous they may be. I am confident that they will still be talking about fiddling, or even undertaking that activity, when the last unemployed person in Wales has found a job through the Government's restart scheme or other assistance. The Opposition need not be too worried about not getting their act together in time for the election because they will have another four or five years on the Opposition Benches to perfect their act.
9.20 pm
Mr. Roy Hughes: This has been our annual Welsh day debate and it has run true to form. The Secretary of State put his usual gloss on things. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) said that the Secretary of State had engaged in adjectival ministerial excess. What a marvellous description! He has had nearly eight years as Secretary of State, and I have been unable to discover the Wales in which he lives. Only Opposition Members have portrayed the reality in Wales, and there was a great contrast with the speeches of Conservative Members. The only shaft of light among Conservative Members came from the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer).
Wales has been going through a period of mass unemployment such as it has not known for 50 years, and the Opposition say clearly that the Government bear much of the responsibility for that heavy unemployment. The lack of employment for so many people, with the downgrading of the work ethic, means that young people especially turn elsewhere.
Here I wish to make a constituency point that has relevance for the entire country. On many occasions, local authorities, including mine, have voiced their anxiety about the inadequacy of existing planning and licensing legislation to control amusement arcades and centres and the social effects associated with their use. Local authorities cannot decide what is best for their communities and whether to grant permission for amusement arcades because the Secretary of State for Wales overrides their decisions. As effective licensing powers are not available, the planning system is called upon to exert control, but planners can do little because the moral concerns that motivate the public cannot be taken into account when determining the application.
What worries me most is the absence of powers to restrict young people from entering the arcades unaccompanied. They run great risks. At the very least, they may lose substantial sums of money. They may develop an addiction to gambling and their need for money may lead them into crime or prostitution as a means of earning money, especially at a time of high unemployment among young people in Wales.
The Government must take steps to deal with this growing problem and not bury their heads in the sand. It is time that they took the moral issues into account.
672
Increasing evidence is being gathered by the police, education authorities and social workers as to the detrimental effects of those machines on children. Gamblers Anonymous says that one in five of those who turn to it for help are aged between 12 and 17 years. Twenty per cent. of gamblers who seek help are child fruit machine addicts. The serious consequences of the Government's failure to act cannot be tolerated indefinitely. We need urgent action. The Secretary of State for Wales must appreciate that his inaction is helping to create a casino society in Wales.
I did not impugn the Secretary of State's integrity in any way during my altercation with him. All that I said was that I could not understand how I knew about the intentions of Trafalgar House when the Secretary of State, with all his back-up staff, did not. At least I can say that my information was perfectly reliable. I have taken some interest in the Severn bridge. The Government repeatedly state that the effect of tolls is marginal, but any student of elementary economics will be aware that matters are decided at the margin. If one follows the route of the M4 heading towards Reading, Swindon and the Bristol area, one can see the obvious employment and prosperity. Yet: that good fortune does not cross the Severn bridge. As Mario Basini, in his perceptive article in the 19 February edition of the Western Mail, said :
"… Wales's economic future continues to look as bleak as a derelict coal mine or an abandoned steelworks."
Even if we accept the Minister's argument about marginality, there are many exceptions. Many people in the Caldicot and Chepstow areas are employed on the other side of the channel. Some are redundant steel workers from Llangwm. They accepted the advice of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to get on their bikes, but the Government do not give them much incentive to do so. In fact, they penalise them and they have to pay £10 per week net in addition to the normal costs of motoring.
The finances of the Severn bridge are now a complete and utter farce. A short while ago, the Government won their battle to increase tolls by 150 per cent. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport told me that the amount now likely to be collected in tolls in a full year will be about £8 million. On 28 January in answer to a parliamentary question by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern), he said that the original cost of construction of the Severn bridge was £9·8 million.
The Avon bridge opened in 1974. After a two-year overrun, it cost £10 million to construct. Yet there is no toll burden on the Avon bridge. Why is there such discrimination? The Severn bridge is only a short stretch of the M4. Let us compare the construction cost of £9·8 million with the debt which, at 31 March 1985, was £55·8 million. Two years have elapsed since then, so there has been a considerable increase. Hon. Members must compare the construction cost of £9·8 million with the amount collected in tolls. Again, the figure is two years out of date. It was £29·7 million and it is now moving towards £40 million in tolls for a bridge which cost £9·8 million to construct, and that burden is being imposed on a battered Welsh economy.
Mr. Grist: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hughes: I have not finished this piece yet.
There is discrimination against the Severn bridge, which serves Wales, as compared with the Avon bridge, which serves Bristol and the west. There are now

673
developments which could produce a further anomaly. The Transport Select Committee, after a full inquiry into tolls on estuarial crossings, called last March for their abolition. Durings its investigation, the Committee discovered that 40 per cent. of the debt was in respect of the Humber bridge. The Secretary of State for Transport is worried about that and discussions have been going on for months between the Department and authorities up there to try to rectify the situation.
Mr. Grist: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hughes: No. I have not finished.
If the Government propose to write off the debt on the Humber bridge, that would represent further discrimination against Wales, which has such a chronic unemployment problem. Abolishing tolls would have a significant psychological effect which would bring practical benefit to the Welsh economy.
I know that we all want to do our best for Wales.
Mr. Grist: Has the hon. Gentleman finished now?
Mr. Hughes: No. I appeal to the Secretary of State, in view of the facts and figures that I have presented, to go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If the Chancellor has the surplus that the financial columnists tell us he has, he should be able to do something.
Mr. Grist: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I imagine that he remembers that when the toll was first brought in it was half a crown, which was a great deal more than the toll is worth today. Indeed, it would be 80p if the value had been maintained. That means that the toll has not covered what was originally intended during the past few years.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Humber bridge, which was built as a result of the 1965 by-election. I am sure that he remembers that. It was a prime example of doing public works for political ends, which is exactly what should be avoided.
Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is even more naive than I imagined. Is he unaware that 2 million more people are now out of work in Britain than in 1979? More than 100,000 more people are unemployed in Wales. That is why I am calling for the concession.
Unemployment has undoubtedly been the kernel of the debate. It is beyond dispute that 100,000 more people are out of work in Wales than when the Government came to office. The seasonally adjusted figure for January shows an increase from 5·9 per cent. to 13·4 per cent. That is an indictment of the Government, who campaigned and were elected on the slogan, "Labour isn't working." The Government have no major plan to reverse the catastrophe. In their recent evidence to the EEC, as revealed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), the Government were clearly reconciled to the fact that mass unemployment in Wales would continue for years. So little has been done to remedy the problems. During the Government's term of office, there has been a 24 per cent. drop in manufacturing investment from £643 million to £486 million.
Another Government move hardly likely to regenerate the Welsh economy was the decision to halve regional development assistance from £137·5 million in 1979 to £85·9 million last year. In fairness, at least the Government
674
seem conscious of the damage that their policies have caused, but instead of tackling those problems they admit to fiddling the unemployment figures. We have had no fewer than 19 changes in the method of calculating the figures. Many thousands have been taken off the register in Wales alone. Perhaps even more difficult to justify is the Government's decision to include the self-employed. That is a novel introduction, as is the inclusion of the armed forces. Will it be the inmates of Her Majesty's prisons next? Part-time jobs are counted as full-time jobs. Two part-time jobs done by the same person are classed as though two jobs are done by different people. All the fiddling is the work of Lord Young's shrink tank. Even locally, in Newport, the employment figures are in constant dispute. The South Wales Argus said, on 13 February, under the headline:
"Gwent Job Losses Highest In Wales. Employment in Gwent has suffered the worst setback in Wales according to the latest set of jobless statistics."
It is not only unemployment. There is deprivation in so many sectors. This deprivation simply stunts the life of Wales as a whole, as it does that of so many communities, families and individuals. The Prime Minister has told us that the National Health Service is safe in her hands, but no one in Wales believes that.
"Heartbeat Wales", referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Dr. Thomas), in its press report on 19 February said:
"there are large social inequalities in health. Those in manual groups and the unemployed are much worse off."
The breakdown in law and order and the soaring crime statistics were referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. The Government have invested heavily in law and order, but with puny results. In education, we have had chaos in the classrooms—much of it the direct result of underfunding, when the drop in the number of pupils could have brought real progress with a major reduction in the pupil-teacher ratio. The Government's latest move is to take away negotiating rights from teachers' trade unions. What a travesty that is.
My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside gave the facts and figures about the housing crisis. My hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman) referred to the perceptive article by Mary Evans of the Western Mail on 26 February, when she spoke of the chief environmental health officer's searing indictment of the failure to provide the people of Wales with adequate homes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Mark Robinson): What are the Labour party's policies?
Mr. Hughes: The policies of the Labour party have been clearly set out time and again. I am sorry if the Under-Secretary of State is still not fully acquainted with them. I assure him that before the general election Mr. Paul Flynn will make him well acquainted with them as Mr. Flynn will be the next Member for the hon. Gentleman's constituency of Newport, West.
The Government preside over not a united but a divided kingdom. A future Labour Government will take all the necessary steps to remedy that.
9.39 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): Believe it or not, St. David was a holy man and it would be appropriate for me to quote a verse from the Book of Ecclesiastes:
"Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with they might".
That injunction has certainly been obeyed by my right hon. Friend in his pursuit of policies for Wales during his entire period as Secretary of State. No one who has worked as closely with him as I have would dissent from that view, and I say the same about the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan), who gave us his swan song this evening, certainly as far as Welsh days are concerned.
We are now seeing the fruits of my right hon. Friend's remarkable vigour and proof that
"the hand of the diligent maketh rich"
because the prospects for Wales are steadily improving, whatever Opposition Members may say. My right hon. Friend's opening speech presented a panorama of achievements in the recent past and a fine prospectus of betterments planned but yet to be fully realised. The foundations of a more prosperous future have been well and truly laid as was made abundantly clear at the start of this debate.
I have heard nothing from the Opposition Benches that leads me to believe that any of the Opposition parties offers Wales a better future. The truth is that they have been too busy criticising the Government to think positively and constructively about their own long-term policies. As my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) said in his stirring speech, we have heard more about the Opposition's policies outside this Chamber than we have heard of them within it. The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) is very fond of making hole and corner statements that he cannot resist leaking to the press. He made a statement the other day on education, in which he juggled with statistics in a way that must have aroused the envy of that master conjuror, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). I had the facts checked and there were three pages of corrections. Of course, I shall not weary the House with them.
However, we have had references to the frequent visits to Wales from members of the Opposition Front Bench. I do not know whether the Shadow Transport Minister, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), actually came to Wales, but it was he who perpetrated the idea of doing away with vehicle excise duty and incidentally running down the driver and vehicle licensing centre at Swansea. Of course, the Welsh Labour group reacted smartly, if we are to believe the Western Mail, with a letter to the Leader of the Opposition the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) saying:
"We will not win votes for this; 58 per cent. of motorists will lose by it and it will be difficult to convince the other 42 per cent. that they have gained."
So the question is, "Where do the Labour Party stand on this issue now?"
Mr. Donald Anderson: The answer is clear. The hon. Gentleman knows that that idea is flirted with by politicians from time to time. It has been flirted with by Mr. William Rodgers, who is now in the Social Democratic party, by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) three years ago, and now by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr.
676
Hughes) — [Interruption.] I have not finished. Hon. Members representing constituencies in the west Glamorgan area have seen off the Conservative plan for doing that three years ago, and we shall see it off again.
Mr. Roberts: It is quite clear that disunity continues to prevail in the Labour party, but I shall not add another act to the Deirdre sorrows.
There have been numerous references to housing. We have set gross provision for housing capital expenditure by Welsh local authorities in 1987–88 at £182 million. At £29 million higher than previously planned, it has enabled us to make available to local authorities housing allocations totalling £154 million.
The allocation process reflects our view that the renovation of both the public and private sector stock should again be the major priority investment next year. Accordingly, within the total available for allocation, some £70 million has been earmarked to encourage local authorities to concentrate their resources on renovation, including up to £20 million for the cost-effective programmes of enveloping and block repair.
I remind the House that between 1979–80 and 1980–85, we spent £333 million on renovation grants to the private sector, in comparison with the previous Labour Government's mere £57 million. Between 1979–80 and 1980–85, some £259 million was spent on renovating the local authority stock compared with the Labour Government's £86 million. So I am not happy to be lectured by Opposition Members on housing.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has increased the net provision for the Housing Corporation by £10 million to £55 million. The increased provision will enable housing associations in Wales to maintain a programme of 1,700 new dwellings for rent per year. It also includes new money to stimulate major investment by the private sector in rented housing, following the pioneering scheme to provide up to 600 homes for rent at St. Mellons, Cardiff. Similar projects on a smaller scale have now been approved at Abergavenny, Chepstow and Carmarthen and several further projects are under consideration. We anticipate that we can achieve another 700 homes for rent in Wales next year through such partnership schemes. We have always been in favour of a sound rented sector. We owe many of our housing problems today to the maltreatment of that sector in the past.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that I would have something to say on education and training. There is a great deal happening as we try to adapt the system to meet future needs. As hon. Members will be aware, both those areas, with the exception of the university, come within my right hon. Friend's sphere of responsibility, and there are distinct advantages in such unity of responsibility.
As to vocational training, I am sure that the House will approve of the progress that is being made at all levels. The success of the technical and vocational education initiative, which has been piloted in secondary schools from 1983 onwards, has been remarkable. Every LEA in Wales is now involved, and we look forward to an extension of the initiative.
The youth training scheme also enjoys a high reputation. There is no doubt that it provides training which is valued by young people and those who later employ them. The extension of the YTS to two years and

677
to 17-years-olds, together with the possibility of securing a recognised qualification through the scheme, are significant strides forward, and there is no doubt that we have come a long way since the earliest versions of the scheme.
As from the end of this month, there will be the job training scheme, which is aimed particularly at 18 to 25-year-olds who have been unemployed for six months. It will be based on our experience of running YTS and will provide high quality training. There are training developments at the Polytechnic of Wales, and at the university and, of course, there are adult training schemes.
An important current development is the increasing emphasis on vocational education and training. I am sure that it is a healthy and natural development in response to the demands of advancing technology and the requirements of the labour market. Of course, we are taking steps, through the introduction of advanced secondary courses, for example, to avoid excessive specialisation and to ensure that a reasonably balanced diet of subjects is maintained. A strong influence by parents on how our schools are run is being progressively achieved and there are more developments ahead.
In that context, I should tell my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist) that the proposals concerning the Howardian high school, published on 12 February, are now subject to a two-month period for local views to be put to South Glamorgan local education authority. After that, the case will fall to Ministers. Therefore, it would be wrong for me to comment, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will take all views into account.
In short, training and retraining are coming to be seen as an essential part of everyone's working life. That is good for the individual, in that it equips him with the skills that are in demand at any given time, and good for the country, because it helps to eliminate skill shortages and ensures that our work force remains adaptable and capable of meeting the ever-changing requirements of modern industry.
I want to comment on the views of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth about manufacturing and service industries. One cannot look at manufacturing employment or manufacturing investment in a vacuum. When a world recession hits a sector which is suffereing from poor competitiveness, a fall in manufacturing investment is almost inevitable. In Wales manufacturing investment fell between 1979 and 1984. Between 1983 and 1984, manufacturing investment in Wales rose by 28 per cent. Industry in Wales is now more competitive and better adapted to the demands of a modern economy. I must point out that about a quarter of the manufacturing firms in Wales have opened since 1979.
Prospects in this country are improving. As Christopher Smallwood said in The Sunday Times yesterday, productivity has risen as much in the last five years as in the previous 15 years, and consistently faster than in any other industrial country. Manufacturers are increasing their share of overseas markets. Mr. Smallwood goes on to say that last year's big devaluation of the pound has left British goods 25 per cent. cheaper in relation to our continental competitors, and this huge competitive advantage, on top of the progress which has already been
678
made, means that the opportunities facing manufacturing industry are unparalleled since the war. Everything points to a sustained industrial revival. The picture that Britain is still going down the road to an industrial wasteland becomes less convincing with every day that passes. Those are Mr. Smallwood's words, not mine.
In a nutshell, the Opposition's case is that the Government's policies have failed and that the prime cause of the alleged failure was the Government's expenditure policies. Let us look at the record. Spending on the National Health Service in Wales is up 28 per cent. in real terms since 1978. Recurring revenue provision is up by 33 per cent. in real terms since 1979. The hospital capital building and development programme has cost £490 million since 1979. The number of staff who are directly concerned with patient care has increased by 13·5 per cent. between 1979 and 1985. Throughput of patients in hospitals has increased. In-patient cases are up by 76,000 a year and the number of new out-patients is up by 64,000 a year.
The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) referred to the mentally ill, so let me tell him what happened with the mental handicap strategy. It is planned to spend some £10 million in 1987–88 on that strategy, which we originated.
Expenditure on education was 2·5 per cent. more in real terms in 1984–85 than in 1978–79. Pupil numbers have dropped by 10 per cent., so expenditure per head is at a record high. Pupil-teacher ratios have improved to 17·6 pupils per teacher. Sixty-nine per cent. of the under-fives are in nursery classes—a higher percentage than in England and an increase of 40 per cent. from 29,000 to 41,000 since 1979.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Roberts: The number of enrolments in local authority colleges of higher education has increased since 1979 by 50 per cent. from 9,300 to 14,377. Taking all the higher education sectors in Wales together, student numbers increased by 20 per cent. between 1979–80 and 1985–86.
Mr. Wigley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman has not been here at all. He has missed the one and only Welsh day debate in the year.
I shall now give part of the record on the economy. Last year, 1986, was a record year for factory allocations by Government agencies in Wales—more than 2·5 million sq ft. There were 1,200 offers of job-related regional assistance, promising about 20,000 jobs and safeguarding 4,000 others. This compares with fewer than 10,000 jobs associated with offers of regional selected assistance in 1979. Seasonally adjusted unemployment has fallen in nine of the past 10 months. My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Sir R. Gower) mentioned the self-employed. In September 1986 there were estimated to be 154,000 self-employed—an increase of 39,000 over June 1981. There is far more of this record, and we shall get down to it.
Government spending in Wales in the coming year will be at record high levels. Planned spending for the following two years will be very high as well. But it will not be wild, indiscriminate and profligate spending of the type about which the Opposition are always talking — the

679
type that made us paupers at the door of the IMF in 1976. It is all spending that we can afford, spending that is necessary to achieve our political objectives, and spending that we shall watch constantly to ensure that the taxpayer gets full value for his money.
Yes, we shall spend more on strengthening the economy. Yes, we shall spend more on roads and river crossings. They are part of the essential infrastructure of a better future. Yes, we shall spend more on education and training to equip the young people of Wales with the knowledge and skills that they will need in a competitive world. Yes, we shall spend more on the Health Service to enable it to respond to changing needs. All this is clear evidence of our commitment further to improve conditions in Wales and to provide a better life for its people. There is only one certainty for the people of Wales under a Labour Administration. They would face increases in taxation year after year, increased borrowing by the Government and, in due course, a return to high inflation. It happened before and it would happen again.
Faced with the choice that they will have to make at the next election, the people of Wales must reject Socialism if they want a better, brighter future for their children—a future that is already within their grasp. They must reject the purgatory offered by the Liberals and the SDP and their tripe and waffle of policies, fine for a palaver on the doorstep but useless as a basis for conducting government.
They must choose the firm future that the Government proffers, because it is based on the often difficult but sound policies that have secured for the country the advantageous position we occupy today. The people of Wales have a lot to gain if they make the right decision, and I am sure that they will make the right choice when the time comes.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed without Question put.

Milk and Dairy Charges
Mr. Speaker: We now come to the prayer on the Milk and Dairies and Milk (Special Designation) (Charges) Regulations 1987 in the name of the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) and his right hon. and hon. Friends. Before I call upon the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), I should tell the House that there is a great deal of interest in this debate and I appeal for short contributions. The debate must end at 11.30 pm.
10 pm
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Milk and Dairies and Milk (Special Designation) (Charges) Regulations 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 212), dated 15th February 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th February, be annulled.
As I am sure hon. Members know, these regulations will be brought into effect on 13 March. It is reasonable to say that they have caused a storm in farming circles because of the effects that they will have, especially on small dairy farmers. A cursory study of what has gone on over the past two years will reveal precisely why they have caused such a storm. The effects of the Government's policy, especially in relation to milk quotas, the way in which the regulations have been introduced, their retrospective nature and the way in which they have hit small farmers have been devastating to the dairy sector.
The incomes of dairy farmers fell by 25 per cent. last year compared with the year before and were down by 45 per cent. over previous years. They now stand at the lowest. level of all but one year since the war. It has been established that there will be and, indeed, there have been visits to check conditions under which milk is produced. That is done in the interests of public health. In the past the cost of such visits has been borne by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The Government are now proposing to institute a charge of £90 per visit to a herd of more than 20 cows and £80 per visit to a herd of fewer than 20 cows. That sum is to be levied and raised with the milk cheque through the Milk Marketing Board.
Farmers, the National Farmers Union and the Opposition parties have three basic objections to the Government's proposals. First, why pick on farmers again? No other charges are made for food hygiene purposes under, for example, the Act of 1984. No charge is levied on grocers, butchers or cafés. The principle of inspection in relation to public health matters has always been that since visits are in the public interest the public should pay. That has always been the case in the past and it remains the case in other areas. Why have the Government picked on farmers to break that basic principle? Farmers and hon. Members want to know the answer to that question.
Our second objection is that the charge is levied through the Milk Marketing Board. Therefore, it is required against its wishes to levy a charge for which it has no responsibility. It cannot decently be held accountable for this charge. That breaks the basic principle of good management, let alone good government, which is that those who carry out an act should at least be accountable for it. It is wholly unreasonable to place on the Milk Marketing Board the job of doing the Government's dirty

681
work. The Milk Marketing Board has made that quite clear in letters circulated to many hon. Members. In capital letters and in bold type the board says:
"We do not accept that they"—
that is, the Government—
"should be allowed the soft option of forcing the board to deduct these charges from payments due to milk producers for their milk."
That is a fair statement, clearly put.
There is also legitimate concern that this charge will be levied directly from the milk cheque that farmers receive for products that go to the Milk Marketing Board. That is a very bad principle to establish. I have tried to draw some kind of parallel. The only one that I have been able to draw is that hon. Members would find it fundamentally unfair if the Government sought to recover rates charges by reducing mortgage interest relief. That is what farmers are being asked to accept and it is a very unfair and unreasonable way of levying this charge.
The chief anger is not so much about the way in which it is to be levied, or about the fact that farmers have been singled out for special attention, as about the level of the charge. The Government say that there should be a charge of £90 for a visit. It is calculated that each visit will take about one hour, so we are talking about £90 an hour. The Government have explained on a number of occasions that there are overheads and other charges, but that charge of £90 has to be compared with £19 for a visit by a qualified agricultural consultant.
Mr. Andy Stewart indicated assent.
Mr. Ashdown: I see the hon. Gentleman nodding. Clearly, he takes the matter as seriously as we do. The charge that the Milk Marketing Board makes for qualified advisers is £150 per day. That charge includes overheads and a profit element. A qualified adviser could certainly make more than two visits in a day. At £90, two visits alone would be £180, which means a profit of £30. I do not know how the Government can justify raising a reasonable hourly rate from £19 to £90.
The Government are to introduce charges for their Agricultural Development and Advisory Services. The charges are likely to be set at between £20 and £30. In this case, however, the charge is to be £90. A more precise parallel is the inspection of medicated foodstuffs, to be introduced next year. This inspection is in line with EEC regulations and will be conducted by the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain on behalf of the Government. That is precisely analogous. Farms will be visited and the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain has calculated a charge that will include overheads and other indirect costs. Pharmacists are much more highly qualified and much more highly paid, but the charge to be levied is only £40, not £90.
It is reasonable for us to question the basis of the charge. If £90 is an effective real cost, we can only draw the conclusion that it stands at that level because of the monstrous inefficiency of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. If that is not so, it means that an indirect and sly tax is being levied on farmers.
Mr. Paul Marland: The hon. Gentleman has rightly drawn attention to the money that farmers are being asked to pay and has emphasised that this will impose a burden on small farmers. Is he aware
682
that the Liberals who are now in charge of Gloucestershire county council have passed a resolution to rate agricultural land at the soonest opportunity?
Mr. Ashdown: I need to be careful here, because the hon. Gentleman's question is straying a long, long way—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] My answer is that the public and the farmers know that the only time that the rating of agricultural land has come before this House has been as a proposal from a Conservative Member. When that proposal was defeated it is on the record that it was Liberal Members who led the opposition [Interruption.] Oh yes, it was. I can go on for a long time yet. Conservative Members may not like it, but I remind them that it was a Conservative Member who sought to rate agricultural land and it was the Liberal party who led the opposition to defeat that move.
Mr. William Cash rose—
Mr. Ashdown: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I have been talking for 10 minutes already.
Mr. Cash rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I cannot have two hon. Members on their feet at the same time.
Mr. Ashdown: In the interests of getting through this reasonably quickly and without further interruption, I shall continue with what I was saying.
I was talking about the level of the charge and why it has been set at that level. In a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) on 10 February 1987, the Secretary of State for Wales gave some of his reasons. The House may be interested to know what he had to say. He said :
"All these costs have been carefully calculated."
If that is so, when the Under-Secretary of State replies, if that is so, will he undertake to put those costs—all of them—and the detail behind them in the Library of the House so that they can be properly inspected? I ask him to answer that question in particular. The Secretary of State for Wales went on to give perhaps some of the real intentions behind the cost. He said that there was
"no intention either to operate at a profit or to cross-subsidise other services".
His slip shows later in the letter when he makes the revealing statement:
"The decision to charge producers for this work needs to be seen in the context of overall support for the dairy industry."
Is that exactly how the Government see it?
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Donald Thompson)indicated assent.
Mr. Ashdown: The Minister nods. He agrees that the Government see it as part of recovering the overall charges. But those two statements cannot stand together. They are contradictory. It is clear that what the Government have sought to do is recover through the charges, not just as they claim, and by nodding assent the Minister has agreed, the cost of those visits but other costs and the return of other monies related to the general level of support. That is the case that we make.
The Secretary of State for Wales goes on in the letter to say:
"The object of charging … is to cover all costs that the Agriculture Departments incur in administering the milk and dairy regulations."

683
We know that there are other milk and dairy regulations. Is it to recover costs for those too — for instance, in respect of import-export regulations or the checking of hygiene standards for producer-retailers and so on? We need to know because the Government seem to be speaking with two voices. Either the charge is to recover general costs from other areas or it is genuinely, as the Minister has claimed until now, solely calculated on the basis of the cost of the visits.
It is interesting to note that the Milk Marketing Board has taken a different line. It is not one with which I am inclined to agree immediately, but it is necessary to mention it. The board has said that in its view it may not be necessary to make those charges in the first place, bearing in mind that milk producers have their milk tested by the Milk Marketing Board four times a month and that a premium is paid on more than 80 per cent. of the milk produced, which demonstrates its high quality. The board says that poor performance in hygiene matters is already subject to penalties and can result ultimately in the termination of the contract. In present circumstances, the programme of visits, which costs £2·2 million per year, may no longer be necessary. I should be interested to know the Minister's view on that aspect.
The effects of the problem are very grave. I have received a letter from a small tenant farmer in Surrey, and I shall read it out because it shows clearly — [Interruption.] Conservative Members may laugh, but a serious burden will he imposed on some small tenant farmers. I hope that the House will listen to what the farmer in Surrey wrote to me:
"I am a small tenant farmer and have been greatly encouraged by a letter, from the NFU, stating your intentions to fight for us re. the proposal to charge for inspection of dairy premises. Thank you very much. Mr. Jopling states it is only 50p per cow as a charge. May be, taking cows as one huge national herd. How many farmers milk 180 cows anyway? In my case with 50 cows and as a producer-retailer, often having two visits a year, my costs are"
about £255 per year or £5 per cow. He cannot charge that to his customers and he says that the proposal will have a bad effect on him.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Is the hon. Member aware that a recent survey in west Wales showed that between 25 and 30 per cent. of dairy farmers are teetering on the brink of bankruptcy and that any additional charge could push them over? Whatever the merits or otherwise of the charges in a general context, this is not the time to introduce them.
Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. What is happening in west Wales is also happening in Somerset, where the burden of farm debt is rising and many people are close to bankruptcy. I agree with their views that in some instances these charges will push them beyond the limit.
I note that several brave Conservative Members have signed early-day motions on the matter. They include the hon. Members for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), who are all present, and the hon. Member for Wansdyke (Mr. Aspinwall). As those hon. Members have signed early-day motions we shall watch carefully, as will people outside, to see whether they have the courage of their convictions and vote against the regulations. If they do not, we shall conclude that the power of the Whips is
684
more important to them than their consciences or the representation of their constituents. I hope that they will vote in line with the motions that they have signed.
The regulations are the unkindest cut of all for farmers. Dairy producers have suffered terribly from badly thought out and bungled Government policies. The regulations will add an extra and, for some, intolerable burden, especially for small dairy producers. The regulations single out farmers to pay a charge for a public health service which in every other area is paid for from the public purse. The regulations are unfairly levied and force the Milk Marketing Board to do the Government's dirty work for them. The level of charges is exorbitant and insupportable, either because the Government are asking farmers to pay for the inefficiency of the Ministry of Agriculture or because they are deliberately finding ways to levy an extra tax on farmers at a most desperate moment. In short, the regulations are damaging and unfair. They should go, and I ask the House to ensure that they do.
10.19 pm
Sir Peter Mills: I go along with the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) on charges, but I was amazed to hear him talk about the burdens on farmers. He has a nerve to show such concern when Liberal policies are so anti-farming and agriculture in many ways. I think particularly of the land tax that Liberals would introduce and the two-tier system of support which even the president of the NFU says is utterly ridiculous.
I do not really think that we can take too much notice of the comments made by the hon. Member. There is no question about agricultural rating. Although Liberals may deny it in the House, they support agricultural rating in many areas. Whether Liberal hon. Members like it or not, Liberal policy varies from constituency to constituency, and that has always been the case. It is no good some of those younger Liberal Members who have been Members of this House for only two or three years complaining about such statements. I have watched Liberal agriculture policies in action for longer than I care to remember. I can asssure them that their policies do not help British agriculture.
Having said that, I am very unhappy about some aspects of the regulations. However, the principle of charging does not worry me. Rather I am greatly concerned about the level. It is necessary for the inspections to be carried out. The hon. Member has forgotten the whole problem about the importation of liquid milk from the Community. The regulations are an aid to implement the heat treatment milk directives to ensure that our standards are not undermined by the imports of liquid milk. All farmers support a policy of seeking to keep out imports of liquid milk. I accept the Government's view on that.
There is also the question of exports of dairy products. High quality is essential if we are to export to other countries and it requires an independent body such as the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to make these checks. I favour these checks being made by the Milk Marketing Board. The board has the routine, it can carry out the checks cheaper and it has more experience in these matters. However, that would not satisfy the Community and others. It is a great pity that the MMB cannot do the checking. Very little fuss would have been generated if it could.

685
So far so good on the question of the necessity for inspections. However, the charges concern me and many other farmers. If we consider the charges, there is no doubt that they will be an extra burden on farmers just at a time when they can do without them. The MMB has had considerable experience in visiting and checking. I could quote from the MMB brief which has been sent to hon. Members. However, it is true that the MMB is carrying out these inspections considerably cheaper than the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
It is also important that we hear from the Minister about the responsibility for collecting these inspection charges and whether it is perfectly legal for this collection to be imposed on the Milk Marketing Board. The Minister will recall that I mentioned to him the point about a possible reduction in the inspection charges in future. I hope that he will make every effort to reduce the cost in the light of experience of testing and visiting farms. There is no point in making the charges if, after six months or possibly a year, the Ministry finds that inspections can be carried out more cheaply. I hope that the Minister will not wait for a year, because of the difficulties facing dairy farmers at the moment. If, after six months, he finds that the Ministry can reduce charges substantially, I hope that he will act.
Mr. Michael Latham: Does my hon. Friend agree that it may not be entirely satisfactory to leave it to the Ministry to decide on its own efficiency and whether it is collecting the charges by the most economical method? Would it not be good idea to bring in someone independent to judge how efficient the Ministry is?
Sir Peter Mills: I do not agree with my hon. Friend. As a former Agriculture Minister, I have every faith in the Ministry. I believe that if the Minister gives instructions that the methods are to be costed carefully and, after six months, if it is proved that the work can be done more cheaply, it will be so carried out.
I am sorry to have to say that I cannot accept the level of the charges and I shall continue to do all that I can to see that they are reduced.
10.25 pm
Mr. John Home Robertson: There are some raw nerves in the House this evening. I suspect that some of our colleagues may be considering what has been put in the milk at Greenwich.
The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) was right to highlight the background against which we debate the regulations. It is a background of quotas being introduced in 1984 with almost no warning and the subsequent cuts in production, a continuing co-responsibility levy and charges for the advice and assistance of the Agricultureal Development and Advisory Service. Many people in the industry must regard this measure as adding insult to injury.
Unlike the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills), the Labour party opposes the measure not simply on the practicalities but on the principle. As a member of the public who drinks milk, I am more than willing to pay through my taxes for measures to ensure that the milk is not a hazard to my health. Indeed, I would prefer to pay for that service, because the payment
686
emphasises the fact that the inspectors are working for the public and in the public interest. If the service was wholly funded by the industry, it would have a perfect right to influence the way in which the work was done. Hon. Members have already said that the Milk Marketing Board is implying that it is possible to reduce the cost of the inspection programme. It may be possible to reduce the cost, but such reductions should be based on sound scientific advice, not on purely commercial grounds.
Almost every citizen of these islands will consume milk in some form every day, so the inspections are in the public interest, in every sense of those words. A lapse in standards at any dairy premises could lead to nasty outbreaks of food poisoning. Inspections are not carried out for the benefit of the industry. They are carried out for the benefit of the public, and it is reasonable that the public should control and pay for the operation.
The inspection of every food manufacturing processing and retail premises is paid for by the public, and the Government should tell us whether this proposal is a one-off exception or whether they intend to use it as a precedent for charging for the supervision of health and hygiene standards in bakeries, food shops, restaurants and cafes.
Mr. David Ashby: Has the hon. Gentleman considered the fact that health inspection is paid for out of rates and that farmers are not rated?
Mr. Home Robertson: The hon. Gentleman had better make up his mind about what is going on. The service is carried out through the budget of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and I suggest that that is how it should remain.
If the Government intend to set this principle, it will have implications for other parts of the United Kingdom. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. MacKay), who is responsible for agriculture in Scotland, told me in a recent debate in the Scottish Grand Committee that the regulations would affect only England and Wales, and that is obviously true. Nevertheless, if it is national Government policy that there should be such charges, we should be told in what general direction the Government wish to go in covering the cost.
On 4 December the Government initially proposed that the charge was to be £90 per visit or £22 for sampling milk and water, but administrators were considering whether the proposed £90 charge might be reduced to £80 for herds of fewer than 20 cows. In other words, they recognised that they would have to make some concessions, so they decided that they would save themselves some trouble by telegraphing the concession in advance. Looking around the House, I suspect that it would perhaps be wise for them to make some further concessions during the debate.
In the press statement that was issued following the announcement, the Government suggested that the actual cost to individual dairy farmers would be about £30 per year on average. We received a fascinating consultation document stating that the object of charging for milk and dairy inspections was to cover the whole cost of the service It went on:
"All these costs have been carefully calculated and there is no intention either to operate at a profit to the Ministry or to cross subsidise other Ministry services."
It went on to say that there was a prospect of a concession for smaller dairy farmers. Presumably, that very

687
concession must show some kind of cross-subsidisation between different sectors of the industry — smaller farmers and larger farmers. That may well be right, but the Minister cannot have it both ways. This measure will either cover costs for every farmer or it will not. That point needs to be cleared up.
There then followed a consultation period when the principle of charging was resoundingly rejected from all quarters, from the National Farmers Union, the Dairy Trade Federation, the Milk Marketing Board to practically everybody else. The Government then followed the time-honoured tradition of pressing on with their original proposals, regardless of the result of the consultation period. As we know, the National Farmers Union rejected the principle of the charges out of hand. The Milk Marketing Board has said that it does not want the job of collecting the new tax from hard-pressed producers. It went on to say that the charges may have been set too high. It suggested that £19 per visit might be more appropriate than £90 per visit. It went on to warn
688
that the Ministry could make a profit out of the mechanism. Perhaps it will do so. The Minister should come clean on that point.
The Dairy Trade Federation has made it clear that it also rejects the principle of charges. It went on to challenge the Minister's suggestion that inspections every three years can be sufficient in any circumstances. Indeed, it emphasised the need for the closest possible scrutiny of standards in food that is particularly vulnerable to any reduction in health and hygiene standards.
The proposed charges might earn the Minister some brownie points with his colleagues in the Treasury. We suggest that they are ill-considered, inappropriate and an unjustifiable imposition on a hard-pressed sector of the agriculture industry. They undermine an important principle and could cause serious difficulties in the future. They undermine the principle of an independently funded and totally independent food hygiene service. I suggest that my hon. Friends would do well to oppose the regulations in the Division. I suspect that many Conservative hon. Members would do well to do likewise.
10.34 pm
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I object most strongly to the regulations. I do not know what world we are living in. I cannot imagine why we should pay this ludicrous charge. I do not object to the charge in principle, but I object to the level of it.
In the real world, it would be recognised that we have overtrained inspectors with BA degrees solemnly doing inspections which take about five or at most 20 minutes. We are told that they cannot go around with the Milk Marketing Board. The MMB must not have anything to do with it because of the EEC. I understand that, but why can they not go around when the milk is collected? We do not need a BA man to do that. That would help to reduce the charge.
The regulations come at a time when farmers are fed up with the way in which they think that they are treated by the EEC. I know that my right hon. Friend has fought manfully for them, but dairy people are getting a clobbering. On top of that comes this charge. I wish my right hon. Friend could take the regulations away and get them right so that people feel that they have a fair deal. Privatise the service, perhaps, but for heaven's sake take the regulations away and do something about them!
I have met nobody who knows anything about this business who believes that this is a fair charge. I have heard that criticism from people who do not object to the charge in principle. One suggestion is that, if all is well, no charge should be made. Why should there not be a charge only if a further inspection is required to give the farmer a going over to make sure that everything is fine? One of my farmers suggests that the high hygiene standards set by the MMB for farmers who regularly produce milk in payment band A make visits by Ministry inspectors pointless. Only when the producers are consistently in band B or are downgraded to band C are visits from the Ministry necessary, and then only if it proposes to offer constructive and helpful advice should the producer be charged.
I am not a legal man, but I do not like the idea of the Government making a charge and asking the MMB to collect it by making a deduction from the milk cheque. Quite a lot of farmers will simply not pay. I know some who will go the European Court of Justice. For those reasons, and a host more which my right hon. and hon. Friends will be able to produce, I hope that my right hon. Friend will think again.
I have no doubt that this was hatched in the Treasury. The Treasury must have said, "Farmers are getting a lot of money from the EEC and it is about time we showed a little public expenditure restraint, so see what you can do in MAFF to make things right by the Treasury and to show that you are making life a little uncomfortable for farmers." Farmers have had a rough enough time without these miserable regulations.
10.37 pm
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I disagree with the regulations from start to finish. I disagree with the principle of levying a charge. It is grotesquely unfair on farmers.
I did not think that the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) presented his case in a way which will be acceptable to the House as he concentrated too much on the level of the charge. The charge itself is outrageous and
690
cannot be justified. I have received petitions and delegations from farmers and met them at the local market at Chelford. Not one believes that the charge, whether the principle or the level, can be justified.
My right hon. Friend and his colleagues have to give a reason why farmers have been singled out for such a charge. Some other businesses, which are making a lot more money than dairy farmers, are subjected to no such levy. I do not want any lessons from the hon. Member for Yeovil on how I should vote in this place. Right or wrong, good or bad, I have put my head on the block ever since I came to this place almost 16 years ago. I intend to vote against the regulations. Strangely enough, I shall be in the Division Lobby with the hon. Member for Yeovil and his colleagues.
Since 1 April 1984, the dairy farmers have suffered the most grotesque burden and injustice in the form of the quotas that were placed upon them retrospectively. With reluctance, and with great difficulty, they have manged to take on board the reduction in output that has been imposed upon them. They are now to face another cut in quota, when we as a nation are not self-sufficient in liquid milk. Is it understood that Britain is facing in reality a greater cut than any of our continental colleagues in the EEC? Is my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food saying that we are self-sufficient in liquid milk? The answer is that we are not. Our population is roughly that of West Germany and of France, but what were the tonnages of quota for the two countries? The answer is considerably greater than ours. I understand that France was given a quota of 26 million tonnes and Germany 25 million tonnes. We were given a quota of 16 million tonnes. In other words, we were at a grave disadvantage from the beginning.
Why are we imposing upon the hard-pressed dairy farmer yet another burden, however modest my right hon. Friend the Minister may seek to make it appear to be? In overall terms it might be fairly modest, but it may be the straw that breaks the camel's back. I represent an area where dairying is of great importance. In my constituency the dairy farmer is the backbone of the rural economy and of the villages. I am not prepared to represent Macclesfield and have a Government, whether they think that it is for the right reason or not, undermine the basis of our rural stability and economy.
I have spoken out against and voted against quotas, and I intend this evening to cast my vote against the regulations. First, the charge cannot be justified. Secondly, it is wrong for the Milk Marketing Board to act as a tax gatherer for the Government. If the Government believe that the charge is justified, the Ministry should collect the fees and charges itself and not expect the MMB to do so by deducting sums from the milk cheque to be received by dairy farmers throughout the country.
This is a sad day. We are knocking another nail in the coffin of the dairy farmer, and I am not prepared to be party to it.
10.44 pm
Mr. Richard Livsey: We are considering a matter of principle and the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) is right to argue in those terms. There is no point in going half way, as the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills) has proposed, by saying that the charges are too high. The

691
hon. Gentleman mentioned that exports are a factor, but with an 8·5 per cent. cut in milk quotas in April, there will be nothing to export, anyway.
In what other sector of the economy would such a thing happen? Are we soon to he walking into restaurants to be faced with a VAT bill and statutory charges for health inspections?
The Government are seeking to clobber one of the poorest sections of agriculture, and many small dairy farmers are suffering grievously. There are many in the west and in Wales who average only 80 acres. They have 30 or 40 cows and many are earning only £90 a week. The statutory charge of £90 is equal in some instances to a weekly income of £90. Careful account should be taken of that.
Dairy farmers have been hit hard and it should be understood that some of them are receiving family income supplement. The Milk Marketing Board is a farmers' organisation and it is being given the responsibility of becoming a tax collector. That is absolutely scandalous. The MMB should resist that role.
The Treasury is leading the Minister by the nose on this issue. Monetarism is creeping into the management of agriculture, which is unnacceptable. It is a whiff of what is to come when the Treasury will have even greater control of agricultural policy, to the detriment of British farmers. The answer to these statutory charges will be delivered in one mighty blow to the Conservative party in the by-election in Truro, where it will be given a big shock about the feelings of those living in the countryside. ADAS charges were unacceptable to the industry, and have been a grievous imposition at a time when the industry can least afford it. The Conservative party and the Government have abandoned agriculture and the dairy sector. They will reap a bitter harvest for what they have done.
10.45 pm
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Huslop: The principle of these proposed charges is wrong. That being the case, the quantum of them is of secondary importance. On a trivial point of secondary importance, I would be interested to hear from whichever Minister is winding up what assumptions the Ministry is making about the number of inspections per day that will be carried out by an inspector. In arriving at the figures of £90 and £80, it has to be assuming a certain number of inspections per day. How many inspections is it assuming?
The reason why the principle is wrong is this. Despite what an hon. Friend of quite astonishing ignorance, who intervened, determined to display his ignorance, said, the Ministry is paid for not out of rates but out of national taxation, which farmers pay.
Mr. Ashby: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: No, I will not. Farmers pay national taxation—
Mr. Ashby: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: No. My hon. Friend chose to put the cap on himself. I did not name him.
Farmers pay national taxation and have no better reason to pay for an unwanted inspection of this kind than do companies that own factories and pay national taxation but do not pay for factory inspectors' visits, when factory inspectors are paid for by national taxation and not by the ratepayer. When wages inspectors come, the firm that they
692
visit does not have a charge imposed on it, but wages inspectors are paid out of national taxation, and not out of the rates. Do not let us have that foolish and ignorant argument raised again.
The truth of the matter is that the Ministry has no case for imposing this charge. The total revenue from it is trivial in the context of Government revenue, but it is extremely onerous in terms of the incomes of small milk producers. to say, as I do not doubt that some Minister will be foolish enough to say, that farmers can claim tax back for these charges is true only if they pay tax. However, it is not true, if, under the pressure of quotas and co-responsibility levies and the falling price for their culled cows and barreners, or they are making a loss because they cannot cover the interest rates on their loans out of the reduced throughput of milk because of quotas. If they are not paying tax because they do not have the net income left it is foolish to say that they can recover part of the costs of those charges. That is the sort of false argument that only foolish people advance.
The thing to do with this order is to take it away and burn it. When something is obviously wrong a Minister with guts and a brain takes it away and burns it. Only a Minister who lacks either or both persists with it. — [Interruption.] That is so. It is so obviously a wrong and ill-conceived measure that the only possible thing to do with it is not to offer to reduce the imposition which has been shown to be grossly excessive: the only thing to do with a measure that is wrong in principle is to withdraw it.
10.51 pm
Sir Peter Hordern: I met my farmers on Friday and they told me about these regulations and exactly what I should do. They did not suggest it in quite the vehement terms that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) used. Nevertheless, it was clear to me they had had a rough time and that milk was likely to have an even rougher time as time went on.
I hope that we shall have a major debate on agriculture before long because it has gone through a change every bit as serious as those in the steel and shipbuilding industries. Yet we do not spend anything like the same proportion of the time on this great industry as we do on those others.
Not only has the fortune of dairy farmers been adversely affected, but there is a striking disparity of treatment between dairy farmers — especially tenant dairy farmers—and cereal farmers. It is hard to explain to the dairy farmers why they appear to have been singled out for this special treatment when the cereal farmers were not even touched in the whole course of the negotiations when my right hon. Friend the Minister was president of the Council of Agriculture Ministers and still have a comfortable existence, amassing vast surpluses for which the consumer has to pay. I should have thought that some change in the common agricultural policy could have been achieved to allow some extra help because far more dairy farmers than cereal farmers stand in need of such help.
Perhaps my right hon. Friend could advise us of the total sum that will be raised by these charges. In any part of public expenditure, it is necessary to consider the savings that could be made in the Department concerned. Before the principle of charges is accepted, the Department must be confident that no savings are necessary. As I said, and as the House will know, the position for agriculture has greatly changed. We are not

693
now, as we were just a few years ago, anxious to increase production—in fact, very much the reverse. That being so, it is difficult to see why it is necessary for the Department to spend £217 million on research and development. I cannot but believe that some of that total, which has increased from £140 million in the space of five years, could have been made available to help to cover the cost of the charges. The same goes for departmental running costs, which have increased from £147 million to £220 million in five years. When an industry is under great pressure and in decline, I find it hard to see that no savings whatever could have been made in the departmental budget. I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to look carefully at the savings in his own Department because they are more easily to be found there than in most other Government Departments. His Department's role has changed greatly in recent times. A more modest role would accurately reflect the changed circumstances, and greater support for the dairy farmer would not come amiss.
I am not opposed to the principle of the charges. I merely say to my right hon. Friend that if he thinks that they are a light burden and easily to be borne by the dairy farmers, particularly the tenant farmers, he is greatly mistaken.
10.56 pm
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I shall not detain the House for long.
I had the opportunity of hearing my hon. Friend the Minister of State speak in my constituency at an open meeting of the Derbyshire National Farmers Union a few weeks ago. He made a passionate defence of the regulations. However, they were not particularly well received at that meeting, as anybody would expect.
Nobody could deny that the dairy industry faces a great challenge and serious problems, along with the whole of agriculture industry. There are two main objections to the regulations. The first is that the charge in no way relates to the size of the herd, unless one has under 20 cows, and then there is an £80 charge. That is ludricrous. If one has 20 cows, there is a £10 reduction, and the standard rate applies to anything over that. That is not fair, certainly not to the smaller farmer. I do not class someone with 30 or 35 cows as a large dairy farmer. That distinction is not wide enough.
The second main objection, with which I agree, is that the charge is being taken direct from the milk cheque. That point has been covered by other hon. Members. The dairy farmers are almost not being trusted to pay the charge. There would be great problems in getting them to pay it, and understandably so. The money is docked automatically out of their pay packet, the milk cheque. I thought that that could be done only by increasing taxation, not by passing legislation in the House. That has definately upset many small farmers.
My constituency contains several small family farms, where the farmers have done so much to preserve the British countryside, yet they feel that this is one more measure that stabs them in the back and gives them more problems. I hope that even at this late stage the Minister will tell us that he will reconsider the regulations. They are not acceptable to the dairy industry and to many of my
694
colleagues on Conservative Benches. I hope very much that the Minister will reconsider them before the night is out.
10.58 pm
Mr. David Ashby: I shall speak briefly.
I am not terribly happy about the regulations, but I am not unhappy about the principle. having been attacked by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop)—
Mr. John Maxton: I thought that he was the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend.
Mr. Ashby: Yes, I think that he is, or at least should be my hon. Friend.
Let me say this. At any café or on premises where health is involved, health inspectors are paid for out of local rates. Those buildings pay their rates; factories pay their rates, and so on. That is dealt with by the health inspector. If the exception is to be the factory inspector, I remind the hon. Member for Tiverton that farms are also factories, and factory inspectors go to farms as well and that is paid for nationally.
Having dealt with that point and with the principle, I should say that the amount involved is very high. I am not happy with £90 for farms with over 20 cows. I am not happy with £80 for farms with under 20 cows. I should like to see some sort of auditing and some figures to justify that amount. Many of us who have dairy farmers in our constituency are concerned that this may be an example of the Government getting a lot of money from dairy farmers, and that money being used to pay for other services that are being given.
We must not forget that dairy farming is a contracting industry. The dairy farmers are, for that reason, in considerable difficulties. I believe that the nation would be happy to say, in the case of dairy farmers, "You are a contracting industry; your are not responsible for the contraction of your industry. It has occurred due to factors outside your control, as a result of Common Market negotiations and as a result of European negotiations." The nation would further be prepared to say, "In your exceptional circumstances, we think that we would be happy to pay the charges for your health inspection."
The principle is not wrong but — I say this again—this is a contracting industry, and because of that, perhaps, the burden of the cost of these inspections should be borne by the country.
11.1 pm
Mr. Tony Speller: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made many brave attempts to help agriculture and too often has been vilified for the good things that he has done. Uniquely, he has lost his touch when it comes to dairy farmers. The sheer sense of injustice that is reverberating throughout the dairy industry at present is truly well-founded. It is the feeling of inequity. It is a point that hon. Members of both sides of the House have made about the fairness of a charge when no other sector of the nation, nor, indeed, of agriculture, has had to bear such burden. It is not a greatly expensive burden, and it may not even be the last straw. None the less, it is a burden that no one else has had to bear. I do not enter the argument about who inspects what. I have spent much of my life in the catering industry, where milk is stored in vast quantity, and in the factories

695
where milk is processed, and it is only our farms that are seen to be picked on as a specific charge on a specific farmer. In sheer terms of equity the Government are being unreasonable in this case.
I accept, as I started by saying, that my right hon. Friend has made bold proposals on such things as afforestation, alternative use of land and on many matters which we all know have to change. The dairy farmer, if he was efficient and at the optimum level before quotas must, by definition, not be there now, since his optimum production has been cut hack. That must mean that he is at a greater disadvantage than those in any other industry, where people have the opportunity to plan forward on price and production.
There was some controversy tonight about the question of who would rate agricultural land. It is fair to say to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), with whom I frequently agree—perhaps to his surprise — that there was a Bill on rates laid before this Parliament. At the Committee stage the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) introduced a new clause requiring that, should the Bill be passed, measures relating to the rating of agricultural land should he brought forward within six months. Every Labour Member of the Committee voted for the clause. A Social Democrat voted for it, as did a Liberal, the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft). I think it was clause 6. I only mention this to show that all of us, from time to time, may vary in intent, and probably no side has a monopoly of purity. It is fair to say that it was in this Parliament that this vote for rating was taken. Equally it is fair to say that when someone has actually voted, that has rather more power than his words on later hustings.
Mr. Stephen Ross: I happen to be a member of the NFU and my constituents have suffered badly, because the one and only slaughterhouse has just been shut. That just means that it will cost god knows what to enable barren cows to be slaughtered. The point about rating must be cleared up. I am surprised at the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller), because he is a very honest and genuine man. We fought the last election saying that there would be no rating of agricultural land. It was in our manifesto. It was the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) who introduced a private Member's Bill and my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) who opposed it. Alliance Members all went into the Division Lobby to vote against it. Ever since, we have made it absolutely clear that we do not support rating agricultural land.
Mr. Speller: If the hon. Gentleman, who is also an honest man, says that, of course I accept it. Tomorrow morning, I shall put on the board the extract from Hansard to which I referred.
We are being unfair to and discriminating against what is today the weakest of all our agriculture sectors. It is a a matter not just of milk quotas and inspection charges, but of the knock-on effect on the beef market. I beg my right hon. Friend the Minister to think again and withdraw this unfair impost enabling a number of his hon. Friends to remain his hon. Friends in the Lobby.
11.5 pm
Mr. Anthony Nelson: I join with some of my hon. Friends in their misgivings. There is something
696
wrong. First, there are only two Labour Members here. It is extraordinary that, on an issue of such importance to the agriculture sector and this particularly sensitive part of it, only two Labour Front Benchers are present. We shall note with interest how many Labour Members will be in the Division Lobby.
I was inclined to vote against the regulations, but, having heard the invective in the speech of the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), I must tell him that he makes a great error of political judgment in inviting us to demonstrate some political machismo just to please him. We do not do it that way. If the hon. Gentleman had used his speech with a little more sensitivity and persuasion, he might have gained the—
Mr. Ashdown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Nelson: The hon. Gentleman spoke for far too long. I am not going to give him another chance.
I have the honour to represent a constituency next door to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern). Many of the members of the NFU who met him last Friday must have hot-footed it over to Midhurst to see me as well. They left me in no doubt about their feelings. I shall not reiterate many of the important and compelling technical points which have been made by my hon. Friends against the regulations. Instead I shall ask a few brief, basic, and I hope not naive, political questions.
Why did my right hon. Friend the Minister bring forward these regulations? Until now, they were not necessary. What has made them necessary now? Why bring them forward now? Is there some nuance of political sensitivity — I readily defer to my right hon. Friend's ability to determine that — which has made him strike upon this time? Is it really worth the candle? As I understand it, the measures will raise about £2 million. The cost of administration, whether through the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, or indirectly through the Milk Marketing Board, will be considerable and will be an offset against any gain.
On a day when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science announced, to great Conservative glee and applause, hundreds of millions of pounds of extra expenditure on teachers' pay, which he was able to wrest from the Treasury, was it really the politically right judgment to come to the Conservative party and the House and push for an extra £2 million gross? Was it worth it, especially when the sector from which it is to be taken is as beleaguered as the dairy sector?
I can see in simplistic terms that there is a case for levying a charge. I do not think that any Conservative Member should question the ideological case for people paying a charge. In various sectors—local government, for example—we evangelise the case for that. In this instance we should ask ourselves who is deriving benefit from what is imposed. The answer is that it is not the dairy farmer but the public at large. Therefore, if there is a case for charging, should it not fall, if not in whole certainly in part, upon the health budget rather than the agricultural budget? Perhaps that should not be the case, but there is a case for saying that the cost, even the inflated, bureaucratic, inefficient cost, should not bear so heavily on the dairy sector at a time when it is being asked to make another 2 per cent. cut in quota this year and 1 per cent. next year and when problems of reallocation through the outgoers scheme are very serious for the dairy sector.

697
While I share some of the misgivings on the technical front, I still feel that my right hon. Friend, who is undoubtedly a great champion of agriculture and who returned from Europe in November with an outstanding deal for the beef and dairy sectors and on the green pound and elsewhere, owes it to the House to address these fundamental political questions. I know that my right hon. Friend's heart is in the right place.
11.13 pm
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jopling): The main point at issue is the simple one of whether the cost of our milk and dairies regime—about £2 million a year—should be borne by the Government or by the milk producer. Many of my hon. Friends have asked that question. I shall begin by trying to put right some of the comments that were made.
The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) set out the background to the incomes of dairy farmers and outlined the situation in which dairy farmers find themselves. My hon. Friends the Members for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) and others also referred to this and it is important that I should set the record straight about the background.
Nobody recognises better than I the difficulties that the dairy industry has been through in the past few years. It is important to set out the background figures. Average enterprise net income this year, 1986–87, for dairy farmers in England and Wales is forecast to be just over £16,000. That compares with just under £14,000 last year, 1985–86, and about £10,300 for 1984–85 and £8,900 in 1983–84. To put it another way, in real terms as opposed to cash terms, enterprise net income for dairy farms in England and Wales for 1986 is forecast to be at the highest level for the 1980s.
I now wish to deal with a different matter — the suggestion that we should abandon the work altogether and rely on the Milk Marketing Board testing for total bacteria count. I remind the House that the board's total bacterial count test is a relatively crude measure of the hygienic quality of the milk. It also tells us very little about the conditions of cleanliness under which milk is produced — conditions to which consumers surely attach great importance. All these matters are covered by the milk and dairies regulations, but none of them can be reliably assessed by measuring the total bacteria count levels in a laboratory. It is technically possible to ignore all the requirements contained in the milk and dairies regulations, yet still to produce milk that has a low total bacteria count. It is for that reason that a system of farm visits is necessary.
In the light of that explanation, I hope that my hon. Friends, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden, who raised this point, will accept, as the Milk Marketing Board and the National Farmers Union appear to accept, that this work should be done, quite apart from the MMB's work on the total bacteria count.
On the more contentious question of who should pay, it may help if I remind the House of the context in which we are now operating. In July 1985 I announced that the Government planned to reduce the net cost of ADAS's advisory and statutory services by about £16·5 million in the financial year 1987–88. That decision was well
698
discussed in its wider context, in accordance with the Government's overall policy of reducing public expenditure. Therefore, it must be seen in the broader context of overall public support to agriculture. I make no apology for repeating the figure that I have given to the House on other occasions. We should remember that public support for the dairy sector in 1985, the last year for which we have figures, was equivalent to £90 per cow. That is a huge amount of public support, which I do not begrudge, for this sector. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) raised that point.
The £16·5 million that we decided must be found had to be raised from various sources, including advisory work, economies in ADAS's operations, and also by charging for statutory work. In considering what statutory work should become chargeable, we took th view that it was reasonable to concentrate on those areas in which the work benefits the industry. We agreed to the very strong request of the NFU that—
Mrs. Ann Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Jopling: Not in mid-sentence, if my hon. Friend does not mind. I must finish the point with which I am dealing, and then I shall give way. It is a very important point.
We agreed to the strong request of the NFU not to charge for the statutory duties with regard to tuberculosis and brucellosis testing. The NFU was extremely keen that we should not do so. However, in the case of milk and dairies work we concluded that the existence of strict and detailed regulations helps to maintain the market for liquid milk in England and Wales.
Mrs. Winterton: A few moments ago my right hon. Friend gave a statistic that caught my attention—that the amount of support per cow in the United Kingdom is £90. Will he inform the House of the amount of support per cow in the Federal Republic of Germany and in France so that we can make a comparison?
Mr. Jopling: My hon. Friend will have to put down a parliamentary question about that. I am afraid that I do not have the answer now, but I will gladly give it later. With respect, however, I do not think that it is relevant when we are referring to charges for the British herd and every cow is supported to the extent of £90 of public money.
I remind my hon. Friends that the home market for liquid milk is very large, accounting for about 50 per cent. of production. The liquid milk market is extremely lucrative for farmers. The 1p per pint increase in the retail price that took effect in January will add about £40 million a year to producers' returns, and that the increase in the retail price is sufficient to pay the charging bill under discussion today about 20 times over. I am strongly of the view that that situation owes a great deal to our milk and dairies regulations. I agree with hon. Members who say that the board's arrangements have contributed to that position, but I am convinced that my Department's milk and dairies regime has also played an important role.
The work benefits producers in another most important way. My hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills) raised this point. It has enabled us to negotiate strict provisions in the Community's heat-treated milk directive which the House, including

699
Opposition Members approved in November 1985 and it will enable us to implement the directive so as to ensure that our high standards are not undermined by imports of inferior quality milk. That is a crucial point and will obviously benefit our own industry but it is possible thanks only to a domestic regime which enables us to demonstrate to our community partners that our standards are so high.
Mr. Cash rose—
Mr. Jopling: I should go on, but I will give way if my hon. Friend insists.
Mr. Cash: Would my right hon. Friend agree to veto the proposals coming up in the Council tomorrow regarding the French desire to ensure that they receive a national subsidy in relation to their small milk producers?
Mr. Jopling: That is a separate point. I shall be at the meeting of the Council of Ministers tomorrow and we have already expressed grave disquiet about some of the proposals that have been made by the French Government.
The producer benefits significantly from the work and it is not unreasonable, in the context of total support for the dairy industry, that he should meet the modest costs involved. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield asked a question on that and I believe that there are precedents for such arrangements. For example, there is a fee for Ministry of Transport testing on motor vehicles and fees for planning applications and building regulations consents. Some of my hon. Friends have drawn attention to inspection by the Health and Safety Executive. I can tell them that although the Health and Safety Executive does not charge for factory inspections, it does charge when it issues licences such as petroleum licences.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) made the point that establishments such as restaurants and cafés pay business rates which help to offset the costs that local authorities incur in carrying out inspections. The House might not have liked that, but it might just remember that no such mechanism operates in the case of milk and dairies charges and, in any event, neither factories, shops nor restaurants enjoy the same level of public support as the dairy industry enjoys in this country today.
Some hon. Members have indicated that they are ready in principle to accept charging but that the proposed charge of £90 is much too high. I wish to make two points in reply to that. First, it is important to understand that it is not the ADAS visit alone which costs £90. We have assessed the cost of the whole system including, for example, administrative support at headquarters and in the Ministry's regional and divisional offices. I remind the House, particularly the hon. Member for Yeovil who raised this matter, that where the penalty for transgression of the arrangements is to put a farmer out of business, it is absolutely essential to have adequate controls over the uniformity and accuracy of the inspection provisions. Hence, it is essential to have a good deal of overlying management control.
Mr. Keith Best rose—
Mr. Jopling: Please let me finish this phrase.
We have divided the resulting global total by the number of routine visits, which gives us the figure of £90.
700
I have been through the figures thoroughly and I am satisfied that they correctly reflect the cost of the service, no more and no less.
Mr. Colin Shepherd: Can my right hon. Friend explain why the charge arrived at by that method is so much higher than the figure arrived at by the animal health division in assessing the charge necessary for its veterinary inspections on visits as part of the Ministry's preventive animal health scheme? Indeed, the vets now feel that they are being undercut by the Government.
Mr. Jopling: I have explained that it is necessary to have a heavy, overlying management control. I should also point out that 25 per cent. of visits have to be followed up by letters or further visits because unsatisfactory conditions are found. The figure of £90 must be kept in proportion. It is levied only when a visit is made. That means that on average it will be paid once every two years, and farmers with high standards of compliance with the regulations will pay it once every three years or even less frequently. In other words, it is open to all wholesale producers to reduce the impact of the Government's proposal to £30 per year, or less if they have fewer than 20 cows. To sum up, for an average size herd of 60 cows the charge for a visit once every three years is 50p per cow. Set against current annual public support of £90 per cow, that is not an unfair imposition.
A number of my hon. Friends have asked whether the Milk Marketing Board should collect the sum. The House wants lower charges and the way to get them is for the board to collect the money, because that is much the cheapest way. I was also asked whether the proposal is legal, and I am assured that it is legal, under the powers in section 118 of the Food Act 1984.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West asked me to ensure that the search for economies continues and to review the scheme at the end of the year. I can give him assurances on both counts. We shall certainly continue to examine closely the operation of the system, with a view to achieving further economies. If, in the light of that, we can reduce the charge, I shall lay the necessary amending regulations before the House. In the light of that undertaking, I invite the House to reject the motion.
11.28 pm
Mr. Robert Maclennan: It took the Minister about 16 minutes to reply to the debate and I do not believe that he has answered the points put by his nine hon. Friends, never mind the case made by my hon. Friends the Members for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey). The proposed charge is wrong in principle, its mode of collection is devious and inappropriate and the proposal is burdensome on a sector of the farming community which has been hard pressed by the present Administration since they took office.
The alliance parties prayed against the regulations to give the Government the opportunity to deploy their case and the House the opportunity to throw out the regulations, which have been universally opposed within the industry. The NFU has received and presented petitions from county branches all over the country and the Milk Marketing Board has spelt out in trenchant and unmistakable language the case that it should not be made to act as a tax collector for the Government to finance

701
regulations which are for the hygiene of the industry and the benefit of the public and should be paid for out of general taxation.
It is no part of the alliance's view that these inspections or tests are not necessary. It is clear, however, that they should not be borne by the 37,000 producers in the industry for whom this is the last straw on the camel's back. The Minister must take the regulations away. We will divide the House on the regulations. I invite hon. Members on both sides of the House, and particularly those hon. Members who spoke out so trenchantly from the Conservative Benches, to join us in opposing the regulations.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 42, Noes 286.

Division No. 104]

[11.30 pm

AYES

Alton, David

McLoughlin, Patrick

Ashdown, Paddy

McWilliam, John

Best, Keith

Marek, Dr John

Boyes, Roland

Marland, Paul

Bruce, Malcolm

Maxton, John

Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Cartwright, John

Meadowcrott, Michael

Cormack, Patrick

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Gower, Sir Raymond

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Hargreaves, Kenneth

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Harvey, Robert

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Hicks, Robert

Skinner, Dennis

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Speller, Tony

Home Robertson, John

Steel, Rt Hon David

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

John, Brynmor

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Johnston, Sir Russell

Wigley, Dafydd

Kennedy, Charles

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Kirkwood, Archy

Winterton, Nicholas

Knox, David

Livsey, Richard

Tellers for the Ayes:

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth and

Maclennan, Robert

Mrs. Elizabeth Shields.

NOES

Adley, Robert

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

Aitken, Jonathan

Browne, John

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Bruinvels, Peter

Amess, David

Bryan, Sir Paul

Ancram, Michael

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

Arnold, Tom

Buck, Sir Antony

Ashby, David

Bulmer, Esmond

Aspinwall, Jack

Burt, Alistair

Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

Butcher, John

Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)

Butterfill, John

Baldry, Tony

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Batiste, Spencer

Carttiss, Michael

Bellingham, Henry

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Bendall, Vivian

Chapman, Sydney

Benyon, William

Chope, Christopher

Bevan, David Gilroy

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

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Blackburn, John

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Colvin, Michael

Bottomley, Peter

Coombs, Simon

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Cope, John

Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)

Couchman, James

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Dickens, Geoffrey

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Dicks, Terry

Bright, Graham

Dorrell, Stephen

Brinton, Tim

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

Dover, Den

Brooke, Hon Peter

du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward

702

Durant, Tony

Lee, John (Pendle)

Dykes, Hugh

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

Lester, Jim

Eggar, Tim

Lilley, Peter

Emery, Sir Peter

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Evennett, David

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Eyre, Sir Reginald

Lord, Michael

Fallon, Michael

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Farr, Sir John

Lyell, Nicholas

Favell, Anthony

McCrindle, Robert

Fenner, Dame Peggy

McCurley, Mrs Anna

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Fookes, Miss Janet

MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

Forman, Nigel

MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Maclean, David John

Forth, Eric

McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

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

Fox, Sir Marcus

McQuarrie, Albert

Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

Madel, David

Freeman, Roger

Major, John

Fry, Peter

Malins, Humfrey

Gale, Roger

Malone, Gerald

Galley, Roy

Maples, John

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Marlow, Antony

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Glyn, Dr Alan

Mates, Michael

Goodlad, Alastair

Mather, Sir Carol

Gorst, John

Maude, Hon Francis

Gow, Ian

Mayhew, Sir Patrick

Grant, Sir Anthony

Mellor, David

Greenway, Harry

Merchant, Piers

Gregory, Conal

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Grist, Ian

Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

Ground, Patrick

Moate, Roger

Grylls, Michael

Moore, Rt Hon John

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Hanley, Jeremy

Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

Haselhurst, Alan

Moynihan, Hon C.

Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)

Murphy, Christopher

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Neubert, Michael

Hayward, Robert

Newton, Tony

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Nicholls, Patrick

Heddle, John

Norris, Steven

Henderson, Barry

Onslow, Cranley

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Oppenheim, Phillip

Hickmet, Richard

Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Osborn, Sir John

Hill, James

Ottaway, Richard

Hind, Kenneth

Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

Hirst, Michael

Page, Richard (Herts SW)

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Howard, Michael

Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abgdn)

Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

Pattie, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

Pawsey, James

Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)

Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Hubbard-Miles, Peter

Portillo, Michael

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Powell, William (Corby)

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Powley, John

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Prior, Rt Hon James

Jackson, Robert

Proctor, K. Harvey

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Jessel, Toby

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Rathbone, Tim

Jones, Robert (Herts W)

Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Renton, Tim

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Kershaw, Sir Anthony

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Key, Robert

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

Knowles, Michael

Roe, Mrs Marion

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Rost, Peter

Lang, Ian

Rowe, Andrew

Latham, Michael

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Lawler, Geoffrey

Ryder, Richard

Lawrence, Ivan

Sackville, Hon Thomas

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

703

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

Thurnham, Peter

Scott, Nicholas

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Tracey, Richard

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Trippier, David

Shersby, Michael

Trotter, Neville

Silvester, Fred

Twinn, Dr Ian

Sims, Roger

van Straubenzee, Sir W.

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Speed, Keith

Waldegrave, Hon William

Spencer, Derek

Walden, George

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Walker, Bill (T'side N)

Squire, Robin

Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Waller, Gary

Steen, Anthony

Walters, Dennis

Stern, Michael

Ward, John

Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Watson, John

Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)

Watts, John

Stokes, John

Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

Sumberg, David

Wheeler, John

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Whitfield, John

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Whitney, Raymond

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Wilkinson, John

Temple-Morris, Peter

Wolfson, Mark

Terlezki, Stefan

Wood, Timothy

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

Yeo, Tim

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

Tellers for the Noes:

Thome, Neil (llford S)

Mr. Robert Boscawen and

Thornton, Malcolm

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

Question accordingly negatived.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c.
  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND)
  That the Town and Country Planning (Compensation for Restrictions on Mineral Workings) (Scotland) Regulations, dated 21st January 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 6th February, be approved.—[Mr. Malone.]

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE
  That the draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) (Miscellaneous Changes) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 10th February, be approved. — [Mr. Malone.]
  Question agreed to.

PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE
Ordered,
That the Select Committee appointed to join with a Committee of the House of Lords as the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure have power to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee's order of reference.—[Mr. Malone.]

Leeds Market
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Malone.]
11.43 pm
Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: I am delighted to have the opportunity of speaking in the Adjournment debate this evening. I am aware of the privilege that is accorded to hon. Members in being able to raise a matter in the Adjournment debate. I am particularly grateful to be able to raise the matter of Leeds market. Although, in Adjournment debates. hon. Members quite properly and legitimately raise small matters that are important to many people within a constituency, Leeds market — hon. Members who are not from the north might not realise this — is of considerable importance to the region. It is fair to say that, in my 19 years or so as a representative in various guises in the city of Leeds — the city council, the county council, and now as a Member for one of its constituencies — nothing in recent years has distressed me quite as much as the prospect of the city council being able to do what it proposes to do to the site and to the market. Its proposals will destroy the character and atmosphere of the city. They impose upon Leeds yet another superstore of the kind that dots about our cities. Such superstores are perfectly proper and acceptable in many places, but they will not be proper or of benefit to us in place of the Leeds market. I am glad that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Southampton, lichen (Mr. Chope), is to reply. He has not had the easiest of times as a Minister and he has today a chance to redeem himself by demonstrating his sensitivity to local government matters by responding positively and sensitively.
The site covers virtually 15 acres. It contains a listed building of 1904 which houses a substantial informal market. One of its great beauties is its higgledy-piggledy nature, the bustle and the way in which traders shout their wares. It is proposed to demolish the entire inside, to leave only the facade and to have a five-storey development including two of modern shops and one for car parking. Market traders would find themselves in a very different market.
This is a classical example of Labour and Conservative paternalism. They maintain that, as the elected representatives, they know best what the people of Leeds and the region want, and they say that they will sort out everything from the planning to the finance. I do not believe that the history of our country or of our great cities such as Leeds since the war leads us to believe that planning has been a great triumph, that prestige projects have always been beneficial or that we should approve this deal.
The Minister will know that the site is tied in with a nearby but not contiguous site called Quarry hill, which was once the home of a remarkable housing development. The 1938 development, now alas gone, housed people in substantial flats which, contrary to today's antipathy to flats, were popular. The site has now been cleared. My party in the area stands alone in believing that the site should have housing on it and that there should he some means of bringing housing back to the city centre.
I should like to consider what makes a market and what gives it character. The first factor is its evolution. It is not

705
possible to create a market such as this by design, planning or development by the diktat of public authorities. The second factor is location. Being in the centre of the city, it provides a focal point. Many people appreciate that and believe that that is part of its attraction. Perhaps, most important, however, is the relationship that it develops and fosters. There is a balance between the formal and the informal market, and between the open and the covered market. Such matters are very important.
As with all old markets, buildings and developments, it is possible to make a case for sensitive improvement. There could be a case for spending some money on it, but there is none for destroying the whole interior. We require the rapier, not the bludgeon.
It might be valuable to provide a short history of the market to demonstrate its importance to the city of Leeds and the region. As far back as the 17th century, the people of Leeds bought the market rights, which were not conveyed in the charter of 1626. They realised that the prosperity of a city such as ours is not to be built artificially but as a market centre. Marketing and the ability to sell wares and goods is the way to achieve prosperity.
In those days the market was held in Briggate, and that lasted until 1822, when the present site was purchased in Vicar lane. A central market was built in 1824. Under the Municipal Corporations Act 1835, the market came under council control but not ownership. Under the Leeds Act 1842, a committee took over the management of the market. In 1853, there was a significant incident. The proprietors of the covered market applied to Parliament for an Act to incorporate the company and to permit them to enlarge the market. The council successfully opposed the Bill, and when it was reported back to the House in 1853 it was said that the case on behalf of the company had not been made. The Bill, therefore, failed. As a consequence, the council developed a new covered market in 1855 in a rather Crystal Palace style. There was a large glass palace and an open square behind that. In 1875, 90 shops and a fish market were added.
Shortly after that we saw the birth of Marks and Spencer at the market, when Mr. Michael Marks opened his penny bazaar on the very site that I am talking about. In other words, it has a treasured history with which many will have great sympathy.
In 1893, the building was damaged by fire, which led eventually to its demolition in 1902. The present structure, which was opened in 1904, was almost entirely a covered structure, which has survived until the present day, despite being severely damaged by fire in 1975.
It is worth saying that, although the demands and the legitimate needs of the people of any city and region are paramount, regard must be paid to the traders, who have suffered many blows at the Leeds market, including the fire of 1975. However, they have managed to transcend them and to continue trading profitably. It is interesting to note that in opposition to the proposals there has been a substantial petition, which bears about 250,000 names. Despite the fact that I have the privilege of an Adjournment debate on this issue, it should be said that no other Member for Leeds is in his place this evening. I thought that other Leeds Members would wish to participate in it given the deep interest in the subject. It is possible to discount petitions by saying that the public will
706
sign anything, but it is not possible to discount a petition bearing 250,000 signatures. Those who have signed are not confined to Leeds or Yorkshire. There are signatures from throughout the northern region. These include those who come regularly from Newcastle and Nottingham, for example, because they like the character of the market.
Having set out the importance of the market to the city, the county and the region, I turn to the responsibilities of the Minister and the Secretary of State. I think that the Secretary of State should have excercised his powers to call in the original planning application. I wrote inviting him to do so on 1 July 1986, and, unfortunately, he declined so to do. If the permission already granted were to remain unscathed and unamended by any of the many constraints currently being pressed upon him, it would be difficult for the Secretary of State to rectify his original error of omission.
I do not believe that the developers will be able to sustain their original plans and I think that there will be a further opportunity for the Secretary of State to act. Two matters may well impinge upon him. There is the possibility that those who oppose the project will be able to obtain judicial review of the procedures. Whether or not they will succeed in that I know not, but that is a possibility. Secondly, there is the issue of the development company's finances. It is not an especially large company with particularly large resources. I would not wish to dwell on the fact that it is located in Holland.
Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that there is some worry among the local people in the market that the tenure of the market will change and that the Dutch company, which is peripheral to his argument, is a little suspect when we come to consider the way in which it might proceed?
Mr. Meadowcroft: The hon. Lady has rightly said that the resources of the company are peripheral to the argument, in the sense that if it were not that company, another might raise the funds. We are talking about £90 million, which is a substantial sum. The entire staff of MAB in November 1986 stood at eight office clerks, two managers and two directors. Its total authorised capital is 5 million Dutch guilders, with only 1 million—£300,000 — paid up. There is some doubt about the company, and in January, the city council gave it three months to come up with the resources. That period has yet to finish, and we wait with interet to see whether the company can raise that sum.
As far as I am aware, there has not yet been a response from the Minister or the Secretary of State about the application for listed building consent. The proposals have earned the united opposition of the Leeds Civic Trust, the Victorian Society and the organisation Save Britain's Heritage. It would be in full accord with Leeds' affection for the market if the Secretary of State said that simply to keep the facade of the building would be unacceptable, and would involve official vandalism of a high order. To do so would leave us in a position akin to that of Bradford, which suffered similar destruction and demolition some years ago, leaving that part of Yorkshire with only half a market and the equivalent of a small superstore, which has nothing like the same atmosphere.
In its central business area development plan, the city council had some excellent words. It said :

707
"new building should take place within the street framework and the closure of the streets, alleys and arcades in the city centre will generally not be acceptable."
Such a principle cannot be contained in a plan that destroys the intimate relationship between trade and the city centre environment in Leeds.
It is interesting that the city council's failure to listen to, or consult local people has led to a unique instance. The student union, at a general meeting, has passed a motion in favour of the alliance in Leeds. This makes the point that, in common with other people who are in need, the students find the market a source of cheap food, and a shopping area that is different from an expensive development. The council has sought to minimise the opposition, but of the 1,276 representations from traders, 1,206 have been opposed to the scheme, and at an exhibition about the development, those opposed outnumbered those in favour by two to one.
If the plan were to go ahead in the form proposed, it would do considerable damage to a whole host of other developments that serve the region. For instance, it would mean a 25 per cent. increase in shop units, when the St. John's centre in Leeds is only half full. The Schofields site is being developed, and there are objections to the project from Lewis's and from Burton's, which occupies an important site on the corner of Briggate. Other shopping centres around the city are likely to suffer, and we are likely to have a polarisation within the regional centre between the developed and undeveloped parts of the city.
We should look at the finances of the market. The profits on the city's market operation, of which the central market is 80 per cent., have been as follows: in 1985–86, just under £2 million, in 1986–87, over £2 million, and the estimated profit for 1987–88 is again around £2 million. Despite the council's claim that the market needs redeveloping, it is making money year by year for the city. Surely, no sensible person would put £2 million in jeopardy without an absolute assurance that more money will come without risk, and there is no possibility of that. The prospect is that we shall reach saturation point, and those who are saying that they will move into the centre with the modern shopping that is being proposed are giving no assurance that they will maintain other outlets in the city. Therefore, it is likely that they will move into this and leave others empty, so there will be no gain whatever for the city.
If we are to go ahead with such a development, it will not only have an effect within the confines of Leeds but will go way beyond it. It is counter to all the trends that we are trying to see now by looking towards a sensitive and smaller development than that which is proposed here. I do not believe that we would want to maintain this proposal in the light of all the evidence against it. I hope that the Minister can offer some words of comfort to us in the city and in the region and suggest that there is some way in which he can act and consider the listed building consent and the prospects of a future planning application and what might happen to it to see whether there is some way of preventing this from going ahead in its present form. I believe that the proposal will have serious effects and that the people of Leeds and the region will be the ones to suffer, not the likes of the Minister or me.
12.1 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): I have listened
708
carefully to the views expressed by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) about the proposals for the redevelopment of the Kirkgate market in Leeds. I understand that the market traders association is applying for a judicial review of Leeds city council's handling of the proposals. I am sure that the House will bear with me, therefore, if I exercise caution in commenting on the details of the case.
However, I should like to take this opportunity of making absolutely clear a general point about such cases. Decisions on local planning matters are the responsibility of local planning authorities. That is not a new concept : it is only right that local authorities are left to get on with the job which has been given to them by Parliament, and which they were elected to do. That responsibility should be taken away only very exceptionally, when there are issues involved which are clearly of more than local significance.
Mr. Meadowcroft: I am glad that the Minister has made this important point, that although the application was made by the Dutch development company, it has nevertheless put together the project with the full agreement of the city council. Therefore, in a very real sense the city council is asking itself for planning permission in this case. I wonder whether the Minister has appreciated the point that the whole case is within a closed circle, which hardly helps anybody to believe that it is a fair process.
Mr. Chope: I know that the city council took exception to a comment that the hon. Gentleman made, in which he suggested that it was giving planning permission to itself. In fact, this is a joint venture scheme and I do not think that it is unique, in shopping centre development in this country. What is interesting is that the hon. Gentleman has so often criticised my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and other members of the Government for wanting to interfere in the way in which local authorities manage their affairs. However, as soon as he finds himself confronted by a decision by his own local council with which he passionately disagrees, he is the first person to come along and say that my right hon. Friend should intervene on his behalf.
There are, of course, some circumstances in which particular proposals may have a wider impact, regionally or indeed nationally. In those instances, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be prepared to consider whether he should call in the application and decide it himself. That does not presuppose, of course, that all such cases will be called in. Against the general background that I have described, it is desirable that he should intervene only when it is really necessary that he should do so.
Circular 2 of 1981 and an associated direction requires the local planning authority to inform the Secretary of State of proposals which would, in the authority's opinion materially conflict with or prejudice the implementation of the policies and general proposals of a development plan which he has approved. I condense a little for the sake of simplicity and brevity. The purpose, is of course, to give the Secretary of State a chance to decide the matter himself if he wishes, since he approved the proposals in the plan.
Call in by the Secretary of State is relatively rare—normally fewer than 100 times a year. In 1984 there were, in fact, only 42 cases out of a total of 427,000 applications; of those 42, only three related to superstore proposals.

709
That brings me to the present arrangements for shopping. The Department's Circular 21/86 of December 1986 "Policy on Major Retail Developments", informed local authorities of a new direction to the effect that, before granting planning permission, the local authority should consult the Secretary of State regarding any retail proposals with gross shopping floor space of not less than 250,000 sq. ft.
The direction reflects our concern that we should have the opportunity to consider calling such cases in. It does not mean that we shall necessarily call in all the cases referred to us. Nor does it mean that a shopping proposal has to exceed 250,000 sq. ft. before we will call it in. We shall continue to consider each case—as we have always done—in the light of its individual merits.
In this context, it may be helpful if I say a little about our general policy on retail development, which is sometimes misunderstood. Annex A to Circular 21/86, which reproduces a parliamentary answer given in July 1986 when my right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) was Secretary of State, sets out our approach. It makes it clear that the planning system is not concerned with matters of commercial competition between retailers or methods of retailing; it must take into account the benefits to the public that flow from new developments in the distributive and retailing trades. But our policy also recognises that in exceptional circumstances it is necessary to take account of the cumulative effects of other recent and proposed large-scale retail developments in the locality, and to consider whether they are of such a scale and of a type that they could seriously affect the vitality and viability of a nearby town centre as a whole. Here, we are concerned with the second order effects of trade diversion, not with the mere fact that trade may be diverted—for example, in the possibility of a significant increase in vacant properties, or a marked reduction in the range of services that a town centre provides, which might lead to its general physical deterioration and to the detriment of its future place in the economic and social life of the community. Town centres need to maintain their diversity and activity if they are to retain their vitality, but that does not mean that the range and variety of shops and services should not be allowed to change in response to changing circumstances. Nor does it imply that it is always necessary to call cases in to ensure that the policy that I have outlined is applied properly. It is for local authorities to consider factors themselves in any case in which they are relevant.
In the case that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, there have been requests that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should exercise his discretion in favour of calling in the application for the redevelopment of the market by the Dutch development company MAB. The main issues raised in those requests were : the effect on shopping provision in the city centre; the character of the market itself; and conformity with the central business area district plan. The market traders association expressed its view that the proposal would result in an insensitive over development of the few remaining traditional markets. Individual market traders have written to the Department about their fears that they will be located in less advantageous positions and that their livelihood will thereby be threatened. I believe it to be significant, however, that very few local people have written to the
710
Department to voice any objection to the scheme. In fact, only five letters have been received from members of the general public.
The hon. Gentleman referred to a petition comprising some 250,000 signatures, but I am told that that petition was started in September 1985, some nine months before the first application by MAB. It was then referred to in the press and in a letter to the Secretary of State from Last Suddards, agents for the market traders association, in July 1986, when the petition was said to contain over 200,000 signatures, but it was not presented to the planning department of Leeds city council apparently until 20 October 1986, one week before the application for the redevelopment of the market went to committee. That is some of the background to the petition. I am told that many of the signatures on it are not of people from the locality of Leeds, but from far outside.
Mr. Meadowcroft: That is an important point. The Minister is making the case for me when he says that many of the people who signed the petition are not from the locality of Leeds. The market is a regional facility, and I have tried to emphasise that. Does the Minister accept that there have been many letters to me and to members of the council from people round about, and few issues have excited as much interest from the public? Whether they believed that by writing to their representatives or by signing a petition they were taking sufficient action to register their objection, I know not, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that there has been widespread opposition from people in the city.
Mr. Chope: It is for the local authority to assess the views of the local people. If the local authority gets it wrong, I am sure that the people will react accordingly. Conservative Members trust the people. The hon. Member for Leeds, West is in an odd position of arguing against local democracy and in favour of intervention from the centre.
This particular proposal does not fall within the categories of development outlined in the circular that I have just mentioned. It is not an out-of-town proposal. Furthermore, the scheme cannot be regarded as a departure from the provisions of the development plan. The site is in the area covered by the Leeds central business area district plan, which was approved by the council as recently as 1982. In that plan, Kirkgate market is in a prime shopping centre, and redevelopment of the market area is envisaged, albeit on a smaller scale than that now to be undertaken.
An application for listed building consent was made by MAB to Leeds. The council consulted various amenity bodies, including the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission and the application was revised in the light of their comments. An application for the demolition of unlisted buildings in a conservation area was withdrawn after the buildings were spot listed. The HBMC was content for the listed building application to be left for the local authority to decide.
All these aspects were carefully considered by my right hon. Friend in reaching his conclusion that the application should not be called in for his own decision. It would be wrong for me to comment further pending the outcome of the application for judicial review.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes past Twelve o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER
  United States (Distribution Licensing)
  United States (Distribution Licensing)
  Channel Tunnel
  Channel Tunnel
  Minister for Sport (Responsibilities)
  Minister for Sport (Responsibilities)
  Voluntary Bodies (Grants)
  Voluntary Bodies (Grants)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Photocopying Facilities
  Photocopying Facilities
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Parliamentary Papers
  Parliamentary Papers
HOME DEPARTMENT
  AIDS
  AIDS
  Firearms Offences
  Firearms Offences
  Crime Statistics
  Crime Statistics
  Child Destruction
  Child Destruction
  Off-licences
  Off-licences
  US (Distribution Licensing)
  US (Distribution Licensing)
  Horserace Totalisator Board
  Horserace Totalisator Board
  Police (Numbers)
  Police (Numbers)
  Police Act 1964
  Police Act 1964
  Neighbourhood Watch
  Neighbourhood Watch
  Police Stations (Derbyshire)
  Police Stations (Derbyshire)
  Police (Armed Response)
  Police (Armed Response)
  Infant Life Preservation Act
  Infant Life Preservation Act
  Drunks (Cautioning)
  Drunks (Cautioning)
  Mr. Aurang Zeb
  Mr. Aurang Zeb
  Immigration (Sri Lankans)
  Immigration (Sri Lankans)
  Detained Youths
  Detained Youths
DUCHY OF LANCASTER
  County Palatine
  County Palatine
  Engagements
  Engagements
WALES
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  House Building
  House Building
  New Motorway
  New Motorway
  Gross Domestic Product (Public Expenditure)
  Gross Domestic Product (Public Expenditure)
  Factory Building
  Factory Building
  Housing Expenditure
  Housing Expenditure
  Restart
  Restart
  WDA (Factories)
  WDA (Factories)
  Food (Self-sufficiency)
  Food (Self-sufficiency)
  Hospital Beds
  Hospital Beds
  Margam Colliery
  Margam Colliery
EMPLOYMENT
  Community Programme
  Community Programme
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Industrial Disputes
  Industrial Disputes
  Literacy and Numeracy
  Literacy and Numeracy
  Restart
  Restart
  Community Programme
  Community Programme
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Schools (Annual Meetings)
  Schools (Annual Meetings)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Tax Decisions
  Tax Decisions
  United States (Distribution Licensing)
  United States (Distribution Licensing)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  United States (Distribution Licensing)
  United States (Distribution Licensing)
  Religious Persecution
  Religious Persecution
  South Africa
  South Africa
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
SCOTLAND
  Scottish Tourist Board
  Scottish Tourist Board
  Fast Reactors (Research and Development)
  Fast Reactors (Research and Development)
  Rosyth Naval Dockyard
  Rosyth Naval Dockyard
  Nurses
  Nurses
  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Pupil Costs
  Pupil Costs
  BBC Scotland (Police Raid)
  BBC Scotland (Police Raid)
  Sheep
  Sheep
  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances
  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances
  North Norway Cod Fishing Quota
  North Norway Cod Fishing Quota
  Forestry Commission
  Forestry Commission
ENERGY
  Coal Mines
  Coal Mines
  British Coal Houses
  British Coal Houses
  US (Distribution Licensing)
  US (Distribution Licensing)
  Hinkley Point
  Hinkley Point
  Energy Efficiency
  Energy Efficiency
  Coal Industry (Finance)
  Coal Industry (Finance)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Leukaemia
  Leukaemia
  Disabled People (Discrimination)
  Disabled People (Discrimination)
  Departmental Computers
  Departmental Computers
  Juveniles (Secure Accommodation)
  Juveniles (Secure Accommodation)
  Free Milk and Vitamins
  Free Milk and Vitamins
  Housing Benefit Scheme (Data Processing)
  Housing Benefit Scheme (Data Processing)
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Electrocutions
  Electrocutions
  Disposable Syringes
  Disposable Syringes
  Pensioner Incomes
  Pensioner Incomes
  Maternity Payments
  Maternity Payments
  Human Tissue Act 1961
  Human Tissue Act 1961
  Mobility Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  Fraud
  Fraud
  Liverpool (Ministerial Visit)
  Liverpool (Ministerial Visit)
  Parliamentary Questions (Replies)
  Parliamentary Questions (Replies)
  Project 2000
  Project 2000
  Nurses
  Nurses
  AIDS
  AIDS
  Hospitals (Ministerial Visits)
  Hospitals (Ministerial Visits)
  Family Income Supplement
  Family Income Supplement
  Hospital Beds
  Hospital Beds
  Manchester Royal Infirmary (Casualty Department)
  Manchester Royal Infirmary (Casualty Department)
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mental Handicap Hospitals
  Mental Handicap Hospitals
  National Health Service
  National Health Service
  Severe Disability Premium
  Severe Disability Premium
TRANSPORT
  Channel Tunnel
  Channel Tunnel
  Docklands Light Railway
  Docklands Light Railway
  Roads
  Roads
  Buses
  Buses
  National Travel Survey
  National Travel Survey
  Roads (White Paper)
  Roads (White Paper)
  London Buses
  London Buses
  Railway Accidents
  Railway Accidents
  United States (Distribution Licensing)
  United States (Distribution Licensing)
ENVIRONMENT
  Football Clubs (Merger)
  Football Clubs (Merger)
  Estate Action
  Estate Action
  Green Belt
  Green Belt
  Agricultural Land
  Agricultural Land
  Nuclear Waste
  Nuclear Waste
  Homeless Families
  Homeless Families
  West Yorkshire Residuary Body
  West Yorkshire Residuary Body
  Shared Ownership
  Shared Ownership
  Television Sets (Palace of Westminster)
  Television Sets (Palace of Westminster)
  Home Insulation
  Home Insulation
  Energy Efficiency
  Energy Efficiency
  Brookwood Lye, Woking (Public Inquiry)
  Brookwood Lye, Woking (Public Inquiry)
  Anti-fouling Paint
  Anti-fouling Paint
  Residential Homes
  Residential Homes
  Regional Development Plans
  Regional Development Plans
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Graduate Attachment Scheme
  Graduate Attachment Scheme
  Departmental Computers
  Departmental Computers
  Housing
  Housing
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Shareholders
  Shareholders
  United States (Distribution Licensing)
  United States (Distribution Licensing)
  Ministerial Decisions (Public Interest)
  Ministerial Decisions (Public Interest)
  Industry (Public Funds)
  Industry (Public Funds)
  British Steel Corporation
  British Steel Corporation
  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Securities and Investments Board
  Securities and Investments Board
  Satellites
  Satellites
THE ARTS
  Royal Opera House
  Royal Opera House
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Free Ports
  Free Ports
  Jamaica (Debt)
  Jamaica (Debt)
  Statutory Minimum Wage
  Statutory Minimum Wage
  Eurotunnel
  Eurotunnel
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Energy Saving Schemes
  Energy Saving Schemes
  Tobacco Industry
  Tobacco Industry
  Tax Fraud
  Tax Fraud
  Privatisation
  Privatisation
  Output
  Output
  Mortgage Tax Relief
  Mortgage Tax Relief
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Soft Fruit
  Soft Fruit
  Rhizomania
  Rhizomania
  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance
  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance
  Oils and Fats (Taxation)
  Oils and Fats (Taxation)
  Seal Culling
  Seal Culling
  Intervention Stocks
  Intervention Stocks
DEFENCE
  DROPS
  DROPS
  Equipment Trials
  Equipment Trials
  United States (Distribution Licensing)
  United States (Distribution Licensing)
  United States (Distribution Controls)
  United States (Distribution Controls)
  RAF Squadron Leader (Press Statement)
  RAF Squadron Leader (Press Statement)
  Project Zircon
  Project Zircon
  Trident
  Trident
  Trackway (Marketing)
  Trackway (Marketing)

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

Disabled Persons Act 1986
Lord Ennals: 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 steps they have taken to implement the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, my honourable friend the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled met the local authority associations on 24th February to discuss implementation of the Act. At the meeting it was agreed that Sections 9 and 10 will be brought into effect on 1st April. We are hopeful that Sections 4 and 8 can be brought into operation the same day. We also expect to implement Section 11 during 1987. Discussions with the relevant bodies are continuing on the implementation of the remaining sections of the Act.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the information which she has given to the House. Perhaps she can say a little more about Sections 5 and 6. Those were sections which caused great interest in your Lordships' House. Does the Minister recall the speech made by the Minister for Health in another place when he said:
"We should like to bring the provisions"—
he was referring to these provisions—
"into effect in time to benefit disabled young people leaving full-time education in the summer of 1987, that is, by the autumn of this year. We shall be consulting urgently with local authority associations about achieving that".—[Official Report, Commons, 4/7/86; col. 1328.]
Are we not slipping on the timetable which was set by the Minister for Health on 4th July?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the resource implications of Sections 5 and 6 of the Act covering disabled school-leavers was also discussed at the meeting with the associations to which I have referred. It was agreed that urgent discussions with the relevant bodies should take place to identify the resource implications with a view to a further meeting between the associations and my right honourable friend in May.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister about the possibility of implementing Section 7, which is the section concerned with discharge from long-term hospitals. No reference was made to that section in the debate in another place on 17th February. However, is it not a fact that the report
434
of the Audit Commission underlines the imperative need to bring this section into force as soon as possible?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it has also been agreed that there should be discussions at official level to make more realistic estimates of the costs not only of Section 7 but also of Section 3 of the Act. Progress in those discussions will be reviewed at the meeting in May.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Minister whether the Government have been having consultations with organisations for disabled people?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we recognise that the disability organisations played a significant part in obtaining support for the Act during its passage through Parliament. We intend to consult with the relevant organisations where necessary on implemention of various provisions of the Act at the appropriate stage. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled has already agreed to discuss implemention of the Act with members of the steering committee established by the interested disability organisations. We hope to arrange a meeting with them shortly.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, can the Minister give an assurance that the resource aspects to which she referred will not hold up the implementation of some of the important clauses? Bearing in mind the statement made by the Prime Minister about the buoyancy of the economy, is it not important that we should do at least as much as we can for disabled youngsters?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, my right honourable friend the then Minister for Social Security and the Disabled stated in another place on 4th July 1986 that it would be wrong to impose extra financial burdens on local authorities and on health authorities in order to implement those clauses which have significant resource implications until we can be sure that sufficient resources can be made available. That remains the position.

AIDS: Transmission Theories
2.40 p.m.
Viscount Torrington: 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 have received any definitive evidence, either negative or positive, whether the AIDS virus is being transmitted by blood sucking insects such as mosquitoes.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we are not aware of any evidence to suggest that insects have ever transmitted the virus. Your Lordships may be interested to know that I opened a scientific conference on AIDS last Friday. During that conference, one of the scientists said that efforts had been made to infect

435
seven different types of mosquitoes with the AIDS virus and that none of those attempts had been successful.
Viscount Torrington: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that robust but not totally definitive reply, but would she agree that there is at least some similarity of function between a mosquito's proboscis and a shared hypodermic syringe? Does the Minister consider that this might, in some small part, account for the considerable spread of this disease in densely populated tropical parts of Africa?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am advised that there are several reasons why it is not thought that mosquitoes would transmit AIDS. First, only a proportion of the blood cells of an infected person contain the virus. It is therefore unlikely that the tiny quantity of blood sucked up by a mosquito would contain the virus in any quantity. Secondly, there is no evidence that the virus can multiply in mosquitoes. Finally, mosquitoes and other blood-sucking insects bite in order to suck blood from people and animals, and not to inject blood into them.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether we are safe from vampire bats?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, vampire bats and other bats can be infected by the rabies virus and can thus transmit that virus. However, bats cannot be infected with the human AIDS virus and it is therefore highly unlikely that blood sucking bats could transmit the virus from man to man. There is no evidence that this has ever happened.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, while expressing great sympathy for the mosquitoes which have suffered as a result of these experiments, would it not be appropriate for this House to express thanks to the BBC and Independent Television for their significant series of programmes in the past few days which were highly constructive and well aimed at those for whom the disease is particularly a problem?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, for his last remarks. I know that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State shares his view and that my colleagues and I feel exactly the same. We are very grateful to the BBC and Independent Television for the part that they have played.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, now that the AIDS virus has been found in cats in the United States of America, is there any possibility that fleas could transmit the virus?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have replies to questions on bed bugs and monkeys but I regret that I do not have fleas. Well, your Lordships will know what I mean, and I think I have said enough!

SALT Agreements
2.45 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 whether they will use their good offices to persuade the two super powers to abide by the terms of the SALT II Treaty.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister confirmed on 18th November 1986 our repeatedly stated view that the terms of the SALT agreements continue to be observed by both sides.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. Does she not agree that the dramatic statement made in the past 24 hours by Mr. Gorbachev, which was preceded by his ideas at Reykjavik and later at Geneva, seems to indicate that there is a very good possibility of mankind now taking a step towards trying to outlaw nuclear war by beginning to control nuclear weapons? Is this not an ideal opportunity for the British Government to make their contribution thereto?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the Government welcome the statement by Mr. Gorbachev for three reasons: first, it accepts the alliance's idea of the zero option; secondly, the Soviet leadership appears to have broken the link between INF and SDI; and, thirdly, it makes no reference to the independent nuclear deterrents of both the United Kingdom and France. We shall of course want to look carefully at the fine print in Mr. Gorbachev's statement.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, as one who believes in an independent nuclear deterrent being held in Britain, may I say that we welcome very much what the noble Baroness has just said about Britain being pleased with the remarks of Mr. Gorbachev? Is there not an opportunity for the Prime Minister on her visit to Moscow to make certain that Britain takes a lead and finds out whether this man is really genuine?
Baroness Young: My Lords, although I cannot anticipate what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister will say when she gets to Moscow, I have no doubt that arms control will form a part of her talks.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, after the recent setbacks in arms control, with the Americans breaching the SALT II Treaty and the Russians ending the moratorium, does the noble Baroness agree that the news this weekend is particularly welcome, that it should be warmly received not only in this House but throughout Western Europe and that it deserves a constructive and immediate response? Can she assure us that when the Prime Minister goes to Moscow she will put her support behind these proposals and not do what appeared to be the case after Reykjavik when she seemed to be opposed to such a development?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I do not in any sense accept the noble Lord's last remark about what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said after Reykjavik. I can only confirm what I have already said to the noble Lord, Lord Mellish. I have no doubt that arms control talks and a follow up from this initiative will form part of the discussions that my right honourable friend will hold in Moscow.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, are the Government aware that we on these Benches share their hopes on Mr. Gorbachev's latest initiative and for the three reasons they gave? Does the noble Baroness agree that even if this is agreed by itself there is still a long way to go, in that this country could still be hit by Soviet strategic missiles, by Soviet strategic bombers and, unless we pay attention to it at the same time, perhaps by some of the longer of their so-called short-range nuclear missiles?
Baroness Young: My Lords, although I welcome the first part of the noble Lord's response to the supplementary answer that I gave earlier, we note with less satisfaction the continued Soviet harping on a nuclear-free world. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has often stated, our security will continue to rest on deterrence for the foreseeable future and this applies to nuclear weapons in Europe as much as elsewhere.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, do not the latter remarks of the noble Baroness cast a little doubt on her earlier welcome to Mr. Gorbachev's initiative? If as she said we are relying in all circumstances upon the nuclear weapon, our readiness to participate in and encourage negotiations for a reduction of nuclear weapons must surely be brought into doubt. Will she endeavour to remove that doubt, because until now there has been at least a welcome unanimity of hope throughout the House?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the noble Lord should look carefully at Hansard to see what I said in reply to the supplementary question. I have spelt out what we have welcomed and do welcome. The third reason, of course, that the statement is welcome is that it makes no reference to the United Kingdom and French independent nuclear deterrent.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, does my noble friend's interpretation of what Mr. Gorbachev said include his willingness to discuss the tactical nuclear weapons that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, mentioned, where the balance currently, due to allied withdrawals in the past five years, is about eight or nine to one?
Baroness Young: My Lords, as I indicated, we welcome the statement that has been made particularly because it accepts the idea of a zero option and has broken the link between INF and SDI. That is, of course, only one form of arms control. There are other fora in which we should also like to see progress.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether it is right that the intiative taken by Mr. Gorbachev to some degree reflects an initiative already taken by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister?
Baroness Young: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that following the meeting with President Reagan at Camp David last November three priorities were set up: cuts in INF; 50 per cent. cuts in the START programme and a complete ban on chemical weapons—all with effective verification. These were endorsed in December by NATO Ministers. Indeed, if it were possible to agree on such priorities it would be an historic achievement. We welcome the present proposals because they refer to one section of the matters which were agreed at Camp David.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the Prime Minister would not have agreed in November last to go to Moscow to talk with Mr. Gorbachev if she had not thought that something useful may come of it? Further, does she agree that the announcement over the weekend fits in admirably with the Prime Minister's decision? There is a hope, notwithstanding the confusion in the United States, that the United States may be able to contribute to overcoming the confusion and that we can make a big step forward towards sanity on this earth.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am not absolutely sure of the question that the noble Lord has in mind, but it may be helpful for him to know that we expect the United States to explore in detail the implications of Mr. Gorbachev's statement during the remaining days of the current round of the Geneva nuclear and space talks which are due to end on 4th March. We shall be doing the same in our contacts with the Russians, leading to my right honourale friend's visit later this month.

Unimar: DPP's Conclusions
2.53 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 what action they propose to take in the light of findings of the Interim Report on Minet Holdings plc and WMD Underwriting Agencies Ltd. (para. 4.15 sub para. 2) reporting breaches of the Exchange Control Act of 1947, and what further action they propose to take in the light of the explicit findings of the Council of Lloyd's concerning the misappropriation of funds.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, after consulting the Attorney-General, the Director of Public Prosecutions has concluded that the prospects of a successful prosecution resulting from further investigation of the Unimar affair, which was the subject of the interim report, are not such as to justify diversion of resources from the efforts now being made to bring the main PCW Underwriting Agencies Ltd. investigation to a conclusion. Police inquiries are continuing into the affairs of Peter Cameron-Webb, Peter Dixon, Minet Holdings and WMD Underwriting Agencies Ltd.
It is unlikely that any criminal charges will be brought in respect of breach of exchange control regulations.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that his Answer will bring with it some sense of dissatisfaction? Is he further aware that nearly a year has elapsed since publication of the report to which I have referred? Is he also aware that a wide section of the City, let alone the general public, expected rather more vigorous and speedy action to be taken on what appears to be a prima facie case to answer?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I must reiterate what I have said to the House on previous occasions; namely, that Questions in this House are directed to Her Majesty's Government and that the prosecution or non-prosecution of offences is not a matter for which Her Majesty's Government, as such, have responsibility.
With regard to whether or not there is a prima facie case, I am advised that the information is as given in my original Answer. The noble Lord will perhaps be pleased to hear that the figures for fraud prosecutions in 1985 and 1986 show substantial improvements both in the numbers of frauds brought to trial and in the conviction rate. These improvements have largely derived from the working methods of the fraud investigation group and from increases in the resources applied to fraud investigations. I am advised that further improvements can be expected when the Serious Fraud Office proposed in the Criminal Justice Bill takes over responsibility for the investigation and prosecution of major frauds.
Without seeking to make any political point, I am sure that we can count on the noble Lord's support for the action that we propose to take under that Bill.
Lord Morris: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend not agree that in the interests of justice it is of the greatest importance that the media's view on the criterion for a prima facie case should be of as high a standard as the law's view on what is or is not a prima facie case?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not know what the view of the media may be on what constitutes a prima facie case. Although I have a fairly shrewd idea of what lawyers would say I have not investigated this case myself and should not like to express a view about it. However, I understand that the Director has concluded that the prospects of a successful prosecution resulting from further investigation by the police of this subsidiary matter are not such as to justify diversion from the effort now being made to bring the main PCW investigation to a successful conclusion.
In order to show the kind of resources involved in these cases, the House will perhaps be interested to learn of a fact which, I must say, surprised me when I read it this morning. In the civil proceedings arising out of one of these cases, the defendants engaged 15 solicitors, working full time in-house, and no fewer than 30 counsel were briefed. That shows the kind of work that is involved. We do not yet have anything like those numbers at our disposal.
Lord Bruce of Donington: Is the noble and learned Lord aware that I am acutely conscious of his illustra
440
tion that apparently those who have very adequate funds, however they are derived, can sometimes frustrate justice and that there is sometimes one law for the poor and one for the rich? Nevertheless, is the noble and learned Lord aware that we fully support the recent actions that have been taken to reinforce the Fraud Squad? That is a course of action which your Lordships will recall I have been advocating for a number of years.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, no one welcomes the noble Lord's support more than I do. Perhaps he will accept my assurance on behalf of my colleagues that no one is more eager to bring fraudsters to trial and conviction where guilty than are members of Her Majesty's Government. I believe, as regards the subject matter of the original Question, that there was considerable difficulty in acquiring information from sources in Switzerland.

Business
2.59 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lady Hooper will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on school teachers' pay and conditions of employment.

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act,

Licensing (Restaurant Meals) Act,

Advocates' Widows' and Orphans' Fund Order Confirmation Act,

Plymouth City Council Act,

Port of Fosdyke Act,

Brighton Marine Palace and Pier Act,

Mid Glamorgan County Council Act.

Grampian Regional Council (Harbours) Order Confirmation Bill
Report received.
In the Schedule:
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 4, leave out lines 19 to 22 and insert—
("(d) any other structure capable of floating on water (or which would be so capable if in proper repair) and used or capable of being used for habitation;
but does not include any houseboat constructed for or used by five or less persons;")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, at present in Clause 2 a vessel is defined to exclude a houseboat or other

441
structure capable of floating on water and used or capable of being used for human habitation. On reflection, it appeared that this exclusion would apply to flotels, which are structures used to provide accommodation for persons engaged in mineral exploration and exploitation activities of which there are a number in the North Sea. That was not the intention. This amendment puts it beyond doubt that the provisions of the Bill which apply to vessels will apply equally to flotels. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, does my noble friend, as I have been advised, wish to move Amendments Nos. 1 to 5 en bloc or just Amendment No. 1?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, Amendment No. I has been moved separately. My understanding is that Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 will be moved subsequently en bloc.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendments Nos. 2 to 5:
Page 28, line 42, leave out ("dredging") and insert ("operation")
Page 29, line 1, leave out ("dredging") and insert ("operation")
Page 29, line 2, leave out ("dredging") and insert ("operation")
Page 29, line 4, leave out ("dredging") and insert ("operation")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, together with Amendment No. 2 I should like to move Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5. At present Clause 60(3)(a) mentions that 28 days' notice must be given before any proposed dredging takes place near apparatus. However, Clause 4—the powers proposed to be exercised—also mentions deepening, widening, scouring, improving the bed and foreshore of a harbour area and blasting any rock in that area. In view of the works powers in the order it is recommended to replace the references to "dredging" in Clause 60(3) with the word "operation". I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.

Coal Industry Bill
3.4 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Viscount Davidson.)
Lord Ezra: My Lords, without in any way wishing to impede the Third Reading of this very important Bill, I should like to draw attention to what I consider to be an important aspect of the future prospects of the British coal industry; namely, the development of new methods of combustion of coal. There are very big prospects in this respect and I am concerned about the relatively small effort in terms of funding relating to the combustion of coal compared with the development of nuclear power.
I should like to ask the noble Viscount, in the interests of producing the most effective combination of energy prospects for this country, whether he will ask his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy if he is prepared to talk to British Coal about further funding of new methods of combusting coal with all the environmental benefits that they would entail. I believe that such methods could be a
442
big advantage both to the nation and the coal industry, and it is a course which should be pursued at the present time.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this matter on Third Reading, as he was unable to be present at the Committee stage to move an amendment along those lines. It gives me an opportunity briefly to state the Government's policies on research and development into coal use technologies.
The Government cannot lay down specific rules as to the relationship between the amounts spent on R&D in the coal industry and in the development of nuclear power; nor, in our view would it be appropriate to do so. Not only are the costs of R&D in the two industries widely divergent but those industries are also at very different stages of development. The Government's objective in relation to coal R&D is that it should be sufficient to secure efficient exploitation of United Kingdom coal resources. In principle it is not government policy to carry out research themselves. It is for British Coal to identify its major R&D needs in relation to its marketing and financial objectives. The Government carry out or contribute to R&D only where this is required in support of government policy. The Government are satisfied that there is an adequate R&D programme relating to coal use technologies to meet their broad objectives.
Not only British Coal but also the CEGB and British Gas plc have R&D programmes covering aspects of coal utilisation. Expenditure on these programmes, including government and ECSC contributions, is expected to exceed £70 million in this financial year.
I can assure the noble Lord that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy has every opportunity to keep under review the development of coal use technologies in the context of public sector energy R&D overall. Forward R&D plans for the nationalised energy industries are submitted annually to him for approval. He receives advice on those plans from his Advisory Committee on Research and Development, which, as the noble Lord is no doubt well aware, includes eminent figures in academic and industrial research as well as representatives of industry.
I hope that what I have said in reply to the noble Lord will satisfy him that the Government are fully aware of the importance of research and development in coal combustion technology and, where such work does not fall naturally within the programme of any of the energy industries, are themselves actively support-ing work in that area.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed.

Territorial Sea Bill [H.L.]
3.8 p.m.
Report received.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Passage through straits
Where extension of the territorial sea in accordance with the provisions of this Act makes it impossible for vessels to pass

443
through channels or straits which have been accepted as international routes without entering the territorial sea of the United Kingdom or of another state, rights of passage will be observed consonant with current international law and practice.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a probing amendment, the object of which is to seek clarity regarding international routes near our shores. One effect of the Bill is to convert three international routes from high seas to territorial sea. The most obvious of the three routes is the Straits of Dover. At the narrowest point it is less than 24 miles, and France already administers a territorial sea of 12 miles.
At present, vessels passing through the English Channel can choose a course which keeps them within the high seas, without having to enter the French 12-mile or the British 3-mile territorial sea. That will change when the Bill has been enacted and brought into force. The other two straits affected are at the northern end of Britain. One is the Fair Isle Gap and the other the North Channel. In each of those cases, the Bill extends the UK territorial sea from each side.
Consequently, there are at least three channels where foreign vessels have in the past been able to stay in international waters—the high seas—but in future they will at some stage of their passage be in the British territorial sea or, in the case of Dover, the French territorial sea. Those vessels can expect rather more than the rights to be experienced in the rest of the territorial sea; that is to say, if they were, for example, simply sailing within 12 miles of the coasts of Cumbria, Ayrshire or East Anglia.
The rights normally expected in passage through international straits include that no prior notification is necessary for civil or military aircraft and that submarines can remain submerged. I remind your Lordships that they have to be on the surface in the territorial sea elsewhere.
In those circumstances, the wording of my new clause provides:
"rights of passage will be observed consonant with current international law and practice".
I draw attention to those words because international law in these matters is still evolving. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, in the sections dealing with territorial seas and related matters, was accepted by virtually all the members of the United Nations. The section which was not agreed by some members, including the United States and the United Kingdom, was on a different subject; namely, deep-sea mining.
Because all the nations which participated in the sessions of the United Nations conference, ending about three years ago, have not yet signed the convention, uncontroversial elements of it are likely to be put into effect as customary law. This is what the United Kingdom appears to be doing in this Bill. As your Lordships know, I fully support the Bill's purposes. I should like to give every encouragement to the Government in the part they are playing internationally while changes are being made, such as extending the territorial sea.
All maritime countries stand to benefit from freedom of navigation. The rest of the world is also likely to gain from the advantages to trade and to shipping of using the shorter, direct routes. It is to be
444
hoped that governments in all parts of the world where international sea and air routes pass through narrow channels will adopt policies which continue the principles that I have outlined. I beg to move.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I support this probing amendment. My noble friend is probably going back to the Corfu incident in October 1946 when our destroyers went up the Corfu Channel between Albania and Greece. Two of them struck mines and were damaged, and 83 of our officers and men were killed or injured. The question was whether Albania was responsible, under international law, for putting the mines there. The International Court of Justice held that it was wrong because no notice or warning had been given of the presence of those mines. Albania was therefore guilty of a breach of international law. Compensation was ordered to be paid to our people. I do not know whether it has ever been paid.
A noble Lord: My Lords, no.
Lord Denning: My Lords, that illustrates the importance of the right of innocent passage for merchant ships and warships not just through the high seas but, in proper cases, through the territorial seas.
The purpose of this amendment is to make the law as certain as it can be with regard to the right of innocent passage through straits such as those tiny noble friend mentioned. At the moment, international law on the matter is entirely uncertain. There was a definition in the 1958 convention which said:
"Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order and security of the coastal state".
Commentators have said that that is a matter of some difficulty. It was thought to be of such importance and uncertainty that it was much discussed at the United Nations Conference on the Law of Sea in the late 1970s. Brownlie, one of the commentators, said:
"The maritime states, faced with expanding claims to territorial seas affecting many seaways, were concerned to provide firmer outlines for this right."
As my noble friend has said, that Convention on the Law of the Sea was agreed by practically everybody. Articles 18 and 19 contained a clear and definite definition of the right to and meaning of innocent passage. It is too long for me to read now. The Government accepted the convention, at least to that extent. It has not been signed by everybody. We did not sign it because, as my noble friend said, there was an argument about deep-sea mining and the like. I hope that the meaning of innocent passage, as defined in that convention, will be accepted.
It is open to Her Majesty's Government to say—without waiting for customary law to develop—that those provisions as to innocent passage in the 1982 convention should be applied and recognised in English law, especially over the territorial seas where we have sovereignty. I support the amendment.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Harvington: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend a short question. It will be in your Lordships' recollection that the English Channel is divided so that there are two lanes. One lane goes

445
down channel on the British side and the other lane goes up channel on the French side. Those two channels cause a problem when they reach the Straits of Dover. Although it is just possible to keep the lanes separate now, the Straits of Dover are one of the most dangerous and frequented passages in the world. People, including yachtsmen, have been prosecuted for not crossing the lanes at the proper angle, as defined, and making the crossing too acute or obtuse depending upon which way one looks at it.
Is there anything in the Bill which affects that? If so, will my noble friend assure the House that the necessary steps will be taken, no doubt with international agreement, to rectify any difficulties which may occur with regard to the convergence of those lanes?
Lord Silkin of Dulwich: My Lords, we welcome the probing amendment moved by the noble Lord. He has drawn attention to what appears to be an extremely important point and one which arises as a direct result of the Bill's provisions, coupled with the fact, as has been pointed out, that we are not a party to the United Nations convention.
The Government should make a very clear statement of policy as to how they propose to tackle this difficulty in a way which avoids lessening the rights of those who at the moment have rights of passage through international routes which will be affected by the Bill. I can understand that it may not be possible to incorporate the safeguards within the Bill but a clear statement is necessary.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I was very glad to hear from my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy that this was a probing amendment. The reception it has received from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Silkin, and from others of your Lordships who have spoken indicates that they see it in that light. I hope that I can give my noble friend the assurances that he requires.
The Government share the view of my noble friend on the importance of navigation in straits and I am glad to reaffirm it on this occasion. Perhaps I can say to my noble friend how grateful I have been for his support over this Bill at the Committee stage and the support that it has received from all parts of the House. As I explained at Second Reading, there are good reasons to support the view that a special regime for certain important straits is appropriate, as indeed was envisaged at the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference, to which my noble friend has made reference.
Around the United Kingdom the appropriate straits are the Fair Isle Gap between Shetland and Orkney, the North Channel and the Straits of Dover. In such straits, as I said at Second Reading, there is a right of unimpeded passage for merchant vessels and warships, the right of overflight and the right of submerged passage for submarines. We believe that the various freedoms involved in the passage through such straits have been widely respected and that other countries will understand and support this position.
Perhaps I may say in answer to my noble friend Lord Harvington that he made a very important point, but navigation in the straits is an issue which falls outside the terms of this Bill because nothing in this Bill affects the sea lanes themselves.
446
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, in his remarks quoted the case of the Corfu Channel incident, which illustrates the importance of passage through straits. However, as I hope my noble friend will understand from what I have said previously, we do not believe either that it is necessary or that it would strengthen our position to incorporate a general provision on passage in straits in this Bill. This would not be appropriate in a Bill which is to provide the necessary statutory provisions for the extension of the territorial sea rather than to regulate specific elements of the substantive regime within the territorial sea, broad or narrow.
With that explanation, and I hope having reaffirmed the Government's close interest in this question that my noble friend has raised, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am very grateful for the support from the noble and learned Lords, Lord Denning and Lord Silkin of Dulwich, for the principles in my new clause. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Harvington for raising the question of the traffic through the English Channel and its present divisions into two lanes, and for pointing out the problems that there may be in the future. My noble friend is an experienced navigator of the Channel but, I understand, in rather smaller vessels than most of those that pass through. I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lady Young for explaining the position so clearly. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Denning Lord Denning moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("1958 Convention.
The provisions of the Convention done at Geneva on 29th April 1958 and ratified by the United Kingdom and many other states, in so far as they relate to the territorial sea (namely Articles 1 to 23 inclusive) shall apply to the breadth of the territorial sea prescribed by and under section 1 above.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak to this amendment and the next one together. This is a probing amendment. I am following up what my noble friend Lord Kennet said on Second Reading, referring to this expanded area of up to 12 miles. What international law do the Government propose to adhere to, to be guided by and to enforce in the new and enlarged territorial sea? Do the Government propose to recognise, enforce and be guided by the provisions of the 1982 convention, or will the Government go by the 1958 convention?
The two amendments which I have put forward are designed to elucidate that question. Are the Government and all of us to adhere to the terms of the 1958 convention which was signed and ratified, I gather, as part of our law; or are we to go by the 1982 convention which was agreed by almost everyone at the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference and not ratified or signed only because of another matter altogether? In 1958 the conference on the territorial sea went into that subject most carefully. It stated what the limits of the territorial sea and the rights of innocent passage were in 1958. That is what we agreed to. I understand that that convention is now part of international law.
Since 1958 things have developed greatly. When the 1982 convention was passed and agreed by most countries it was said that developments since 1958 had accentuated the need for a new and generally acceptable convention on the law of the sea. In another article it is stated that this convention shall prevail as between states parties over the 1958 convention. There is the recommendation. Instead of having the 1958 convention as part of our law, framed as it was then and agreed by practically everyone, we ought to bring it up to date to include the 1982 convention, which is very detailed. The convention has brought in an important new article about the meaning of innocent passage. It also deals with nuclear ships and so forth going through the seas.
All these matters are dealt with by the 1982 convention but not by the 1958 convention. It is very important that we should state—as I hope will be stated—that the Convention on the Law of the Sea—agreed by almost everyone in 1982 and not signed for a fortuitous reason; because of the deep sea mining—should be accepted as part of the international law of the sea today so far as it concerns the internationl law.
Although I put forward this amendment to this Bill I shall be quite content if the Government accept it in principle and tell us in principle by what convention they will be bound or will apply in the future. The Government can do so without Parliament. I read a short passage from a judgment by the late Lord Diplock in the case of the Post Office v. Estuary Radio Limited:
"It still lies within the prerogative power of the Crown to extend its sovereignty and jurisdiction to areas of land or sea over which it has not previously claimed or received sovereignty or jurisdiction. For such extension the authority of Parliament is not required. The Queen's Courts, upon being informed by an Order in Council or by the appropriate Minister or Law Officer, of the Crown's claim to sovereignty or jurisdiction … must give effect to it and we are bound by it".
Therefore, it is not necessary for the Government to trouble the courts or Parliament, but they can assure us and, I hope, make matters clear. All writers of textbooks on international law will then know the correct situation, and all the books will clearly set out the law of the sea, rather than leaving the matter to further discussion and argument. At all events, let it be stated quite clearly as it is stated in the 1982 convention, especially on controversial subjects such as nuclear powered ships and the meaning of "innocent passage". I hope that the Government will feel able to answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, by saying that the law ought to be observed in our own territorial sea over which we have sovereignty, and that the law to be observed, applied and enforced is the law set out in the 1982 convention. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Silkin of Dulwich: My Lords, as in the case of the first amendment, which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, I am happy to support Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 as probing amendments, as they were advanced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. I can particularly support the new clause, Amendment No. 3, because we on this side feel
448
very strongly that events have marched far since 1958 and the provisions of the United Nations convention 1982 are already to a very large extent the common view of humanity. It is certainly time that, as regards matters germane to this legislation, this country should accept as binding the provisions of that convention. I agree with the noble and learned Lord that the correct course is a statement rather than to have a provision in the Bill. I hope that such a statement will soon be forthcoming.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am glad that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has indicated that, in putting down these two amendments at Report, they are probing amendments. I listened with care to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Silkin, said in supporting the amendments as probing amendments. I hope that I can give both noble and learned Lords the explanation that they require.
I take the point that the noble and learned Lord. Lord Denning, attached his remarks to the question asked by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kennet, at Second Reading. It would appear that the noble and learned Lord is interested in the relationship between the 1958 convention and the 1982 convention and in our position in that regard.
I should recall to the House where the conventions stand. The 1958 convention is now nearly 30 years old. Naturally, in the intervening years much consideration has been given to its terms. At the UN Law of the Sea Convention from 1973 to 1982, though much wording was carried over from the earlier convention, some changes were made. However, the general thrust of the two conventions is much the same as it was in the past as regards the territorial sea, to which the noble and learned Lord's amendment refers. Indeed, some apparent differences in the two sets of articles which he names are not in fact substantial. Some formulations which figure as interpretive material in the preparative work on the 1958 convention were carried explicitly into the text of the 1982 convention. There is a fuller mention of traffic separation schemes for the safety of navigation because since 1958 the International Maritime Organisation has been extremely active in this field. Other provisions may be regarded as clarifications of the earlier text.
The 1982 convention is not in force and has achieved only just over half the number of ratifications which would bring it into force among the ratifying parties. The United Kingdom did not sign it. Nevertheless, the effect of the wordings of the convention can be seen to some extent in state practice in certain fields. The provisions on fisheries, which were developed at an early stage in the conference, in part inspired the practice of states in connection with the extension of fishery zones to the 200-mile limit.
The conference and its convention have undoubtedly encouraged the widespread move towards establishing or recognising 12-mile territorial seas to which I referred at Second Reading. Where the elements figuring in the 1982 convention reflect generally accepted state practice, we would expect to observe them. We have already said that we regard the parts of the convention relating to navigation as helpful and we naturally welcome state practice which

449
reflects them as useful. In order to assess the current position in international law one must look not only at the old convention but also at the extent to which modern state practice reflects the newer formulations in the 1982 convention. Such an assessment can be made only by reference to specific points and practice on those points. I hope that that makes clear how we see the relationship between the two conventions.
On the 1982 convention, the sets of articles on the territorial sea in general cover the same ground. The convention is not in force and the United Kingdom has not signed it. For obvious reasons it would not be appropriate to carry its wording into the law of the United Kingdom.
The two conventions in this field are largely similar in content. However, the earlier one is old and the later one is not in force or signed by the United Kingdom. The true position cannot be expressed simply by a choice of texts. I think the most useful thing that I can do is to repeat that, if specific points arose, we should have to examine state practice on the specific points as well as the two texts, and the degree of support for the wordings in them, if they are different.
I hope that, with that rather detailed explanation of our position on these two conventions and their effects in relation to the Bill, the noble and learned Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendments.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness for her explanation. It is completely satisfactory to me. I gather it means that the 1958 convention holds but it is to be interpreted in the light of the 1982 convention. Therefore, in international law we virtually have to look at the 1958 convention in the light of the amendments incorporated in the 1982 convention. I believe and hope that on the whole that position will be satisfactory. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]

Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act: Implementation
3.38 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. The Statement reads as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a Statement about teachers' pay and conditions of employment in England and Wales.
"The Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act has now received Royal Assent. The Government want school teachers to receive an average increase of 16.4 per cent., half with effect from 1st January 1987 and half on 1st October 1987. I am today sending a draft order for this purpose to those I am required to consult under the Act seeking their comments. The order covers the 1st January pay increase and sets out the conditions which will become part of school teachers' contracts of employment. I am placing copies of the
450
consultation letter and attachments in the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office.
"I have considered carefully the responses to the proposals for teachers' pay and conditions which I set out in October and to those which emerged from the ACAS discussions. I have also taken into account the settlement in Scotland, and I am now bringing forward revised proposals to apply in full from 1st October. The main features are: first, the top of the basic salary scale will increase from £12,700 to £13,300, which is £600 higher than the figure in my October proposals; secondly, there will be five levels of incentive allowances ranging from £500 to £4,200; thirdly, the 105,000 teachers on scales 3 and 4 and the senior teachers' scale will receive allowances of £1,000, £3,000 and £4,200 respectively; fourthly, there will be scope for 25,000 new promotions in October 1987 with an increase in the number of teachers qualifying for an allowance to about 165,000 in 1990—this is 20,000 more than in my previous proposals; and, fifthly, there are no changes to my original proposals for heads or deputies.
"These proposals recognise the view put by the teacher unions in support of a better basic salary scale, and I have moved toward their position. I have however retained a pay structure which provides good differentials, and I have increased the number of incentive posts so that the proportion of teachers in them will rise to 55 per cent. overall in 1990.
"The order also covers teachers in special schools and unqualified teachers. I recognise the distinctive position of teachers in special schools and the basic allowance for them will be £1,000 as against £855 in the ACAS proposals.
"In my statement of 30th October I said that the increased expenditure of £608 million on teachers' pay must be matched by a clear definition of school teachers' duties and conditions of employment. On 27th November I recognised the useful progress in the ACAS discussions on the definition of a teacher's job and on the length of the teachers' working year. The list of teachers' duties set out in the draft order are based closely on the ACAS proposals. The order provides for a working year of 195 days, of which five days are beyond the pupil year, and states that a teacher may be required to work for 1,265 hours a year at the direction of the headteacher: these requirements are consistent with the ACAS proposals.
"The ACAS document proposed levels of cover for absent teachers but recognised that this depended both on finance and the availability of suitably qualified teachers. The Government believe that the ACAS proposals would have created difficulties for many local authorities. We have therefore decided that teachers should not normally be required to provide cover after a colleague has been absent for three consecutive days, nor to provide cover in the case of planned absences of more than three consecutive days. The question of cover will be among the matters to be taken into consideration in the consultations which I shall shortly be initiating about the numbers of school teachers needed and how their time can be used to best advantage.

451
"I am asking for responses to my consultative letter by Monday 23rd March at the latest. Ministers or my officials will be willing to meet with those who are being consulted. I regard it as essential for these discussions to be completed before the end of this month. We can then lay the order before the Easter Recess so that teachers will receive their back pay without delay.
"I wish to confirm that the Government propose to increase education GREs in England and Wales by £118 million for 1986–87 and £490 million for 1987–88, with an increase in block grant to local authorities of £56 million and £200 million for those years. On that basis the local authority associations have already been sent information about the likely change in individual GREs and block grant entitlements. Formal consultation will be started shortly.
"These proposals will improve the career prospects of teachers and give local management new scope to raise the quality of education. Teachers are being given a substantial pay increase combined with a clear definition of their responsibilities. I believe that parents will expect teachers to respond by giving their commitment to uninterrupted and effective education for all our nation's children."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, for repeating the Statement made by her right honourable friend. It is necessary to say at once that we recognise the reasonable tone of the Secretary of State's proposals, and indeed the extent to which the noble Baroness has moved away from the Statement of 30th October towards the position agreed in the ACAS talks and subsequently agreed at the Burnham Committee on the 7th January. But is it not the case that, had the Secretary of State been as reasonable and adaptable on 30th October last year, we might have been very much closer to an agreement without the need for the imposition of the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act? Indeed, is it not the case that, had the Secretary of State or his predecessor been prepared to make the same sort of money available two years ago when the round of negotiations started, we could have been spared the extreme unpleasantness and pain in our schools over the period up to May 1986? Is it not the case that it is the successive Secretaries of State who have been responsible for the problems in our schools, rather than those actually working in the education service?
The Statement will obviously need to be studied in detail in the short time available by the teachers, the local authorities and indeed by all of us. We note that the Statement announces a rise in the top of the basic salary scale to £13,300, which is £600 higher; we note that there is a substantial number of promoted posts; we note that there are better proposals for special schools, and we note a number of respects in which the proposals are closer to the ACAS agreement. If that is the case, how can this be afforded within the £608 million which was originally set as the target by the Secretary of State? If the answer to that is a change in
452
the second implementation date—and this may or may not be the case—will the noble Baroness recognise that the teachers and the employers were prepared to consider that possibility when we were still in a negotiating position?
I hope the Government will recognise that we on this side of the House have no interest whatsoever in continued disruption in schools or of our children's education, but I hope the noble Baroness will recognise also that the ultimate conditions for peace in our schools are not only good pay and acceptable conditions of service, but democratic negotiating rights for teachers and their employers.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, we on these Benches also wish to thank the noble Baroness for repeating this Statement. It is certainly welcome that the Secretary of State has agreed that the top of the basic salary scale shall be increased from £12,700 to £13,300. But it does lead one to ask why, if the Secretary of State was going to move towards the position of the larger unions over the main professional grade, he did not make this move earlier—because that would have been much more likely to lead to an agreed settlement. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, it would have made the imposition clause in the Act unnecessary. If he is prepared to be flexible now, why was he not prepared to be flexible then?
The second point concerns the five levels of incentive allowances. Can the noble Baroness say how these are to be allocated? Will this be left to headteachers, and is deciding whether they are going to award a little more to someone because he is taking on extra responsibility for chemistry, or whatever, not going to put them in a rather invidious position? It seems to put the ball entirely into the headteachers' court.
On the question of the 1,265 hours, this was indeed part of the ACAS package, but of course it was linked to a closer approximation to their ideas on pay structure, which have not in fact been fully met, so one must wonder whether this can be implemented. As regards the Government's announcement that they are increasing the GREs in England and Wales by £118 million, I should again like to ask the noble Baroness what is the position for ILEA, which does not of course receive any block grant and, so far as I understand, will be receiving absolutely no help towards the implementation of these proposals.
There are two points which I should like to raise concerning the draft order. The covering letter appears to suggest that there will be a genuine consultation process. Can we be assured that the points made during this consultation process will be taken into account?
In page 9, section 2 refers to the question of the duties headteachers can reasonably require teachers to perform. Although it appears to be a slight improvement on the Secretary of State's original condition No. 19, it still remains an open ended question. Is this something to which attention should be paid during consultation? Page 12 refers to the question of teachers being obliged to supervise persons providing support for teachers. I should like to ask whether that means only laboratory technicians and technical staff or whether it includes ancillary staff, for

453
example, dinner ladies. This point was at issue at an earlier stage in the negotiations.
Finally, all these matters might have been more acceptable if the Government had accepted our proposals for an independent review body, which as your Lordships will remember received a great deal of backing from both inside and outside your Lordships' House. We can only hope that matters now proceed smoothly and that there will be no further disruption to our schools.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for the welcome given to my right honourable friend's current proposals, and also for their recognition of the fact that he has taken into account consultations already held and points raised and comments made during the passage of the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act (as it now is) through this House as well as the other place.
A number of the detailed questions will be answered by the draft order which is now available to your Lordships in the Printed Paper Office. In particular, some of the detailed questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, will be answered by that document, which is under consultation.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, suggested that the Act would not have been necessary if the Secretary of State had adopted a more flexible attitude at an earlier point. This comment was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. However, I have to remind your Lordships of the history of this affair and that the unions themselves were not able to agree. There was certainly no overall support for the so-called ACAS agreement. If it had not been for the firm line taken by the Secretary of State I suspect that the parties would not have achieved a consensus.
I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that there is no change in the implementation dates. The overall effect of the scales and allowances now proposed is the same; namely, 16.4 per cent. from 1st October, as in the Secretary of State's previous proposals. Therefore, there is no question that any increase in the basic scale cannot be afforded.
Regarding teachers' negotiating rights, which was a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, it is only fair to say that the discussions in the course of the passage of the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill through this House gave plenty of opportunity for us to state the position. The Act provides a breathing space and an interim period during which a more satisfactory system than the previous Burnham system can be set up. The attitude of the Secretary of State concerning the Statement and the fact that he has shown he has taken account of points raised is a good indication of his attitude in terms of long-term machinery.
With reference to other points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, at one time he questioned the number of hours to be worked by teachers. I should like to repeat that the requirement is that they should work 195 days and 1,265 hours on specific tasks at the direction of the head. This is consistent with the ACAS document of November 1986.
The noble Lord raised the question of funding in relation to ILEA—a question which he raised recently
454
in the course of our discussions at the Committee stage of the Local Government Finance Bill. I can only repeat in this context that that Bill includes the formula by which the Secretary of State is to determine the precept maximum for ILEA for 1987–88. In deciding on that formula he took account of the cost of my right honourable friend's proposals on teachers' pay for ILEA, and of the likelihood that these would have to be funded wholly through the precept. The Secretary of State also took the view that there was considerable scope for ILEA to reduce its expenditure, while maintaining an adequate education service.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, would the noble Baroness agree that two years ago the situation in many schools was so bad, the lack of confidence so great, dislocation so frequent and the problems besides pay and conditions so many, that it is a marvel the Secretary of State has been able to produce so generous a package with such widespread support? Ought not we to encourage anybody we know in the education service, whether parents or teachers, to take this package and work on it in the future, because there are many other reforms which are very badly needed by the children in this country?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I think we must all recognise and welcome the progress that is being made. The profession is receiving a 16.4 per cent. average pay increase and a defined set of conditions. Therefore, a new beginning is opening up. While there are already many excellent and respected teachers doing a demanding job in an outstanding way, I believe that implementation of the settlement will allow this fact to be reflected throughout the profession.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I should like to deal briefly with one point that the noble Baroness made. She suggested that the answers to some of the detailed questions I raised could be found in Schedule 3 to the order. It is precisely because the answers are not there that I put the questions to her. I should like to say to the noble Baroness that now that the consultation process is being opened up these are matters on which clarification will be sought
Baroness Hooper: Thank you. I note what the noble Lord has said.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the package of conditions of service and the very substantial pay increase must be taken together, and that in the the event of any teacher being so foolish as to respond to the suggestion made by one or two of the unions to indulge in disruptive practices, these increases should not apply to him or her?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as I have already said, the offer made by the settlement provides, a new beginning for our schools. I believe that the vast majority of teachers will recognise the need for this and will welcome the pay increases and the new structure. I do not believe that teachers like to disrupt schools and I am sure that they will put the interests of the children first.

Sizewell Power Station: Inquiry Report
4 p.m.
Viscount Davidson Viscount Davidson rose to move, That this House takes note of the Inspector's Report on the Central Electricity Generating Board's application for consent for construction of a pressurised water reactor at Sizewell, Suffolk.
The noble Viscount said: I welcome the fact that the House will today be debating the Central Electricity Generating Board's application for consent to build a pressurised water reactor at Sizewell. We have a long tradition in this House of constructive, balanced and informed debates on nuclear matters, and I am sure that today's debate will be no exception. I know that many noble Lords wish to speak, so I shall keep my own contribution brief.
I begin by welcoming the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, has chosen to make his maiden speech in this debate. I am sure that I speak for all your Lordships in saying how much we look forward to it.
Parliament has given my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy the responsibility for taking the decision on the CEGB's application to build Sizewell B. This effectively places him in a judicial position, and means that it would not be right for me to comment on any of the issues covered in the inspector's report or otherwise related to the proposal to build Sizewell B until the Secretary of State has reached his decision.
The purpose of this debate is thus not for me to explain the Government's views, but to enable the Government to listen with care to the views expressed in this House. Following the debate I will report back to my right honourable friend who I know will study the entire report of our proceedings with great care.
The inspector and his staff had a tremendous task facing them. The inquiry which opened in January 1983 and continued until March 1985, having heard 340 days of evidence, was the longest and most exhaustive planning inquiry in our history. The inspector, Sir Frank Layfield, was assisted by four skilled assessors and a small but dedicated secretariat. Together they devoted themselves to a painstaking analysis of both the arguments for and against the building of a PWR reactor at Sizewell. It is a tribute to their skill and application that, irrespective of the views that any of us may have of the recommendations or observations made in it, we can all agree that Sir Frank has produced a very readable report despite the vast quantity of the evidence with which he had to deal.
I should like now to say a few words about the general energy background against which our debate is taking place today. Whatever decisions are made world-wide about the forms of energy which should be developed, they are decisions which are likely to have a profound effect for decades to come. It is only in recent years that energy problems have come to the forefront of political and economic debate. Nobody in the year 1900 would have predicted that the world's population would quadruple or that industrialisation would proceed to the degree that has now taken place with the resulting pressure on natural resources. There
456
is one thing that virtually all forecasts of energy demand have in common, and that has been that they have to be wrong. It is a striking fact that this has, in most cases, been due to under-estimation both of the growth of population and the spread of industrialisation.
It is impossible to predict with any certainty what changes we might see in population or industrialisation into the next century. But what is certain is that the experience of the past and the potential for world-wide growth in the next century show that the western world must pursue flexible energy policies aimed at meeting the potential needs of the future.
No doubt some noble Lords will wish to stress not only the contribution that can be made by nuclear energy, if that course is pursued, but also the potential contributions from other forms of energy. Some, like coal, oil and gas, and hydro-power, are already well developed. Others like solar power, wind power, tidal and wave power and geothermal energy, have been researched extensively both here and internationally. Improved energy efficiency provides scope for a very important contribution towards balancing supply and demand.
Knowing the interest and knowledge within this House on all aspects of the energy scene, I look forward to listening today to a debate which I know will be of a high quality, and in which I am sure that constructive and creative views will be expressed. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Inspector's Report on the Central Electricity Generating Board's application for consent for construction of a pressurised water reactor at Sizewell, Suffolk.—(Viscount Davidson.)
4.5 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the House would wish to commend, as indeed I myself would wish to commend, the stand that the Government have taken on this vital question. It is one in which the future of our country is largely bound up; it is a matter which is going to have a profound effect on sections of our own population. Therefore, one is bound to welcome the quite genuine attitude of the Government—which I sincerely trust it is—that their mind is not made up upon this matter, but that they will in fact listen with open minds to the contributions made in another place and those to be made in your Lordships' House today.
I have to congratulate the Government on a second count—their appointment of Sir Frank Layfield to conduct this inquiry together with his assessors. It is clear from a reading of the report that a prodigious amount of work has gone into it. Sir Frank and his assessors have had patiently to listen to, or read, some 16 million words, I am told, in the course of arriving at their conclusion. I know, having spent only 10 days upon it myself, part time, what a strain this must have been upon all of them, particularly Sir Frank. We, on this side, wish to congratulate him on his efforts and for showing the degree of impartiality and thorough-ness required on a vital question of this kind.
Sir Frank seems to have taken to heart the well-known saying that experts should be on tap, never on

457
top. Although, in many ways, he has been compelled to rely—and quite properly rely—upon the assurances that he has received from the Central Electricity Generating Board, and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Marshall, concerning matters that it would have taken much longer, perhaps years, to bring before him, his report has been done with impartiality.
The report arrives at a conclusion. It is best reproduced in this quotation:
"In forming my recommendations on whether consent and deemed planning permission should be granted for Sizewell B, I have weighed the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed station. The disadvantages are of two principal kinds: risks to health and safety, and environmental damage to the locality. If consent is to be given, these disadvantages must be outweighed by anticipated economic benefits for the nation".
Sir Frank says later:
"In my judgment the expected national economic benefits are sufficient to justify the risks that would he incurred".
Therefore, it is a balancing judgment in which known factors have had to be taken into account both as regards risk and safety, and also unknown factors such as future economic circumstances, and the somewhat ambiguous considerations, I am bound to say, which emerge from what is popularly called cost-benefit analysis, and so on.
My first observation for the attention of your Lordships is to invite you to consider whether these conclusions, which were reached some time ago, indeed prior to Chernobyl and prior to the very considerable decline in the price of both oil and coal, would have today in those circumstances have arrived at the same balance. This is a matter on which there are a variety of views. They have already been expressed in another place and therefore have already been taken into account, or are in the process of being taken into account, by the right honourable gentleman the Minister concerned. I shall not go into further detail here for the purposes of saving time. However, I repeat that I wonder whether this decision would have been the same in current circumstances.
Sometimes we are in danger of forgetting that the report was concerned not only with the pressurised water reactor as a principle and with the engineering and other problems concerned with it but with wider issues. It is common knowledge—indeed it was hinted at in the report—that the decision about this station for which application is made would have certain influences on the extension of the PWR policy as advocated by the CEGB. Perhaps we could concentrate on the proposed station. A broader consideration of the matter involves the question of safety and health risks, and in this instance it raises environmental questions as well.
With your Lordships' permission I should like to reproduce what Sir Frank says about this aspect:
"The Sizewell site is within the Suffolk Heritage Coast and the Suffolk Coast and Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty"—
and—
"The development of Sizewell B would be a massive intrusion into the area".
The quotation continues:
"Only proven national interest and lack of alternative sites can justify the construction of Sizewell B".
Quite independently of the other and very important questions that arise in the British
458
population as a whole, I shall draw your Lordships' attention to what I call the possible plight of the inhabitants of Sizewell itself, who are few in number; of Saxmundham, which has a population of 2,400; of Aldeburgh, which is well known to your Lordships, which has a population of 2,900 and which is only four and half miles away; and of Leiston, with a population of 5,100 only two miles from the proposed site. There is the broader canvas of Suffolk itself, in particular the eastern part, which has a total population of only 624,200; that is, slightly over 1 per cent. of the population in the United Kingdom.
I invite your Lordships, all other things being equal (I deliberately use the term), to consider whether those of us, perhaps the majority, who live outside the area—particularly those experts so well addicted to the engineering abilities and everything else which are inherent in the Sizewell project—have a moral right to exert authority over the peace, tranquility, way of life, traditions, scenic beauty, serenity and all the other aspects associated with the well-being of those living and working in the area. That is an aspect which I propose to leave to your Lordships for the moment.
The report says that the development can be justified only if the national interest justifies it. We have heard many times the words "national interest". We have seen how that phrase can be widely or narrowly interpreted, as members of various political parties and of none seek to bring before your Lordships their concept of the national interest. But there must be a clearly defined national advantage to validate a decision in favour of a project of this kind. The dangers and the risks on the one hand have to be assessed against the economic advantages, whatever they may be, on the other.
I think there is common ground in your Lordships' House that one of the matters causing worry among not only the inhabitants of East Suffolk and its neighbourhood, but more widely in the public domain, is the danger to health from radiation. Radiation is not a perceived danger in the same sense as fire or tempest. It is silent, it cannot be seen and the effects are not immediately perceptible. Even normal radiation may—and we are still not sure—give rise to cancer of some kind. I think it is common ground that prolonged exposure to radiation can through the development of cancer inflict damage not only to the structure of the body but also to the blood in terms of leukaemia.
I do not want to add to any scaremongering stories, but the state of science is not far enough advanced for us yet to know the exact amount of radiation required to trigger off the onslaught of this dread disease among people of all ages. For some it is quite clear that even the most minuscule addition to radiation is sufficient to trigger it off. Others may be exposed to large doses of radiation but nevertheless do not develop the disease. We do not know; and at the moment medical science does not have a cure for this dread affliction. Once again I am not seeking to scare people or to raise undue alarm about these matters, but there is that danger.
That danger arises from all kinds of leaks. We have had the grim reminder of a large-scale leak at Chernobyl, where, compared with an atomic bomb or

459
a hydrogen bomb explosion, there was a mere puff of smoke which went across the top of Europe, the effects of which we are not entirely sure about because we do not yet know how far the radiation has gone into the food chain. Therefore we are in the realm of uncertainty.
We know that one of the principal causes of accidents of all kinds is the human being—the human factor—however capable he may be as regards mathematical calculation; and I have observed the figures for mathematical calculation put forward by the CEGB. We cannot predict such factors.
Defects may arise in respect of design and construction. Your Lordships will remember that in the case of the appalling incident concerning "Challenger" it was a defect in construction—a very small defect—that resulted in the terrible disaster. It was an error which was to some extent aided by the commercial pressures which are never absent from modern society and which made the achievement of a deadline absolutely imperative.
There are possible human errors in design and construction, as well as the human errors that may arise in operation. Although we have fail-save mechanisms, there may even be design or material defects in those. Certainly there may be defects in monitoring. There may also be human defects and human errors in maintenance and repair. There is scope for human error in waste transportation and disposal. These are the dangers that arise from human error; and who is to say that they are to be impossible? The chances are a million to one, so it is said, or they may be 100,000 to one or 10 to one. Nobody can say for sure, except on statistical projections, which very often have little relevance. Nobody can be absolutely sure about this.
What do we have to set against those dangers? Against those dangers, which are widely acknowledged, we have the results of a cost-benefit analysis which indicate that perhaps now, in the light of modern circumstances, it is more economic—whatever the term may mean—to go over to nuclear energy. There are those—and the trend has been increasing over the past 10 years—who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. In that connection no economic value is apparently placed upon health and well-being or upon truth, integrity or that degree of personal serenity which ought to be the right of every individual on this planet and certainly the right of people living near Sizewell.
We think therefore that the balance must be in doubt, and I venture to ask your Lordships this. What is the hurry? With the issues so finely balanced—in fact some may think they go the other way and the risks and hazards greatly outweigh the economic benefits put forward—why is there this hurry? It is not as though we are devoid of fuel resources. Coal resources alone on modern estimates will last for 200 to 300 years. There is no absence of fuel on which we can depend. In the hopeful circumstance when the manufacturing economy once again begins to accelerate past its 1979 level there will be need for energy. But why the hurry?
Even on the assumption that the use of coal meant extra expenditure and that it cost more, we seem to
460
have been able over the past few years to have expended thousands of millions of pounds on purposes deemed to be of national importance. For example, we spent £7,000 million on the Falklands war. We spent £5,200 million on winning the miners' strike. We have spent £8,000 million in supporting the European Community and it is likely to cost us a further £800 million to £1,000 million a year. I am not for the moment disputing the purposes behind this expenditure. That would involve me in political argument and I am most anxious not to intrude a party note into this debate. Nevertheless, such expenditure shows a willingness and an ability to spend extra money where extra money is required.
I suggest that the prudent view for this House to take is this. It is for this House to say that we have to take the risks, which are all too apparent, seriously into account until such time as the advance of science, and in particular medical science, has enabled the problem of the causes, treatment and cure of cancer to be solved. I am old enough to remember the time when TB was a killer disease: it was a sentence of death. That has now passed. With the coming of antibiotics and various other drugs that have been invented since, there is reasonable prospect, well within the time when our coal can be usefully expended, for these problems to be solved.
In addition there are the other sources of energy. I invite those Members of your Lordships' House who may be interested in the more non-traditional forms of energy to meditate upon the fact that, for example, there has existed for some time the Joint European Torus project for the production of energy by fusion. This is a long way off yet, but who is to say that in perhaps 50 or 100 years' time we may not be able to produce nuclear energy by means that do not bring about the deadly hazards which people now apprehend and which they ought not to have to fear?
Finally, there is the moral point which I venture to put to your Lordships. Even on the optimistic assumption—I hope not too optimistic—that most of your Lordships will attain the age achieved by the late Lord Shinwell, we are all life-tenants on the face of the earth and our lives are limited. Are we now justified, on the basis of the information that is available before us, in taking a decision the effects of which we shall not feel but which may be felt and possibly endured and suffered by our grandchildren and their children? I mentioned human error, and it may well be that in arriving at that opinion I have made an error as well. But I venture to think not, and I commend my views to your Lordships.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I should like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, in expressing appreciation to the Government for the way in which they have handled this inquiry. It is unusual for an inquiry of this sort to be subjected to debate in both Houses of Parliament before a decision is reached. That is a good move. Although the right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State for Energy stated that the move was without precedent, I hope that it will in fact become a precedent. I believe that it adds to the democratic way of dealing with our affairs and I

461
welcome this opportunity of debating the matter fully before a decision is taken.
I should also like, along with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, to pay tribute to the painstaking work undertaken by the inspector on this report. The report is extremely lengthy. However, it is well written, clear and decisive. We could not have expected a better report.
I should also like to add a tribute to the electricity industry of this country. We are fortunate to have an industry which is among the most efficient in the world today. I had to deal very often with that industry in supplying it with a primary source of energy. Those were very tough negotiations. However, I respected the industry's skill.
We are not trying in this debate to diminish in any way the capability of our electricity industry but rather to add to it by coming to the right decision on a major issue. As the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, said, we are raising a major matter of energy policy. We are not dealing with one single project in itself; we are dealing with the issue of energy policy and how our energy policy will develop in the years ahead.
I have had the opportunity of being involved in the assessment of many major capital projects in the public sector, in the coal industry, and more recently in the private sector. Therefore, if your Lordships will allow me, I should like to look at this project as I would if it were coming to the boardroom of a major energy company involved in a variety of fuels of world-wide importance. I should like to suggest to your Lordships how we might assess the project in those circumstances.
We should obviously start with the very important report prepared by the inspector. We should note that his conclusion, following a painstaking inquiry and carefully prepared report, was that we should proceed with the project for a PWR station at Sizewell. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, has pointed out and as is well known to all of us, many things have happened since the inquiry was held. The inspector was undoubtedly constrained to take account in his report of what was said at the inquiry itself. But since then, looking at this matter purely on economic grounds and leaving out other issues, the price of oil has virtually halved and the price of coal has also halved.
We must consider, as a body looking at the economic aspects of the proposal before we look at it in a wider context, the extent to which that change has affected our assessment of the project. if we were to develop and extend the current prices of oil and coal in the same way in which the inspector extended the prices he considered to be relevant at the time of the inquiry to the end of the century, we should come to a situation in which it would be very doubtful whether this particular project—I do not speak here of any subsequent PWRs which might be more cheaply produced—was economic.
Taking coal as an example, the inspector discounted the coal price put forward for the year 2000 by the CEGB and by the Department of Energy and took a lower price of 86 dollars per tonne. If the current lower price were taken into account, the general consensus of opinion is that by the year 2000 we could be facing a
462
coal price of something of the order of 50 dollars a tonne of suitable steam-raising coal. I do not pretend that any estimate is correct. I merely project in the same way in which the inspector did on the prices presented to him at the time of the inquiry. If one projected the present price, there is little doubt that the economic case presented in the report is suspect
This is not the conclusion merely of those, of whom I might be considered to be one, who support one form of energy against another. It is the result of very detailed studies made by independent authorities. I should like to quote the Cambridge Energy Research Organisation which as recently as February of this year issued a report which concluded:
"The once prevalent view that nuclear power is cheaper than coal cannot now be used as a basis for rational decision-making by utilities and governments".
That is an independent assessment.
I have worked out the cost of generating electricity on the basis of the projection of present prices of fossil fuels compared with the views taken at the time of the Sizewell report. Given the cost estimates that were presented and assuming that everything went exactly according to plan, I have compared the PWR with the coal costs based on Sir Frank Layfield's estimate. I have then taken the views expressed in relation to what is now expected to be the coal price in the year 2000. On the basis of the PWR figures, the cost in terms of pence per kilowatt hour of generated electricity would be 2.83. On the basis of the figures which Sir Frank Layfield used in his report, costs of generating electricity by coal, with the most up-to-date methods and sulphur free would be 3.80. However, on the most recent figures of coal prices projected in the same way as was done with prices then obtaining, the cost would be 2.66. Therefore, we are comparing 2.66 with 2.83.
That may not appear to be a large margin. However, may I draw your Lordships' attention to another matter which any commercial concern would be bound to consider. In making all these estimates, the inspector based the configuration on a 5 per cent. discount rate. He makes no comment on that; he merely says that that was the figure that he was given. But a 5 per cent. discount rate on a project costing £14 billion is hardly supportable today.
A few days ago in this House we were debating the Channel Tunnel project. The discount rate which they proposed, for which there was not unanimous support, was 17 per cent. Here we are talking about locking in £1½ billion to a discount rate of 5 per cent. If, as would be reasonable, this were increased to 10 per cent., having regard to present interest rates, then the margin between coal and nuclear would be very much wider. So I believe that if we were looking at this quite objectively as a commercial concern at the present time, as to whether we should go ahead with the PWR project with all the costs proposed and a 5 per cent. discount rate or with the new and much lower cost of fossil fuels, we would begin to have very serious doubts.
However, coal is not the only alternative. So I think that any self-respecting commercial organisation would consider all the other alternatives to produce the energy which we require in the country. We have, for example, the possibility of refurbishing the smaller

463
electricity generating stations which would otherwise go out of action. Now there is a large-scale programme for the closure of smaller stations. Should we be closing them? Should we not be refurbishing them with more up-to-date equipment, at a much lower capital cost and much nearer the sources of consumption than these large new stations in remote sites? Should we not be making sure that this might be a way of meeting at least part of the additional load?
Secondly, we have the question of combined heat and power. I am very sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Marshall, who is sitting here will not be participating in our debate, but I can understand why. He was responsible for a very important report on this subject of combined heat and power and what it could contribute to our energy resources in this country. Since his report was published some years ago, very little progress has been made in Britain but there has been substantial progress in other countries. Indeed, this is referred to by the inspector in his report. He said that he could not comment on this issue but he drew attention to the way in which we were lagging behind other countries.
As your Lordships will be well aware, combined heat and power projects generate energy, electricity and heat combined to give much greater efficiency than is possible with one or the other on its own. Then we have, as we were debating only recently in reply to a Question, the possibility of the Severn and the Mersey barrages. Again, the inspector referred to them and thought they were longer term.
But overriding all this is the question of energy efficiency, the way in which we could perhaps, by putting more money into the campaign so effectively launched by the present Secretary of State for Energy, save a very large part of what might be needed by main new power station construction.
I conclude that having subjected this searching inquiry and report to careful consideration in today's circumstances—we are not concerned with what may have been valid yesterday or the day before, or even what may be valid tomorrow—what we must do as a nation is to make an important decision for a major capital project today. In today's circumstances I think the answer is that we must be prudent, we must be cautious about this.
What we ought to do, if I may suggest it, is that if we need the extra generating capacity—and I am satisfied that the CEGB has made out a good case for this—then we should go for a couple of well-tried coal-fired stations with desulphurisation plant. In the meantime, while this is being done and meeting our essential generating requirements, we should ponder further whether we go for a PWR or for an AGR for which a case has again been very elegantly made in correspondence in The Times, or whether we should develop other sources. In other words, we would be wise not to rush this. I realise that to say we should not rush something which has already taken several years might be looked at askance, but we must take things as they are today. I believe that the right thing to do is to take the prudent course, to do this by stages.
I would strongly recommend to your Lordships that the advice we give the Government is that further time
464
for reflection is required, that there are the means for adding to our energy supply without making a major decision which in the years ahead we might feel was premature.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, it is nearly 42 years since I made a maiden speech in this Chamber. Your Lordships had kindly lent it to another place after their Chamber had been wrecked by Hitler. I was nervous then. After listening for several weeks to the terrifyingly high quality of the speeches in your Lordships' House, I am much more nervous today. So I crave your indulgence. During my first maiden speech, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor (as he now is) was unconventionally moved to interrupt me. It was the only lively moment during a dull speech! Today I have been warned not to provoke anyone. I shall attempt to avoid that by trying to stick to generally agreed facts.
Over 30 years ago Calder Hall was the first nuclear power station in the world to supply grid electricity. Now nuclear power provides 70 per cent. of electricity in France, 55 per cent. in Belgium, 45 per cent. in Sweden. The Soviet Union, despite Chernobyl, has one of the largest nuclear power programmes, but of the top industrial nations we have one of the smallest. We produce only 17 per cent. to 18 per cent. of our electricity through nuclear power, yet we were the pioneers.
The noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, practically won the 1964 election with his speech at the October 1963 Labour Party Converence when he commended to us the "white heat of the technological revolution". The Layfield Inquiry into Sizewell B gives us at last the opportunity to catch up in that technological revolution in which we have been left so far behind. It is the longest, most detailed, most thorough, most penetrating and most authoritative inquiry ever made into the economics and safety of nuclear power. It will be a classic for generations all over the world.
I shall take the economics first. Layfield backed a PWR station. He said that the old-fashioned AGR had only a one in five chance of being more economic. Some 350 PWR stations are working already in the world. It is the modern system. It is obvious that if there are to be export orders connected with nuclear power stations that is the system we must have. It is the design that the customer. the CEGB, wants, and that customer is very astute. It is similar to Calloway in Missouri and Wolf Creek in Kansas, which operate far more efficiently and cheaply than our AGR stations.
Layfield showed that Sizewell B will be cheaper to run than a coal-fired station, even if the current and temporarily low international coal prices were 20 per cent. less than they are today and if oil prices never rose. But the CEGB gets only 12 million tonnes of its 70 million tonnes a year from British Coal at international prices. The far higher price of the rest costs the CEGB at least an extra £250 million a year. It is clear that British Coal cannot make coal-fired power stations genuinely compete with nuclear power.
There is another worry. The great new Selby coalfield is already under threat from militants in the

465
National Union of Mineworkers. During the whole of last week they ran a damaging strike at the five pits of Selby without a ballot of the members. British Coal did not take out an injunction to stop this unlawful strike. The militants had organised several one-day illegal stoppages before. They plan more destruction. You cannot say that coal is in secure supply; not even from Selby.
It is intended that Sizewell B will be one of a series of three to five new PWR stations. As Sizewell B will have absorbed £200 million of the launching costs its successors will be still cheaper.
I come now to the safety factors. I have searched for one case of the death of a nuclear power worker directly attributable to a radiation leak. There is none. Thousands of workers in other industries are killed yearly but none through radiation in the nuclear power industry. It is as safe as working in a solicitor's office.
The amount of radiation exposure is less than a half that received by aircrews through cosmic rays. The amount of radiation emanating from our nuclear industry is 0.1 per cent. of all the radiation we are subjected to from natural and other sources. There is far more radiation on the beaches of Cornwall than on the beaches of Sellafield. It comes from the rocks. If the same standards were applied to Cornwall as those that the opponents of nuclear power demand from nuclear power stations, Cornwall would be a prohibited area. As a quarter Cornishman who spent much of his childhood there, I would consider that farcical, just as prohibition on car, rail or air travel would be farcical because people are killed by them.
Attempts are made to show that there are higher than normal rates of leukaemia and cancer near nuclear power stations. But there are higher than average rates in many places nowhere near nuclear power stations. There is no set pattern, however much one tries to prove it. The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys records of 1968 to 1980 that:
"careful scrutiny shows no indication of an abnormal pattern of leukaemia in locations where CEGB nuclear installations are in operation".
But what about Chernobyl? Last August Academician Legasov led the Russian delegation to the Vienna conference. He said that the Chernobyl accident was not possible in any commercial reactor elsewhere. He admitted that Chernobyl had defects in design never repeated outside Russia. That combined with a disregard of and inefficiency in the operating procedures produced calamity.
Sizewell B has a totally different fail-safe design. Unlike Chernoby it will switch itself off if anything goes wrong. You could drop a conventional bomb on it from an aeroplane and still there would be no nuclear fall-out disaster. The Three Mile Island accident killed no one. Nor do the trivial accidents we have in our nuclear installations, though an escape of radiation less than in a luminous watch attracts front page headlines immediately.
The CEGB has complied and is complying with all the Layfield requirements for safety. If that meticulous man, Sir Frank Layfield, is satisfied, I think we can be, too. There are industrial operations far more dangerous than nuclear ones going on around us. There is high risk wherever liquid gas and chlorine are
466
stored. The escape of gas at the Union Carbide Plant at Bophal killed 2,500 people, yet nobody suggested that all such plants should be closed.
Acid rain caused by our coal-fired power stations does immense harm to the environment. The CEGB is having to spend £600 million to make them less of a health hazard. More coal-fired stations will be correspondingly more expensive. Nuclear power plants pollute nothing. Radiation from nuclear power plants is continuously measured. It is invisible to the eye but not to instruments. That is the safeguard.
In a MORI poll in January conducted for Reader's Digest 62 per cent. admitted to knowing nothing about nuclear power and so half wrongly thought that a Chernobyl accident could happen here. Nevertheless 41 per cent. still thought that Britain must use nuclear energy to produce electricity even though the average respondent mistakenly thought that 38 per cent. of our electricity already came from nuclear power. It ought to. If the true facts were widely known I am sure that the great majority would accept that.
Nuclear power is still in the realm of the unknown, with all its primitive fears. If Sir James Frazer were alive he would be able to add an enthralling supplement to The Golden Bough on modern superstitions. In the poll I mentioned only 25 per cent. trusted Government Ministers to tell the truth about nuclear power. They should not be too despondent. Only 21 per cent. would trust senior civil servants on the same subject. However, 52 per cent., strangely, would trust television news programmes. It looks as though the Government have a sizeable job in getting the facts across. When the unknown becomes known, fear disappears.
4.59 p.m.
Viscount Torrington: My Lords, it is always a privilege to follow a maiden speaker but it is a very considerable privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, today. In my youth he was partly responsible for my education. As a young boy at Harrow I was rather more of an outdoor persuasion than of a bookish nature. So a good deal of my first impressions of politics and international affairs came from the "Panorama" programme which began at around that time. I believe that the noble Lord was very much one of its creators, along with the late and much loved Richard Dimbleby. Perhaps the fact that his recent career has involved him in being chairman of the Totalisator Board allowed him to canter through a very inspiring and competent maiden speech today. As he said, he has had a little practice in this House, which is somewhat unusual.
I decided to take part in this debate with considerable reluctance. I introduced a debate on the subject only in November. For that reason alone, I would be conspicuous by my absence if I failed to take part today. The second reason for my reluctance is that we still do not know from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy whether or not Sizewell is to proceed. However, so much has already been written about this subject that one is tempted, like the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, to look for another alternative. If your Lordships will forgive the flippancy, perhaps there is scope for a conventional thermal power station which could be fed on the

467
submissions to and the reports from the Sizewell inquiry. That is all that that information and the huge quantity of documentation will be good for if the Minister fails to decide in favour of the PWR.
I shall try to substitute brevity for my reluctance! The birth of the Sizewell PWR will follow a long, hard pregnancy, and I hope that that pregnancy will not prove to have been a phantom one. When I spoke in November, I put in a last and, I suppose, rather half-hearted plea for the AGR. The recent setback at Torness and Heysham over the vibration in the control rods and the considerable delays that that will occasion mean that I, for one, will have to fold my tent and leave the field as champion of the AGR.
The dust of Chernobyl has now settled. I hope that the instant policy-making which was somewhat foreseen in the report of the Select Committee, entitled Nuclear Power in Europe, will be quietly re-examined. When I say policy-making, I mean the policy-making of the parties opposite as it was then expressed. I hope that it can be reassessed today.
What is clear is that a power station which at the time of the Sizewell inquiry was merely desirable is today a necessity if the CEGB is to fulfil its obligations to the electricity consumer. As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, on purely economic grounds, the Sizewell PWR case may be somewhat debatable when viewed against free market fossil fuel prices as they stood in February 1987. However, the very fact that energy prices have dropped so much and so fast suggests to me that it is very dangerous to take today's energy prices as gospel. If oil prices remain as consistently low as they have been for the past few months, exploration in the oil industry for one sector will be greatly reduced. If that happens, in due course prices will have to rise significantly to catch up again. I do not believe that British Coal will be able to avoid jumping on that bandwagon as quickly as possible to get back to some sort of economic cost for mining coal when all the hidden subsidies which have already been mentioned are taken into account. Whatever the economics, as has been said, we need diversity of supply. The Sizewell PWR is an important part of that diversity and security.
Much of the strident opposition to Sizewell has been based on environmental grounds. As a concerned environmentalist I find that hard fully to understand. On the purely local view, nobody relishes a major industrial plant in his backyard. It is an unpleasant and unwanted intrusion, as the inspector said. However, I say as an aside that such intrusion could be made a great deal more palatable to local residents if they were to receive direct benefit from having a major industrial plant in their back gardens. As I understand it, the operation of the rate support grant is such that, even when you have a major new rates contributor in the district, the increase in local revenue is effectively swallowed up by a reduction in RSG.
On the larger environmental scale, a well run nuclear power station emits no gasses to the atmosphere, as the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, said. By contrast, a thermal station, even with sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxide scrubbing, emits enormous quantities of carbon dioxide. The history of the
468
development of this planet since primeval times is that plants have been fixing carbon dioxide, taking this gas out of the atmosphere and returning oxygen. In the course of this century the average content of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere has considerably increased. If we go on burning fossil fuels at an increasing rate over the next century, the damage to the climate and the ecological system may be horrendous. Therefore, as environmentalists we ought to be looking for an entirely new and—virtually an impossible goal, I know—the safest possible way of generating electricity. Nuclear power may well prove to be environmentally the safest.
I hope—if I may steal a phrase from the Bible—that if the noble Lord, Lord Marshall, felt he could take part in the debate today he would say, "My Lords, let my people go"—and get on with building Sizewell.
5.6 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, I add my congratulations to those of the noble Viscount, Lord Torrington, to the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, on his maiden speech. I have always enjoyed reading what he has written and it was a pleasure to hear what he said, even though I did not always find myself in agreement with him. I should also like to tender my apologies if I do not wait for the end of this debate as there are events connected with my impending retirement for which I must return to my see city.
The decision to build or not to build Sizewell B obviously involves many factors. The four grounds put forward by the CEGB concern security of supply, diversity of supply, establishment of the PWR option and cost saving. Since then, there seems to have been an increase in the capital cost of some £100 million in addition to the dramatic reduction in fossil fuel prices to which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, drew attention. Therefore, it seems that we are left with only three reasons.
Of course there are other factors. In particular, there are issues of safety, local issues, the dangers of nuclear proliferation, energy conservation and what might loosely be called the plutonian economy. Not all those matters were covered at the Layfield Inquiry, and yet that produced from the CEGB alone 40 proofs of evidence, 233 addenda to those, and over 1,300 supporting documents. Clearly in a short speech I can deal only with a few basic matters. However, let me say at the outset how much I appreciate, with others, the attitude of Her Majesty's Government in listening to viewpoints expressed in this House and in the other place before coming to a final decision.
I must say that I hope very much that the Government will decide not to proceed. I realise that this will seem like putting a stopper on technological progress and that that might seem to be a step in a false direction, but in fact the Westinghouse model proposed is an old model which already could be called out of date. I should add that I am not against nuclear power as such. I think that the old Magnox reactors, though now out of date and going out of service, have served us well. However, a decision to go ahead with a PWR in this country would, in itself be a U-turn when one thinks of the AGRs that have been built. It would be so fraught with consequences not only for this country but also for others that I hope that

469
Her Majesty's Government will pause and decide not to go ahead for the moment.
I should like now to refer to safety in addition to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt. It was unfortunate that the Layfield Inquiry was unable fully to evaluate matters of safety and had to content itself with what it regarded as sufficient information for a judgment to be made on safety, with the assessment of safety criteria and with the ability of the CEGB and the NII to ensure plant safety.
It was somewhat disturbing to learn that the CEGB at first had proposed in April 1981 what seemed a safer model for a PWR and on grounds of cost had cast that aside in favour of a model that was substantially similar to the original SNUPPS design of Westinghouse. Although impressed by the quality of evidence from the CEGB and NII, Sir Frank Layfield reported that the CEGB's evidence on safety on its own admission was incomplete, partly because it seemed to have developed its plans as the inquiry proceeded. He also said that the NII's initial evidence was disappointing.
Furthermore, objectors at that inquiry were under terrible constraints. They had to raise every penny of their costs compared with the sums available from the very large coffers of the CEGB. Sir Frank Layfield went on to say that their evidence was nonetheless impressive, even though they did not have all the facts before them from the start and indeed some material was withheld on grounds of industrial confidentiality.
Obviously it would be improper to try to go into matters of safety, but in general I wonder whether sufficient attention has been paid to human factors and hazards. After all, the disaster of Three Mile Island happened as a result of human factors, as did Chernobyl; and so did the complete disaster at Brown's Ferry, where a lighted candle disabled almost all the electrical systems at the plant. Much detailed work on the design and safety case remains to be done. I am not convinced that the ALARP (as low as reasonably practical) principle is in accordance with the requirements of the 1965 Nuclear Installations Act. The evidence on pressure vessels given at the inquiry by Rodney Fordham, a former employee of UKAEA, certainly gives one pause for thought, and I am not sure that the computer codes for the loss of coolant accident analysis can really be validated.
Nor am I sure that the social consequences of a nuclear accident have been correctly evaluated. My own daughter, who is living in Moscow, still has her meat sent in from Helsinki by her husband's British employees, post-Chernobyl. The other day on "Farming Today" I heard that caesium in Welsh soil was still posing real problems for Welsh farmers. I think that the official figures for low-level radiation for individuals should be taken with caution. I know that as yet there is no causal connection traced between nuclear reactors and the number of cases of leukaemia that have been found around Sellafield and Sizewell, especially among workers at the site. Nonetheless, prudence suggests that the connection is not just random.
The Layfield Inquiry stated that the onus of proof was on the CEGB to show that Sizewell B would be
470
safe rather than on the objectors to show to the contrary. I quote from the report:
"much work remains to be done on aspects of the safety case which were examined in evidence".
Perhaps if at this moment there were a compelling need for more sources of energy supply and if our industries or indeed our civilisation were in danger of breaking down without new sources of energy, it would be another matter. When I go back to the CEGB's three remaining reasons for building a PWR—to establish the option, and to ensure security and diversity of supply—I must admit that the case seems far less than proven.
However, there is another aspect of the safety case that worries me much more. I refer to radioactive waste. I am not happy about the arrangements made for waste disposal. There is disagreement about the amount of waste that would be produced. Very properly, all dumping at sea has been suspended; also the Billingham site has been cancelled and the Drigg site has less capacity than was stated at the outset. When we turn to high-level waste, the position seems to be even more unsatisfactory. I understand that it will be kept in cooling tanks at Sellafield for some 20 years, then vitrified and kept in dry storage for a further 50 years by means of the new French vitrification method. After that, who knows? Thank goodness there is no longer much talk of shooting it into outer space or dropping it down a geological fault. But where will it go?
The time period is so great that, in the words of the Swedish Beijer report, the problem is transscientific, in the sense that there is no scientific answer to what will happen to the vitrified wastes. Yet I read in the sixth report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution:
"It would be irresponsible and morally wrong to commit future generations to the consequences of fission power on a massive scale unless it has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that at least one method exists for the safe isolation of these wastes for the indefinite future".
I repeat that last phrase: "for the indefinite future".
I do not believe that has been done. Therefore I must rather reluctantly conclude that the case for the Sizewell B PWR must fall unless, in the words of the report of the Royal Commission, we wish to act in a way that is irresponsible and morally wrong. Indeed, I am convinced that if we were to spend more money on alternatives—a mere £14 million a year is spent at the moment compared with £300 million on fission and £25 million on fusion—we would find other means of providing ourselves with energy. As has been said, we could save vast amounts by combined heat and power and indeed by more efficient electrical technologies.
I have spoken of the wider implications of nuclear energy for posterity, but perhaps one should look more closely to home. As a result of the accident at Three Mile Island, the giant PWR American corporation Westinghouse has not received a single order for a nuclear reactor since 1978. The world has held its breath and paused in its headlong rush to go nuclear. Chernobyl added fresh worries. It is hardly surprising to hear that Westinghouse has been discussing a joint British-based enterprise with the National Nuclear Corporation to make Britain a new international

471
centre for nuclear operations. In that way it might indeed be possible to circumvent the American Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act.
I think that the dangers of proliferation should always be before us. If Sizewell B is to be built it will be only the first in a series of PWRs, the sites of which have already been announced by the CEGB. The Layfield report believes that the go-ahead for Sizewell B will largely cover them too. It will also probably initiate a new phase of building nuclear reactors throughout the world. More uranium and more plutonium will be produced and reprocessing will enable them to be used as weapons material for a nuclear bomb. Only last Sunday we heard that Pakistan probably now has such a bomb. Recently information was received that Israel also has such a bomb. How were those countries enabled to produce a bomb? There can be little doubt. The only way is by enriching material, or reprocessing it from a reactor. Truth to tell, it has not been possible to account for all the plutonium from our British reactors and, despite denials, there is some evidence to suggest that some of it has been used for American bombs.
Apart from that danger I believe that there are others. If there are more reactors, sources of uranium will become scarce and there will be increasing demand for the breeder reactor. I once held a series of public hearings on the breeder reactor which were later published under the title Nuclear Crisis. I believe that if we were forced to have these fast reactors the dangers from nuclear energy would greatly increase. Yet it seems to me that a policy of building more reactors inevitably leads us down that path. It is the only logical outcome of such a policy.
If the world were studded with nuclear reactors we would not only encounter the dangers that I outlined earlier, but also, I fear, a new type of civilisation—a plutonium economy with surveillance and safety precautions redoubled against theft and sabotage or the private construction of nuclear weapons. Around our reactors we already have a security force which functions quite separately from our police force and which is not accountable to it, but that would seem to me to be only the beginning of what may become necessary. I doubt whether in the more distant future we could continue our free and open way of life, and that is something which I have no doubt is very precious to every Member of your Lordships' House.
I fear that is the road down which we are in danger of walking if we have the Sizewell B pressurised water reactor. Surely we do not want to lead the world down that path, especially now that there is a pause for reflection about the world's future energy supplies. I am aware that decisions on these matters are complex. In the end, I believe that cost benefit analysis can only be a preliminary guide in such matters. At the end of the day we need a strategic, political and moral judgment, bearing in mind people's well-grounded fears and the duty that we owe to posterity. Those are the main reasons that I have such grave doubts about the building of a new PWR at Sizewell B.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, the fact that I agreed with practically every word that the right
472
reverend Prelate said enables me to forgive him for omitting to tell your Lordships that he was not playing leapfrog. I agreed to his request that he should speak before me. One or two of your Lordships have looked a little puzzled and I thought that I had better make that explanation. I also well understand that because of the urgency of his departure he is unable to pay the normal courtesy of staying for the next speaker. I am in total agreement with every word that he said. I fully understand the situation which caused him to leave us a little unceremoniously. That could not be helped.
I also find myself in a little difficulty with our traditions of courtesy when it comes to complimenting a maiden speaker with whom one profoundly disagrees, especially when that maiden speaker has been as excessively non-controversial as the one who has delighted us with his remarks this afternoon. I shall walk the path between courtesy and hypocrisy, which we have to tread on these occasions, by saying that I think this afternoon the noble Lord was true to everything we all knew about him before he came here.
In my political life it has not always been possible for me to agree with every policy that my party has espoused over the years. But this afternoon I am in the happy position of wanting to read and agree with the words Mr. Stanley Orme, uttered in another place. On 23rd February, when opening from the Front Bench, he said:
"On all the criteria—on economic grounds, on safety grounds—the case against Sizewell B is the strongest—
My noble friend tells me that I should not quote. I understand that one can quote Front Bench speakers and I therefore propose to continue. I think that my noble friend is mistaken. Mr. Orme said:
"For the Government to go ahead would be to fly in the face of all rational assessments of our future needs. We urge the Government to reject the recommendations of the Layfield report. If they decide to go ahead, we shall reverse that decision. To end delays, we will strengthen our electricity generating capacity by giving the go-ahead for a programme of modern, clean, coal-fired stations. That is the case I put before the House on behalf of the Labour party.".-[0fficial Report, Commons, 23/2/87; col. 33.]
I agree with every word of that. It seems to be the only sensible policy to pursue in all the circumstances. In addition to the Front Bench speech in the other place, which I followed with great interest, I was much taken by two Back-Bench contributions. One was by Mrs. McCurley, who uttered the only completely enthusiastic support—in which she was vying with the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, this afternoon—for the building of the Sizewell B generator. It was only when I realised that her constituency was in Scotland that I understood why. If Mrs. McCurley believes that it will be built in any circumstances, she would naturally prefer it to be built in Suffolk rather than in Scotland. Other than that, there was not a great deal of support, even on the Government side.
Another speech which I found interesting—and your Lordships may perhaps be a little less surprised about this than about the previous one—was that by Mr. Tony Benn. With that honesty which is one of his most attractive characteristics, Mr. Benn confessed that he had completely changed his views on nuclear energy. As a Minister, he was responsible for support-ing and encouraging nuclear energy. He says that when he made that decision he was deprived of certain facts

473
by the civil servants who were advising him at that time. In case your Lordships feel that is unlikely, I should say that I was also a sucker for what was called "atoms for peace" in 1954, when that idea started. In the aftermath of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it was natural to wonder whether nuclear power could be used for peaceful purposes. We all said that if it could be, it was the right way out and was the answer. But as early as 1958, four years later, it had been discovered that under the guise of "atoms for peace", there had been a wholesale proliferation of military nuclear energy. "Atoms for peace" and "atoms for war" were indistinguishable one from the other.
Those of us who believed that it was possible to separate nuclear energy from the nuclear weapon therefore had a rude shock. Mr. Benn's shock and mine were similar. Another point that is perturbing about the development of nuclear energy and nuclear weapons throughout the world since the war is that in every country where that has occurred there has been a record of lies and deceit at every point. Endeavours have been made to conceal from the public what is happening. Information has had to be dragged out from governments. Some have been more open than others. I make no political point about this as it seems to be a tradition of this country, but our government, whoever they were, were among the most secretive of all. Interestingly enough—and this would be in accordance with your Lordships' experience of these matters—the American Government were the most open.
As early as 1958, when the "atoms for peace" idea had already exploded, the American Government were inquiring what was happening about plutonium. They were doubtful about producing it in their own country. As noble Lords will be aware, they do not believe in it. They have not built any Sizewell As, Bs, or any other sort in the United States for a long time. But they need plutonium if they are to keep up their nuclear weapons policy. Where will they get it from if they are not producing it in their own country? They import it. As early as 1958, we were saying in this country that we would not dream of exporting, and had never exported, and so on and so forth. The American Government were importing it. Where were they getting it from? Not only were they importing it, but in their Congressional committees, which are extraordinarily open in these matters, they were discussing whether the British could be relied upon to continue to provide them with it.
Senator Pastore asked this question:
"What price will the United States pay for plutonium purchased from foreign countries—the military price of 30 dollars or the fuel value of 12 dollars per gram?"
It is gradually being admitted that we sold plutonium to the United States. It has been gradually emerging that we did so. Did we sell it at the fuel price of 12 dollars or at the military price of 30 dollars per gram thereby breaching the proliferation treaty and getting a substantial reward for ourselves from the Americans by selling it at the full military price? It would be interesting to know the answer.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? Can he tell us what on earth that has to do with the Layfield report?
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I can indeed. The point I am making is on the question of secrecy, and whether information on this subject can be trusted. If noble Lords will bear with me a little longer I shall show that we are still not being told the whole truth; that if we were told the whole truth even the Government would probably be taking a different decision about Layfield, and that Layfield himself would have taken a different decision. I rather suspect that without any other information Layfield would take a different decision now merely because of Chernobyl. This is uncomfortable information and I dare say that your Lordships do not like to hear it; but it is there, it is all part of the story and ought to be taken into consideration in making up our minds on this vital matter.
Among the information that has come to my knowledge with a little reading over a period I find that in country after country there has been this endeavour to conceal the facts not only from the public as a whole but even from parliaments in different parts of the world. This is continuing today. It leads governments into some extraordinary positions. Take our own Government, for example. On 4th February 1983 Mr. John Moore—who was then at the Department of Energy—said:
"No plutonium produced in any of the CEGB's nuclear power stations has ever been used for military purposes in this country and there are no plans to use it thus in the future. Further, no plutonium from the CEGB nuclear programme has ever been exported for use in weapons".
This was profoundly untrue, because the Prime Minister, pressed on the matter a little further, varied that statement on 15th April 1986—last year. The Prime Minister said:
"No plutonium produced in civil reactors in this country has been transferred to defence use or exported for such use during the period of this administration".
There is a profound difference there. It is said "during the period of this administration" on the one hand, or "has ever been exported" on the other. In that sentence the Prime Minister was admitting that we have exported plutonium continuously over a period and that we have made no difference of definition on the question of military use.
I should like to know the answer to this question: did we get the higher price which included permission to use it for military purposes? It is asked: what has this to do with Sizewell? It has a great deal to do with Sizewell. Are we going to rely upon nuclear energy? Over the years the story shows that nuclear energy and nuclear weapons have been inextricably linked together. If we have the nuclear weapon then we have nuclear energy; we can be sure of our sources of plutonium. For years I believed that it was possible to separate the two issues and that one could say on the one hand, "Yes, I believe in nuclear energy but on the other hand I strongly and profoundly disbelieve in nuclear weapons". Not without reluctance, it seems to me that the evidence over the years from country after country indicates that one cannot make this separation; that where nuclear energy goes, nuclear weapons go; and that the proliferation of nuclear weapons is closely tied up with the proliferation of nuclear energy.

475
Although the case against nuclear energy has been put extremely capably both in another place and in this Chamber this afternoon, not only do I believe that nuclear energy as such is undesirable and has many undesirable characteristics and would be better replaced by other forms of energy, but I also believe that it is undesirable as the source of the nuclear weapon. It seems to me therefore that those of us who fear the nuclear weapon also have to fear nuclear energy. Perhaps it should be feared in its own right but also on the ground of the hostility which so many of us feel against the nuclear weapon.
I think that the people of this country are against it. I believe that the natural instinct of the people on this question is profoundly right. I join in the plaudits for the fact that the Government have not taken their decision without these debates.
I hope that your Lordship's and the Government will give due consideration to what has been said in both Chambers during these debates and will also recognise that it is possible that the people of this country have a natural instinct to say "No" on this issue.
5.36 p.m.
Viscount Hood: My Lords, may I add my words of congratulation to the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, for his lucid and witty speech, all the more acceptable to me because, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, I agreed with it. Perhaps I may comment briefly on some objections to the conclusions of the Layfield report, in particular events which have arisen subsequent to the dates of the investigation. It is true that the price of oil has fallen sharply. I do not believe that it has fallen sharply enough to make oil stations economic, but this is surely not the point.
In judging the cost of fuel for a nuclear station a view has to be taken over a span of at least 40 years—the seven or eight years that it takes for the station to be built and the 35 years of its useful life once it is built. I know no friend in the oil industry who will take a view of more than six months ahead on the price of oil. Anything in the region of 40 years is unheard of. Surely, the important matter is that well within the life of a nuclear station the known sources of oil in the western world will have been consumed and, unless extraordinary discoveries are made, we shall become again dependent upon the Middle East with its enormous reserve. For this reason, the countries of the European Community agreed that it was essential that they should become detached from dependence upon Middle East oil, or upon oil at all.
I hesitate in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, to comment much about coal. However, it is true that the world price of coal and the price which the noble Lord, Lord Marshall, has to pay are two very different things. I believe that the cost at world prices of getting coal to our power stations with double transshipments is of the order of £30 per tonne. The price now being paid is of the order of £48 per tonne. On top of that, it would probably be sensible or logical to apply the very large deficits of the coal board in producing that coal which works out at another £15 per tonne. Therefore the price delivered to the power station is twice the world price.
476
This is today, and I have been arguing that one has to take a 40-year view. But there are very logical and fundamental reasons why the price of British coal should be higher than the world price. There are social problems. There are areas of high-cost coal where greater difficulties exist than in other parts of the United Kingdom. I believe that the differential will continue. But it is also true that in a nuclear station the basic cost is the capital cost. The French have paid that capital cost on a large number of stations. For that reason, they can and will continue to deliver electricity for export at prices below those of any of the stations owned by the CEGB. They will make contracts at a steadily reducing price over the span of the rest of the century.
The nuclear costs will very largely be paid by 1994, or thereabouts when the station is completed. It is hazardous to speculate on the price of coal in the next century. Surely, another argument is that it is entirely logical and necessary for this country to become less dependent on coal. As I understand it, the policy of the CEGB is not to phase out coal. On the contrary, it will be using more coal in the year 2000 than it is now. However, it is important to have less dependence on coal. At the moment the CEGB is 80 per cent. dependent and its plan, in common with that of all other countries in the Community, is to reduce its dependence in the United Kingdom to about two-thirds. So much for my mild comments on coal.
I should like to touch briefly on the United States. I noticed that in debates in the other place the argument was made which has been made here today: that the United States is no longer building nuclear power stations. That is true. I believe that the United States had over-built by about 1978. The environmental difficulties created by the American states are, I believe, even greater than they are here. Neither of those arguments is fundamental. It is true however that the relationship of coal to nuclear power in the United States is totally different from that in the United Kingdom. There, very thick seams of coal can be extracted by open-cast mining. Coal mines and power stations are owned by private companies which can make deals one with the other so that the power station can be built upon coal, with advantages that show themselves in the price of power. That situation does not exist here where efficient coal mines must pay for the inefficient ones. That leads to the high cost of our coal.
I favour and support Sizewell B for three reasons. First, we need more power, and the quickest way to obtain it is to build Sizewell B promptly. All the necessary planning consents are available; all that is necessary is the Secretary of State's decision. Secondly, I remain convinced, in spite of all that has been said to the contrary, that nuclear power costs are lower than the cost of coal. It is essential for our competitive position in the world that we have power as cheaply as we can achieve it. We are competing with the French but even after many years have elapsed, we shall probably not have power as cheaply as they can produce it. Indeed, that day may never come. But at least let us go some of the way.
Finally, as I have mentioned before, diversification is essential. We cannot remain as dependent upon coal as we have been. Without the nuclear stations the

477
effect of the coal strike on the people of this country would have been completely different. I believe that approval will be given to build Sizewell B and, I hope, further PWR stations, which are essential for the welfare of the United Kingdom. Therefore, I hope that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will give his approval expeditiously.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in complimenting the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, on his competent and articulate maiden speech. If his speech was uncontroversial, I look forward to the day when he decides to be controversial. I think that we shall have a lively time.
I also join in expressing appreciation to the Secretary of State for waiting to announce his decision until we had the opportunity of having these two debates. Whether or not he takes them into account, I am sure that he will have heard a good deal of wisdom which may give him pause for thought.
I do not intend to enter into the economic arguments. They have been dealt with very well by other noble Lords. However, it is obvious from listening to the arguments on both sides that there is little to choose between them. It is almost an argument that one ought to leave aside when making the major decision because it seems to vary from year to year.
I should like to say a little about the safety aspects. First, we have heard that Chernobyl could not happen here because the technology is different, the controls are better and so on. However, the effects of Chernobyl—that is, the spread of radioactivity and the difficulty of dealing with it—are common to all nuclear accidents, whatever the technology of the source. That is something we have to bear in mind.
An "accident" is described in the Oxford Dictionary as an:
"Event without apparent cause or unexpected".
To suggest that because we start from a different technologiocal base we are immune from any unexpected event is either arrogant or foolish. There is no activity of any substance in which mankind has involved itself in its whole history which has not sooner or later had an "accident". The difference with nuclear power is that the accident has far-reaching consequences beyond our own borders and into the next generations. That is why we need to have overwhelming reasons for pushing ahead with the nuclear option when there are still so many arguments about which system is safest.
As other noble Lords have said, we have not even solved the problems associated with nuclear waste disposal. Your Lordships will remember the outcry in another place when some sites were put forward simply to be explored for possible use in connection with medium-term waste disposal. That is nothing as compared to the arguments which we shall have to face in the future.
Therefore, the only unaswerable argument in favour of nuclear power would be that we have no alternative. I believe that our modern society is now as dependent on electricity supplies as it is on a supply of pure water. The effects of no supply, or even an insufficient supply, would be dramatic. Lives depend on it. There are
478
many people alive today whose lives would cease within a very short time of being deprived of electricity. I do not think that we should lose sight of that fact. Our whole economy is increasingly dependent on a reliable supply of electricity. Therefore we cannot do without it.
However, I do not believe that we have quite reached the stage where there is no alternative to nuclear option—at least not immediately. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, must have been reading my speech, because he used a number of examples which, if he will forgive me, I shall now repeat because I think that they bear repetition.
There are the interim measures to ease demand. I understand that the CEGB is not averse to future coal-fired stations. I believe it has said that it is looking to a mixed supply in the future, and we must bear that in mind when looking at other options. However, first, we should eliminate waste, and the noble Viscount referred to that in his introduction. We need to build on the Secretary of State's excellent energy conservation programme of last year. I believe that the Secretary of State has indicated that he wishes the programme to be continued into 1987 and beyond.
However, we are wanton in our use of resources, especially of electrical power. For example, all new buildings should be insulated to high standards in order to conserve heat loss. As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said so eloquently, we must look again at combined heat and power. We must follow the lead of the Scandinavian countries in recycling waste and in using household waste as an energy source. I understand that that is being done in Sweden with great success. Of course we should step up even more our research into wind and wave power.
None of those things is in itself a solution to the problem, but they would all help us through this interim period, because I believe that we need to think just a little bit more. Above all, we should now set about ordering at least one clean coal-fired power station to make sure that the gap is filled while we resolve the arguments about which kind of nuclear power we should have. I appreciate that it is essential for electricity supplies that action is taken now. It is also essential for the health of the industries that supply equipment that they should be able to plan their production well ahead.
Firms such as Babcock, which has assembled teams of the appropriate skills, should be assured of continuity. I understand from Babcock that it is not so concerned about the nature of the plant to be ordered as about the timing. It would be tragic if further delay were to cause cutbacks and the dispersal of expertise. It has assembled over the years teams of experts who can and will go ahead as soon as orders are placed. We should do everything we can to see that the orders come so that those teams are kept in operation.
I want to turn to the environmental impact of Sizewell B rather than the general impact of nuclear energy. My noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington had quite a bit to say when he quoted from the report, and I propose to make one more small quotation in a moment. The impact on the environment of the building of Sizewell B is described in the report in clear terms.

479
In addition to the quotation of my noble friend, let me read briefly from the concluding comment at paragraph 104.24, where the inspector says:
"The presumption against development on the Sizewell site is fully merited by the quality of the landscape in the locality, the beauty of the coastal scene, and the high ecological interest and importance of the surroundings. The building of a station would cause damage and disturbance on a formidable scale. Even were there no such presumption the proposals should only be approved if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the national need for Sizewell B is sufficiently great to override local interests in favour of conservation".
The area under discussion, as we have heard, is within the Suffolk heritage coast and is an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The neighbourhood includes Sites of Special Scientific Interest and is a national nature reserve. All the designations which we have created for the protection of our natural heritage are here all arrayed in one spot.
The report acknowledges their existence and justifies the designations in very clear and unusually emphatic language. Therefore it is bitterly disappointing that it then proceeds to recommend that all these designations should be ignored. Discouraging the access road, which is one of the recommendations, is only a crumb of comfort. Since there is an underlying assumption that Sizewell C will follow Sizewell B, and that will be irresistible if Sizewell B goes ahead, it seems only a matter of time till the access road is brought back, because it will then become necessary.
Given the strength of the protective designations in the area, we have a right to expect more consideration of environmental matters. It must be remembered that these same designations are currently being offered by the Department of the Environment and by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food as defence against proposed planning relaxations elsewhere in the countryside. If they are to be overturned in this case, how are we to believe that they will not be overturned in every other case? Their apparent ineffectiveness in the context of Sizewell must cast doubt over their value in other situations. Who defines the national interest? Is that a phrase to be used by any individual or group which is protecting its own financial interest? Are we always to assume that environmental protection is not an overriding national interest?
Since the inquiry was closed two years ago much has happened, and public awareness has sharpened in realation to environmental matters. I hope the Government's awareness has also sharpened, but I am beginning to doubt it in view of what has happened in the last few weeks. I believe that any government will ignore these new forces at their peril.
5.55 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I commence by adding my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, for a most interesting, well informed and witty speech. He is no stranger to public speaking, and the pleasure that he has given us in the past with his broadcasts will, I have no doubt, be renewed on the various occasions when he addresses us in person in the future.
I am going to start by declaring an interest in the district, where I spend some of my holidays from time
480
to time, and as a past local inhabitant, with a daughter and a clutch of grandchildren who are still local inhabitants.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, have to some extent on the environmental issue shot the wrong bird. Sizewell A is not a blot on the landscape. When you walk, as I do regularly, from Dunsfold to Sizewell along the coast, with Minsmere bird reserve on your right, Sizewell A is just a little matchbox on the horizon. You do not notice it. When you are around Leiston there are very few places from which you see Sizewell A. From most aspects it is hidden by trees of one kind or another. The real blot is the line of pylons.
I had a weekend cottage at Leiston before Sizewell A was built, and the line of pylons crossing my garden, over which I had laboured so long and painstakingly for so many years, completely ruined the view, and I sold the cottage. My daughter and two grandchildren live at Yoxford, and the whole of the West Midlands traffic will have to come down the road through Yoxford High Street on to the roundabout which is going to be reconstructed off to Leiston. It is going to be a nightmare, because the traffic will have to go up the A12 which is already so congested that you cannot drive out of the drive without waiting about half an hour when the summer traffic is on the road. From my local knowledge of the terrain I worked out a very much better scheme for the approach to Sizewell. I took it to an appropriate contact, the Central Electricity Generating Board, which received it with very great delight and kindness. I was given lunch. The CEGB wrote me a very nice letter saying that probably the local government authorities would not approve of the scheme. Never mind about "probably". I should like to give the local government authorities a push to see whether they can approve it.
On the question of the leukaemias, I would remind those who have spoken of it that there are virus-induced leukaemias known as HTLV I and HTLV II. The probability is that where we get these clusters of leukaemia in the country there is a prior history of infection with the virus, and that is why people co-infect one another. It is not the only cause of leukaemia but it is a very satisfactory explanation. I know it is accepted by distinguished epidemiologists like Sir Richard Doll that it is the most likely explanation for the clusters. The really big clusters in Scotland are not near the nuclear power stations but round Inverness where there are no nuclear power stations at all.
Having said that and declared my interest, I should go on and thank Sir Frank Layfield for the enormous amount of time and trouble that he has been to in preparing what is an admirable survey across the board. The only criticism one can make of the situation in which we find ourselves—not of the report, nor of Sir Frank Layfield's craftsmanship—is that the evidence on most of the figures is anything up to five years out of date. There is no reference to Chernobyl; there is no reference to the recent movements of fuel prices which have been referred to by the noble Viscount, for instance. It would be totally unfair to criticise the report for not doing what the inspector was never asked to do. The proposal was quite distinct and explicit. It was to build a PWR at Sizewell to be called

481
Sizewell B. After due consideration he has given that the go-ahead; the PWR has been given the go-ahead on the evidence. That is a decision ad hoc on a proposal ad hoc. It is not a fuel policy for the country.
There are three immediate urgencies, the first of which is the priority; namely, to build power stations, any power stations, to meet forward power requirements. Last year's spinning reserve was down to 10 per cent., which is 5 per cent. lower than most power station engineers like to see. This winter the requirements were barely met. The second priority is to update the Layfield Report quantitatively and collect statistics representative of the current situation. Thirdly, it is to review the fuel cladding design of the present PWR proposal in order to eliminate zircalloy and revert to the design using stainless steel fuel cladding, which was the design of the early PWR. Zircalloy can react exothermally with water at a high temperature and can run away. It was implicated in both the disasters at Three Mile Island and at Chernobyl. It is much easier to take precautions than to prove that taking precautions is not necessary. You can have stainless steel fuel cladding but you must pay for it by a slight enrichment of the fuel, which can alter slightly the economics of that reactor as opposed to others.
The first of those urgencies, to build power stations no matter what the design, cannot wait on the progress of the other two. Heysham II is likely to be 12 months late. Torness is likely to be six months late. In a previous debate I have already referred to the vibrational trouble with the control rods, which I said was a soluble problem. It was due to an alteration in nozzle design not proved on a test rig. When the trouble occurred a test rig was built and the problem was solved fairly quickly, as I predicted.
This morning I telephoned the South Scotland Electricity Board which told me as far as it was concerned the problem was solved. It expected the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate to approve the modification within three to five weeks. Consequential modification can take two to three weeks to implement. A test run unfuelled would require a similar period and, if trouble free, fuelling could begin and will take two to three weeks. Thereafter, there will be a three month start up with a run up to full load. If that time is added up it comes to six months. Heysham II is already six months in arrears and will be about a year late on the basis of the best figures I have been given.
By next winter we should be equipped with two new stations. However, that will only return us to square one, with a 12-month slippage. The demand for electricity is increasing. As an example of the need to update the figures in the Layfield Report, the estimated load factor for the AGR is estimated at 65 per cent. But the current load factor at Hunterston B in unit one last year was 91.5 per cent. and for unit two it was 72.6 per cent., the lower figure being due to planned outages for statutory maintenance.
During the three years 1984 to 1986 the station average was 81.4 per cent. of the de-rated design output. Why de-rated? It is because the turbo alternators are not giving their design output. Therefore, the station cannot work at its design load. Even without
482
de-rating the performance, the load factor figure published by Nucleonics Weekly in its annual review is still 75.5 per cent., which is 10 per cent. higher than the figure used in the Layfield Report. The only conclusions I can reach are that what we need now is one of the great and good, possibly somebody like Sir Francis Tombs, chairman of Rolls-Royce, to be asked to go through the figures, up-date them and look at figures of comparative performances of different reactors as given in the Sizewell report.
Secondly, the CEGB has become almost a prisoner of its long-term past proposals. It should wait to evaluate the performance in fact rather than on paper of Torness and Heysham II and place orders for two new coal-fired stations to be built as quickly as possible, thereby giving the kiss of life to Babcock's in the North-West and northern engineering industries; that is, Parsons, Reyrolle and Clark Chapman in the North-East. It cannot stand by indefinitely waiting for orders. It is not possible to run a factory without orders. Therefore, new stations must be ordered. That is the message I hope to put across.
6.5 p.m.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, first of all I should like to follow other noble Lords in the pleasurable business of congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt. He is down-to-earth and courageous,—as befits the victor of that great ETU struggle many years ago—incisive and very welcome to your Lordships' House. We look forward to many contributions in the future. I should also like to congratulate Sir Frank Layfield on his report which as a layman, I can say is beautifully written. There is an awful lot of it but it is a classic. While I am not sure that I can agree totally with the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury in suggesting that the report should now be updated and that we therefore lose more time, I do agree with him that it is urgent to get new power stations built very quickly. That is not only in the interests of creating jobs in the North-East and the North-West but in the interests of our electricity supply. I shall return to that point later.
Six years, 16 million words and £20 million later, where are we? It was not altogether surprising that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, while donning, which was not meant to be a pun, so perhaps I should say, while putting on, a cloak of non-party political independence and discretion, urged us to caution. That, as I understood it, was his way of presenting the resolution of the last Labour Party conference. That resolution, which called for the total abandonment of the nuclear programme and the phasing out of all existing plants, was passed by almost 3 million votes.
As always, I listened eagerly to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. I was not quite sure whether he was speaking non-politically, whether he was speaking as a Liberal or, again, whether he was speaking in alliance with the SDP. The policies of those parties are opposed. At their assembly last year the Liberals voted to halt the commissioning of further power stations and to begin what they called a planned phasing out of nuclear power. On the other hand, the SDP conference passed a motion calling for the construction of extra nuclear power plants, subject to safety review.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, if I may answer the noble Earl, I should like to say I was trying to speak quite objectively.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, I have not known the noble Lord speak other than objectively, aside from the matter of coal. It is not surprising that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, did go for the coal. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt said, for virtually the whole of industry to be dependent on one fuel run by a monopoly supplier and manned by a workforce, which, in the past, has been periodically participating in industrial action, makes no sense at all. As to the noble Lord's speculations on the future price of coal and oil, I do not know whether or not he puts money on those speculations but I would not.
I always listen to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, with great interest, as he knows. I have great respect for his views, even though I do not always agree with them or, perhaps more likely, do not understand them. However, the noble Lord spoke as though there was no great urgency in this matter. That caused me to turn up his book published in 1978 on Coal and Energy. I quote:
"It is now of vital importance to take such action as may be necessary to avert within the next decade"—
that is up to 1988, or so,—
"what could be a far more serious world energy crisis than was experienced in 1973–4".
The noble Lord has perhaps changed his point of view, but then we all do that, and I change mine as well from time to time.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt again, but what I was saying was that there was an urgency to supply the additional amount of generating capacity required. What I said we ought to take a bit more time over is what sort of nuclear station we should now go for.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, I am sure that is what the noble Lord intended, but it was not what came across. What came across was caution. And this is more caution after six years, 16 million words and £20 million. I believe there is real urgency in this matter.
Cheap energy is crucial to industry's export prices. Therefore, I say that unless the CEGB can get all its coal at world prices instead of a mere 17 per cent. of its requirements; unless gas can match those prices; and unless oil is sure to be available long term at comparable prices (my noble friend Lord Torrington explained why that was unlikely) then nuclear power must take the lead for base load and, with a family of PWRs, more so. That is surely the message that comes out of the Layfield report.
After the Layfield hearings had stopped and within weeks of Chernobyl, your Lordships' own Energy Committee—that is to say, the sub-committee of the Select Committee scrutinising EC matters in this House—reported, on the subject of nuclear energy, a comparison between coal and nuclear. I refer to paragraph 98 of its report which was debated last November. That was a debate in which I would have taken part had I not been abroad.
484
The report—it is important because it is more recent than the Layfield evidence—referred to nuclear power as being "much cheaper" than coal. It referred also to,
"a study carried out in 1983, which showed the cost of coal-fired electricity, for power stations entering into service in 1990, as being in all cases higher than that of nuclear electricity, by amounts that vary from country to country within a range from 30 per cent. (Italy) to 88 per cent. (France). The study gave a figure of 43 per cent. for the United Kingdom".
Layfield is quite categorical that PWR electricity would be of the order of 20 per cent. cheaper than coal, even coal purchased at the third tranche price, the cheapest coal available to the CEGB, at about £30 per tonne.
The urgency, as I see it, relates to our industrial performance, and inferentially, but in a reverse sense, to our energy demand compared to that in Europe. There is a process known to the clever people, the economists—and I do not pretend to be one but I tag along as well as I can behind them—as decoupling. This is really a statement that as productivity in industry improves so its requirement of electricity per unit of value of output diminishes. It is called a decoupling of electricity demand from gross domestic product. In that regard our British need is urgent because we are lagging behind in such decoupling. Countries attaining faster than average productivity growth all tend to achieve greater than average declines in energy per unit of value. In the EC energy consumption from 1978 to 1983 fell 6 per cent, while gross domestic product rose 18 per cent. There is the decoupling.
The difference between Britain, the OECD, and Europe is shown vividly in the 1985–86 figures. While in the OECD countries overall electricity demand rose by 1 per cent. (gross domestic product going up all the time) in France by 1½per cent. in Germany by 2½per cent., and in Western Europe overall by 3.4 per cent., in Britain the figure was 5 per cent. That is a measure of our failure, as yet, to decouple the rising demand for energy from rising output.
It shows our lag in improvement of productivity and therefore improvement in competitiveness, and our continuing relative failure to compete. With gross domestic product forecast over the next two years—and the forecasters are now rather coming together on this—at between 1 and 14 per cent. up a year, the demand for electricity will grow even more insistent.
In February 1984, this House debated the subject on a Motion that I, myself, by some accident of fate, was invited to introduce. At that time some 61 of our power stations, producing some 40 per cent. of our electricity needs, were not only more than 15 years old but came under the scathing criticism of the Coopers and Lybrand report to the Secretary of State. This had urged that from 15 years of age upwards, stations should be considered for retirement. At that same period, current construction for replacement was not more than 16 per cent.—in fact 10 gigawatts—and at that time Lord Avon, who answered—and whom we all liked so much and miss in this House—replied with the Government's pride, and, I must add, complacency, that that figure was good enough.
I argued then, and I suggest now—and my case is strengthened by the more erudite words of the noble

485
Earl, Lord Halsbury—that unless we tackle this matter quickly and get some new power stations built, whatever they are fuelled by, we could have blackouts in the middle of the 1990s.
Six years, 16 million words, and £20 million later there is urgency. The Sizewell decision, even though it is focused on a particular power station of a particular make, will in fact be a strategic decision, and perhaps not everywhere very popular. The danger is that this year's balance sheet, or votes, will seem very pressing, and increase the temptation to leave decisions on the strategic future until another year.
6.19 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I first of all join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, on his maiden speech. It had some political content, but with his long history of controversial views on some subjects one would expect that, and no doubt we shall hear more from him in the future.
I should like to commence my speech by saying what I was going to say at the end. A number of Members of your Lordships' House have indicated that despite what we are debating today and whether or not there may be a delay, there is no reason at all for the Government or the Central Electricity Generating Board not to place an order immediately for two large coal-fired power stations, with the necessary sifting equipment which is now in demand and which the Government have indicated will be incorporated. There is no reason why that should not be carried on and, as the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, said, it would be a shot in the arm for the power producing industry, GEC and Babcock and Wilcox which have all suffered grievous redundancies and cutbacks in their workforce.
One thing puzzles me a little. In the past, as your Lordships know, I have persistently questioned in this House when the coal-fired power station programme would commence. I have always been told that that was the business of the CEGB. But the Prime Minister in answering a Question in another place last week indicated that her friend and colleague the Secretary of State for Energy was at present studying the problem and would be taking a decision in the near future on what power stations to order. I do not know who does the ordering, but I ask—and I have been asking this for a long time—please get a move on and get two coal-fired stations ordered. That would be of immense benefit.
Normally in debate in your Lordships' House I see eye to eye with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, but today in some respects he painted a scenario that does not exist. He talked about a moratorium on making a decision on the Sizewell inquiry. When your Lordships debated nuclear energy some months ago I made the point, and I make it again, that it is not a decision that we can consistently defer without certain consequences. Advances in technology are so fast that once we start to opt out there is no possible way we can catch up.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, also compared coal-fired with nuclear energy power stations. I am not too sure that one can equate the two at this stage of the game. For instance, is he saying that in the year 2000,
486
if hypothetically he were the chairman of the coal board, he would be able to supply coal at the same cost as now? I doubt it very much. I do not think he would sign his name to any such agreement. When we talk about the cost of coal, do we take into account the cost of miners' early retirement and redundancy? In the past they have been heavily subsidised by the Government, arid that subsidy is now being withdrawn. That cost has to come within the cost of coal.
When I put down a Question some time ago as to who would pay for the new equipment to be installed in the power stations to eliminate the sulphur dioxide emissions, it was made quite clear that the bill would have to be met by electricity users. I stand to be corrected, but I have seen a figure quoted where in Sweden, which is talking about going totally nonnuclear, it has been calculated on fairly current figures that it would increase the price of electricity to the consumers by a minimum of 30 per cent. It is a little difficult when one starts playing with figures. No one would have assumed three or four years ago that we should be getting coal at the price we are getting it now. It would be dangerous to assume that in the year 2000 it will still be the same price perhaps, and oil as well, because the price of oil is very much tied in with political decisions and governments rising and falling in parts of the world over which we have no control whatever.
Lord Ezra: I was using figures because figures were used in the report we have before us. What I was trying to demonstrate was that on the assumptions then made they came to certain conclusions. If we were to make those assumptions today, we should come to other conclusions. Therefore there is grave uncertainty about this.
Lord Underhill: Hear, hear!
Lord Dean of Beswick: My colleagues on the Front Bench may be saying, "Hear, hear", but I am not satisfied with what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said. I think he was using a very cloudy crystal ball in his predictions of what may happen in the future, because nobody knows what the costs will be. On one thing I agree with him. I cannot challenge the figures he has given me. I pressed this matter even when I was in another place as regards refurbishing some of the older power stations, as I have been employed in the past in the industry. I was always told, though I have no figures to prove it, that it was not viable economically as against the life of a new power station phased over the defrayment period. I have no figures to challenge that, but those were the reasons given.
The success of Britain's nuclear industry is vital for this country. It is important in its own right, as a major source of employment and industrial investment. I wish people would understand what they are talking about, wiping out jobs with some of the ideas that have been put forward. I am not suggesting for one moment that job provision is the whole argument, but it would have serious consequences if we did the wrong thing at the wrong time. More importantly, the hope of a vigorous manufacturing economy depends upon cheap energy, which can come only if nuclear-generated electricity is allowed to play its part in this country.

487
I have some figures. More than 15,000 people are employed by British Nuclear Fuels and more than 13,000 are employed by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. The CEGB and the South of Scotland Electricity Board employ 14,000 people in their nuclear power stations, plus 2,000 support staff. Altogether more than 40,000 people work in the nuclear industry.
The British Nuclear Forum, the industry's trade association, has 60 member organisations directly or indirectly employing 100,000 people in the nuclear industry. The thermal oxide reprocessing plant—THORP, as it is known—is one of the largest construction projects in Europe. The project at Seascale represents an investment of well over £1 billion in the latest technology. At Sellafield the reprocessing using THORP will be an integral part of the fuel cycle. It is significant that France is also developing a reprocessing policy, as are the Japanese and the Germans.
Abandoning THORP would have the following consequences. First, the United Kingdom would lose £4 billion in reprocessing contracts. Secondly, the construction industry would lose more than the £1 billion that will be spent on building THORP. Thirdly, a very large portion of British Nuclear Fuel's programme of investment, valued at £1 million per day, is spent on THORP, and this would be lost to British industry where 90 per cent. of it is presently spent. Current orders for using THORP will cover the cost of building it. We should lose those, effectively throwing away the money already invested.
Orders for uranium enrichment through URENCO will earn Britain well over three-quarters of a billion pounds in the next few years. In the decade to 1995 British Nuclear Fuels Limited will invest £3 billion, supporting about 70,000 jobs, including those people employed directly by British Nuclear Fuels.
Britain has generated nuclear electricity for 25 years. In that time there has not been a single radiation fatality—a previous speaker referred to that—to a member of the public or a worker at any civil nuclear facility. Survey after survey has been done showing that our nuclear power stations fall within internationally agreed limits on radiation emissions. One such survey by the Medical Research Council of Atomic Energy Authority Employees showed that the death rate from cancer was lower than the average for employees in other industries.
Another survey, initiated by British Nuclear Fuels. covering 11,500 employees and former employees at Sellafield looked at 1,600 deaths over a 30-year period. The total number of deaths from cancer was, at 400, slightly lower than the 450 which might be expected among such a group. Fourteen had died from leukaemia, bone and thyroid cancers and multiple myeloma, which are the diseases most associated with radiation. The number of deaths that would be expected in such a group is 16.8. Further, there was no evidence of an increase in the incidence of cancers. When the different sorts of jobs done by the workers were looked at, the employees in the group who were classed as radiation workers had a slightly lower mortality rate than the rest of the Sellafield workforce.
488
The exposure received by the rest of the Cumbrian population is within the variations experienced in background radiation by the rest of the United Kingdom population. The levels of radioactivity associated with the Sellafield discharges are constantly monitored by British Nuclear Fuels and also independently by scientists from government departments. The monitoring shows that the people living there and nearby are well within the maximum limits recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection. There are other statistics to show that every time a charge is made by the environmentalists, or the "green people" as they call themselves, that someone is not doing his job in protecting the people working in the industry or protecting the environment, and the charge is knocked down, they dig up another one. So far they have mostly been shown to be without foundation.
I fail to understand the overwhelming concern people have about the environment and about the fact that Sizewell, if it is built, may become a bit of an eyesore. People have to live with eyesores. I have lived with industrial eyesores for the whole of my life; somebody has to tolerate them. That is not the best argument for not building Sizewell—that it may be considered to look unpleasant to some people who happen to live there. It has cost millions and millions of pounds to try to put right the scarring of Lancashire caused by the coal industry over the years. Most of the cost has been borne by the people of Lancashire and not by those outside it. One has to get that argument in perspective.
I end by saying what I said at the beginning of my speech to Members of your Lordships' House who ask for a further delay after the six years spent studying the project. What new evidence is there? There is no new evidence in regard to Chernobyl. The books there have now been completely opened and at the present time we have a delegation of trade unionists over there looking at what was wrong. We were told that the Russians. when they opened the books, were completely open in revealing the facts of what happened. From the technological examination it is apparent that there is no way that a "Chernobyl" could happen in this country with the type of design that we are talking about.
However, at present there are two electrical lines under the Channel from France, and France is 70 per cent. equipped by nuclear energy and has a growing programme. They are selling their electricity in this country 60 per cent. cheaper than we can sell it. What will be the eventual outcome if we delay for much longer and do not catch up? Having worked in industry I can tell your Lordships that for most industries energy costs are a substantial portion of the costs they have to bear in competing in the export markets. I hope the Government will look closely at what has been said. I also hope in the interests of all concerned that they do not delay making a decision one way or the other.
6.34 p.m.
Lord Plowden: My Lords, I should like to join other speakers in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, on his maiden speech. My only criticism is that he said a great deal of what I wanted to say myself.

489
He reminded us that it is just over 30 years since the Queen opened Calder Hall, the first full-scale nuclear power station, and over the next 10 or 12 years we built sufficient nuclear power stations to generate more nuclear power than all the rest of the world put together. Then, as so often happens in British public life, we began to hesitate and not be able to make up our minds as to what we ought to do. We asked ourselves: did we want this system? Did we want nuclear power? Where should it be?—and so on.
This evening I have been shocked to listen to certain noble Lords apparently suggesting that we should do the same thing again and that we should postpone any decision on Sizewell B because more information has become available and perhaps we could do better, or worse, or what you will. This will always happen in any large-scale technological industry. You can always think again and not always be right.
Last November we had a debate on the basis of the report of the committee of which the noble Viscount, Lord Torrington, was chairman. The report brought out that the standard of living and the basis of modern civilisation depend upon electricity. The committee came to the conclusion that with the exception of Germany, which has large deposits of lignite, all European utilities agreed that nuclear energy was the cheapest source available.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, produced a great many figures about coal. My understanding is that they were based on imported coal and therefore if the figures were to be applied to power stations in this country and the coal had to be imported, presumably that would then mean closing down an equal capacity in our own coal mines. I do not know what others of your Lordships think, but I find it difficult to imagine that that would meet with the approval of any government.
One cannot discuss nuclear energy without realising the fear that people have of nuclear power and radiation. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, gave us a great deal of information in order to make our flesh creep. But what I am not sure about is this. If it was as dangerous as he said, then presumably he would set out to close down all the existing nuclear power stations; and if that were done either he would have a power problem on his hands or he is behaving rather like St. Augustine, who is alleged to have said:
"Oh Lord, make me virtuous, but not yet!"
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I trust the noble Lord will forgive me if I interrupt him for a moment. Perhaps I may respectfully ask him to adhere to what I said and not to what he thought I may have said.
Lord Plowden: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot remember at this time of the night exactly what the noble Lord did say; but what he is presumably telling me is that he did not mean that we should close down the existing power stations. In that case, I should think that my analogy with St. Augustine is correct. However, I will not pursue that.
I think we must put this fear—and I know it is a natural fear—into perspective. There have been three accidents in power stations. There was the one at Windscale; and so far as I can remember I was at that time chairman of the Atomic Energy Authority. The
490
only actual accident that occurred was when the authority police patrolling the fence were told to put on their gasmasks. One telephoned through to the station and asked what he was to do because every time he put the mask on his dog bit him. The other incident that I well remember is that we undertook to buy all the milk over a very wide area. We poured it down a huge mine. Never had the cows given so much milk as during that period!
As regards the Three Mile Island incident, there were no deaths. Chernobyl was of course the worst nuclear disaster we have had. As I understand it, 31 people were killed, and undoubtedly there are other lives which will be shortened by the radiation people received. However, we must put that in perspective in the world in which we live. In 1985, 4,832 people were killed on the roads of this country. In 1983, 45,800 people were killed on the roads of the United States. In 1984, 581 people were killed in industry. Of course we all know about the casualties of Bhopal.
In the course of that debate, we were reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Swann, of the millions of tons of pollutants which are pushed into the air from fossil-fuel power stations and from motor cars. All of that has harmful effects both on nature and on human health. Any power station which is built must satisfy the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate. That applies to a station whether it is an AGR or a PWR or any other type of station. My understanding is that of the 79 issues that the inspectorate wanted cleared, 76 have been satisfactorily resolved and the others are well on the way to a solution.
A point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, regarding the inconvenience to the locality involved in the building of nuclear power stations. Of course that point applies to any large installation. It applies to an airfield. I speak with positive knowledge of that matter because I live within five miles of Stansted. Other countries in Europe have found ways of helping localities and local inhabitants to mitigate to some extent the inconveniences. However, the rating system in this country does not permit that. The Germans and the Japanese, as well as the French, have found ways of helping local inhabitants.
I was formerly a Treasury official and I know how much one objects to making exceptions. It mitigates against good administration. However, I urge the Treasury and Inland Revenue to consider whether something can be done through the rating system to assist the people around Sizewell or people in other areas where such building is going on. I may say that I am not expecting to be assisted because I live near Stansted!
In conclusion, I wish to say that we must make decisions. It is no good wanting to inquire again and again as to whether something can be different. Sizewell B meets the requirements of the nuclear inspectorate. I urge the Government to go ahead and build it. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and others have said that the difficulties of the AGR can be overcome. I believe they should be given, say, a year to show whether those difficulties can be overcome. Perhaps a better station than a PWR could be obtained in the end.
We cannot go on postponing decisions. We cannot keep design teams in existence in those circumstances.

491
They must have work to do. We shall once again succumb to the British disease of refusing to come to a difficult decision and the design teams will then disappear. I hope that the Government will decide this matter soon.
6.45 p.m.
The Duke of Portland: My Lords, prior to 1965 the UK was clearly the most advanced of the European countries in the field of nuclear power. In that year the pernicious decision was taken to base the UK nuclear power programme on the advanced gas-cooled reactor and not on the pressurised water reactor. Both types of reactor had the support of strong lobbies but that in favour of the advanced gas-cooled rector was by far the most efficient and won the day.
The United Kingdom has been the only country to adopt the advanced gas-cooled reactor. No other country has shown any interest in it, with the result that our nuclear industry lost the lead which it had enjoyed with the Magnox reactors; moreoever, the advanced gas-cooled reactors have proved disappointing. Now we are assured that the advanced gas-cooled reactors at Torness and Heysham will be completely satisfactory, although faults have been found which is causing delay in their coming on stream.
It was with relief that I read in Sir Frank Layfield's report that he favours the pressurised water reactor, giving his reasons. I hope that this, together with the delay which is being experienced in the new advanced gas-cooled reactors at Torness and Heysham, will deter Her Majesty's Government from repeating the folly committed by their predecessors in 1965.
The two serious nuclear disasters that have happened—Three Mile Island and Chernobyl—have both been due to human error and incompetence, and Chernobyl has shown how a nuclear disaster can have serious repercussions hundreds of miles away. In its report on nuclear power in Europe, your Lordships' Select Committee on the European Communities endorsed the concept of an international agreement covering all aspects of nuclear safety—design, construction, operation, training and emergency procedures.
In May last, the European Parliament resolved that member states should initiate negotiations to establish accurate standards worldwide for the design and safe operation of nuclear power stations, for the transport and disposal of nuclear waste and for effective international monitoring of these by the International Atomic Energy Agency. On 26th September last, two conventions were concluded at the IAEA; one on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident and the other on Assistance in the Case of a Nuclear Accident or Radiological Emergency. However, these can only be regarded as a first step towards the international agreement which I have just mentioned. A further step would be the updating of the IAEA nuclear safety standards and the transformation of those standards into generally binding minimum rules.
There will doubtless be resistance to obligatory international safety inspection of nuclear installations; a pragmatic approach would be actively to encourage
492
an increase in the number of requests to the IAEA for the despatch of international teams to review the safety of nuclear power stations. For some time past the IAEA has been sending out such teams at the request of member states. Governments may wish to have more international verification of the safety of nuclear power plants in order to satisfy both internal opinion and neighbouring countries.
With determined persistence, we shall arrive at the desired international agreement and secure that this agreement will be backed by an international inspectorate with powers at least as wide as those of the inspectors employed by the International Atomic Energy Agency to enforce the safeguard provisions of a nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
6.51 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I do not want to speak at any length on the Sizewell Report itself. All it says, in effect, is that the proposed PWR at Sizewell could be safe, that it will probably—and that was the word used—produce cheaper electricity than the AGR and even cheaper than a coal-fired power station. The report also draws attention to some areas where safety might be further improved. As regards the last point, I am really shocked to learn that the nuclear inspectorate is undermanned and that the pay of its inspectors does not even equate with the opposite numbers in the CEGB. In spite of all this, some penny pinching decision made, I suppose, in the Treasury moved the headquarters up North, resulting in the loss of many very able people. The more able they are, the more easily they find jobs and therefore the greater the loss. The inspectors ought to be paid much more than their counterparts in industry.
As far as the PWR controversy is concerned, I shall confess that I now have a slight bias towards the AGR, but I do not wish to consider this in detail. I must say however that if safety is of paramount importance then inherently the AGR is safer. I say inherently because it has greater thermal inertia, which means that the operators have probably four hours in which to decide what to do. In this time they can inspect and operate valves manually if their instruments prove unreliable—and experience has shown that this can happen.
On the other hand, admittedly in very unusual circumstances, the time for taking action with the PWR can be as little as 20 minutes or even less. It is significant that with some of the latest designs of PWR they are trying to increase the thermal inertia by using a greater quantity of water. Another safety factor in favour of the AGR is that critically a melt-down is impossible because of the physical separation of the fuel rods by the large amount of graphite moderator. I know that on the drawing board and in theory extra engineering safety features of the PWR provide equal safety, but I believe an inherently safe design has much to commend it in a field where so much is speculation.
I should have thought it would be sensible not to make an immediate decision on the PWR/AGR issue and immediately to build a coal-fired power station to meet the CEGB's urgent demands. Perhaps the Government could say what prevents them getting ahead with this now. This course of action would avoid the possibility that if a Labour Government

493
came into power it might cancel—in fact I believe would cancel—any nuclear power station under construction. Moreover, this delay would hopefully allow time to assess the performance of the new Torness AGR reactor and the possibility of going for the Severn barrage scheme. This, of course, would carry the approbation of all those opposed to nuclear power. The barrage scheme would provide about 6 per cent of the country's electrical energy requirement. Unfortunately, its output would not be continuous and therefore it cannot be a direct substitute for all the new power stations which we might require. However, perhaps the back-up could be provided with minimum capital outlay by using gas turbine generators.
Let me say that I myself am in favour of a continuing nuclear programme in the future and I think we should limit our commitment for coal-fired power stations. I say this because there is the acid rain problem and desulphurisation will not prevent the equally noxious nitrous oxides which produce nitric acid. Secondly, if the greenhouse effect from the carbon dioxide emissions is potentially a real danger, as many scientists believe, it could produce devastating effects for future generations, far worse than many Chernobyl disasters.
There are two other matters which are seldom mentioned. In the year 1983 alone coal mining in England produced 400 new cases of pneumoconiosis. Furthermore, the use of coal does not get away from the radioactivity bogy. It is estimated that radioactivity produced by our coal-fired power stations is comparable with that from our nuclear power stations. The total radioactivity in the coal ash from such power stations is 12 million million—that is, 12 times 10 to the twelfth—Bequerels, which is about the same as that in the low level radioactive wastes produced in 1985 by our nuclear power stations, including the Sellafield reprocessing plant. It is interesting to note that although the radioactivity in the coal ash is relatively low, it would, if produced in the nuclear field, require a specific authorisation for its disposal.
As regards removing sulphur and nitrous oxide pollution from coal-fired power stations, West Germany has become a leader in the field. They have a 440 megawatt power unit which removes most of these contaminants. In England, Johnson Matthey have on the market a process equipment for eliminating NOX emissions. They tell me that they are anxious to scale it up for use in larger power stations. It sould seem sensible for the CEGB to order a pilot plant for a standby gas station or to treat a part of the emission in a larger station. We should also give priority and more funds to scaling up fluoridised bed boilers to a size where they could be used in our power stations. They can provide for desulphurisation and reduce NOX emissions. Surely with sufficient effort we could become leaders in this field. I am not satisfied that the effort and the money are sufficient.
I am not trying to knock coal, but only to show that as an alternative to nuclear power it is not the clean and safe environmentally acceptable method of generating electricity which some people imagine it to be. If you think about it, the early cases of pneumoconiosis I have mentioned, if scaled up for
494
Western Europe, equate very closely with the possible 1,200 early cancer deaths from the Chernobyl accident.
I am very anxious that we should establish one combined heat and power (CHP) project for a large or medium-sized city. With CHP, the overall efficiency of a power station can be raised from 35 to nearly 80 per cent. by increasing the temperature of the condenser cooling water and using it in a district heating scheme. This is common practice in many European countries. The two difficulties of doing so are, first, the long lead time before the heat mains are laid and enough consumers decide to be connected to justify the laying of the main to a large and sometimes distant power station; and, secondly, the time-scale for financing the scheme. I cannot understand why, when the Government provide capital for new power stations and accept a 5 per cent. interest rate, they and the CEGB cannot do the same for at least one demonstration CHP scheme. With the 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. interest charge which the market requires, it is very unlikely that a first scheme can be got off the ground without this help.
The Atkins report considered nine cities as possible sites for CHP schemes and concluded that all of them could be economically viable with a moderate rate of interest. A scheme at Leicester is often mentioned but it is a very small one and relies primarily on an industrial heat load, so it is not relevant in this context. In effect, CHP can be thought of as an almost free non-polluting source of energy. There is very little penalty in fitting all our new power stations with turbines which could later be used for CHP. I very much hope that this will be done.
It is unfortunate that the public take such an emotional view of radiation and nuclear power. I must therefore once again give some facts to try to get the matter into perspective. We are surrounded by natural radiation and even people are slightly radioactive, so keep your distance from your neighbours! So also is your house and garden, so have a flat. If you take the background radiation as 1,000 units, radon gas from uranium in our houses gives 400 units or more—much more in Cornwall because of the granite—and radioactivity within our bodies about the same, and a chest X-ray 200 extra units.
I think I can hear the public ask, "What about nuclear accidents?" We ought to see this possibly in relation to the other risks we have to run, which we accept, apparently without too much worry, on what is called a cost-benefit basis. The classic example—and it has already been mentioned this evening—is of course deaths on the road, around 55,000 a year in western Europe and some 12 times that number of seriously injured, some crippled for life. Many other areas could be mentioned. I shall quote only two. The average for a lifetime's work in British industry is four deaths per thousand; and it is still, for men who stay at home entirely, one in a thousand.
I firmly believe that the West should continue with a large nuclear programme, leaving the diminishing oil and coal much more for the developing countries. I believe this for two reasons. First, the techniques for use of natural fuels are relatively simple and easier for them. Much more important is the danger of nuclear proliferation. Any nuclear reactor is a potential bomb

495
factory. I give away no secrets, because the information was given long ago in answer to a parliamentary Question. One suitable 500 megawatt thermal reactor could, if dedicated to the purpose, produce 20 plutonium bombs a year. I here assume eight kilogrammes of plutonium for each bomb. Just think what may—and I am afraid I think will—happen if an irresponsible small nation gets this capability. In parenthesis, it is one of the strong reasons for Britain maintaining at least some effective nuclear capability.
Finally, I make a moral appeal to those who are against the nuclear programme. Accept the uncertainty of life on this planet. With so many starving people and with WHO statistics showing, for example, 12 million people dying of leprosy, is not the emotional ethic which concentrates on opposing nuclear power, with its obvious advantages, both ill-informed and rather craven?
7.5 p.m.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, first I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, on his short and witty speech. I hope that we shall all hear him speak on other subjects in your Lordships' House. I am taking my grandchildren down to Cornwall this summer, and after listening to what he had to say about Cornwall I have no intention of cancelling my plans.
Many of your Lordships know of my interest in the technological world of research and development. It would be hopeless to try to explain away the fact that I have nothing to do with power stations while I am fully employed by a group of engineering companies which makes them, with plants in Wolverhampton, Derby and the North-East. In any case, as a member of your Lordships' Select Committee on the European Communities I have taken part in the inquiries on nuclear power in Europe and air pollution. We have debated both reports and the Government can therefore draw on views expressed in this House at the time of those debates.
We can all draw on the post-mortem at the Vienna Conference where it was clearly shown after the Chernobyl incident that the Russians were, on their own admission, at fault. It is a bitter lesson for them and a serious one for everyone else, and it shows that Sir Frank Layfield's work has not been done in vain.
On the question of air pollution, the Secretary of State has already drawn on the views expressed in debate in this House and has taken action on the sub-committee's opinion that some coal-fired stations should be fitted with sulphur dioxide abatement equipment. In this House we can therefore say that we have a wealth of relevant material to draw on in debating this Motion. From the works of Layfield, I should like to touch on the customer-contractor issues which I think are critical to the government decision-making. We must consider the significance of the Sizewell B application to the electrical manufacturing industry as well as to the electrical supply industry. I pay tribute to the electrical supply industry in the same way as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has done. He spoke of the electrical industry, and I hope he was including the electrical manufacturing industry as well.
496
What is decided now will have long-term effects on both. The pattern of consumption is very difficult to predict, as we all know. If we were able to predict demand more easily perhaps then we would not run into all the difficulties we have at the moment which are caused by a fear of running short. Wherever we look this fear exists, and the fact is that there is overcapacity in everything producible—from energy to cereals and wine. The legendary wheat mountains and wine lakes are now compounded by a nuclear pile of surplus generating capacity and what looks like building up into a plaster of Paris slurry pond from the sulphur dioxide abatement plant.
What will happen, following what I hope will be the Government's favourable decision on consent for Sizewell B PWR, will be the start of a programme of investment by the electricity supply industry designed to give a balanced, cost-effective and socially acceptable system to last well into the next century. With the EC Commission's push towards getting member states to invest in more nuclear plant it does not mean the case for coal firing is scrubbed. If anything needs scrubbing it is the flue gases, and I welcome the Government's decision to spend £600 million on sulphur dioxide abatement plant.
The strengths of the electricity supply industry cannot be reckoned without the strengths of the United Kingdom heavy electrical manufacturing industry. The two go hand in hand, and I am concerned about the present position in which the industry has existed since 1979 without power station orders while endeavouring to invest in new plant and ideas. When I say "without power station orders", I mean coal-fired stations as well as nuclear stations. Therefore, a head of steam has been building up all the time in hope; and the industry is ready to roll, not just on building a PWR at Sizewell but in so many other ways. As Layfield himself says, any slack between building to meet the need and building in advance of it has disappeared, and the steam has been building up because the electricity supply industry is known to need an integrated generation and transmission system involving equipment replacements and improvements on a planned basis.
The industry wants to maximise nuclear generation for a start. It is engineering ways of increasing thermal efficiency on high merit fossil-fired stations and extending their lives. It is planning the decommissioning of ageing nuclear power stations at Bradwell and Berkley. It is working towards a design reference for a 900-megawatt pulverised fuel station and doing research into fluidised bed techniques. It is going to introduce flue gas desulphurisation plant at new coal-fired stations and retrofit some six gigawatts of capacity. It is looking at refurbishment and asset replacement of the transmission system and the strengthening of the overhead grid system to avoid saturation. The 11,000-volt lines, though still serviceable, are equipped to obsolete standards and that does not help to maintain the UK capability in the latest technology.
The heavy electrical manufacturing industry has survived to some extent on export orders, which have now dried up. The overseas buyer now demands the latest technology as a matter of course and he expects to see it being used in the supplier's home market.

497
The fact that the Layfield report is concerned with the PWR at Sizewell has not prevented the assessors from reaching their conclusions without looking at alternatives. However, they appear to review options as though they were mutually exclusive, and I think it is important to recognise that planned generating capacity deploys a mix of plant and systems which are interdependent. The CEGB itself recognises that demand is unlikely to be met solely with nuclear plant and that coal-fired capacity will be needed. If that is the case it should not delay application for planning consent for these stations as they will have to include sulphur dioxide abatement plant, which is novel to this country even though it is well known in Western Germany. It will involve millions of tons of fresh limestone feedstock and necessitate calcium sulphate waste-disposal management.
High merit coal-fired plant is destined for the South to correct the North-South divide and the 9-gigawatt saturation limit on the North-South power flow; so we see here, apart from the people wanting to flow South to live, a North-South power flow.
As I understand it, a great deal of work is to be done on planning consents and engineering before hardware contracts can be placed. Applications for new plant always seem to take longer to process than those for replicated plant—if one can ever say that power stations are replicated because in fact they always include elements of new design. I hope that the CEGB can be persuaded to apply early. I do not think I need ask my noble friend on the Front Bench to ask his right honourable friend to give a nudge to the noble Lord, Lord Marshall, because he is here now listening to what I am saying.
Nuclear power is, I believe, an important component of the United Kingdom power programme, but the time has come for comprehensive investment to meet future rising demand. If the PWR at Sizewell B is the trigger for this, then I support it. The PWR is the considered choice of the CEGB and it is also the popular choice of WOCA—the World Outside Communist Areas. There is a strong case for following suit as the bank of technical knowledge round the world is great and we can therefore readily draw upon it for our own requirements if we need to do so.
The thoroughness with which Sir Frank Layfield has done his job must be admired and we are indebted to him. Therefore, I hope that he has laid to rest the phantom of Sizewell. I hope that the Government can now rapidly give their consent for the PWR so that the comprehensive investment programme can start right away.
7.16 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, in winding up this fascinating debate on behalf of my noble friends on these Benches, what I personally wish to say on this subject can be said in a few sentences and I will try to limit myself to those few sentences.
It seems that we all agree that the world—and we talk in world terms—faces an ongoing energy crisis. The fact that nuclear fission appeared at one time likely to provide limitless energy in perpetuity seemed to me to be the most helpful development which had
498
happened to the western world since Hitler launched his attack on the Soviet Union. I am bound to say that we were optimistic in those old days. The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, in his fascinating maiden speech, referred to the opening of Calder Hall. I was there and I shared his optimism at that time. However, it appears that when we solve problems we almost inevitably, and all too often, create new and sometimes bigger problems; and I am afraid that, tragically, that seems to be the case with nuclear power.
I do not for one moment say that we do not need nuclear power. Indeed, I am wholly convinced that we will need it desperately and that, as time goes on, we will become increasingly dependent on it. However, as regards immediate developments I must quote once again St. Anthony, who has been quoted several times in this debate—
The Earl of Lauderdale: It was St. Augustine.
Lord Winstanley: I know that it was attributed to St. Augustine but I believe that in fact it was St. Anthony. However, he is not actually here!
I do not wish to embark on any specious arguments about how long our existing energy resources will last; whether our oil supplies will last for 10 years, 20 years or more; whether our coal supplies will disappear or last for 300 years or more; or how long North Sea gas will last. However, one thing is clear: our energy resources are finite which means that sooner or later they will run out. I am utterly convinced that that means we should husband and cherish those resources which we now have with a great deal more care than we do. Many references have been made in debate to that aspect, in particular by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. We should be doing a great deal more to husband and cherish those resources which we now have in order to give ourselves more time. Time for what! Time to pioneer and develop alternatives.
Some of the options have already been touched upon. One is tidal power. Certainly, the Severn barrage and perhaps even the Mersey barrage are projects about which I personally—and I speak entirely personally—would be a little more enthusiastic than I am about the Channel Tunnel. However, that is an entirely separate matter. I believe that tidal power has to be looked at, as do the possibilities of wind power on which much work is being done, particularly in my own part of the world in Cumbria where we have plenty of wind and where there are many people at present exploiting it commercially, effectively and efficiently. We need to look further at solar energy. It is even possible that there may be people today—not in your Lordships' House—who wilt live long enough to see the benefits of power derived from nuclear fusion. Whether or not that is a dream, I do not know, but there are alternatives
Nevertheless, I am convinced that whatever we do in terms of cherishing and husbanding our present resources and pioneering and developing these other sources of power, there will be a gap which can only be bridged by nuclear generated power. There are those—not only members of my party but also of my own family—who constantly warn me about the risks of nuclear power. Whatever the risks of nuclear power

499
and it would be foolish to ignore them—I am well aware of them, living as I do within spitting distance of Sellafield—those risks must be measured against the certainty of catastrophe if we were to suffer a total energy failure with all that that would entail, such as failure of water supplies, sewage disposal and the total destruction of energy supplies. However, we must not ignore the fact that many people feel that there are risks and we must carry public opinion with us.
I should like to mention the fascinating maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt. I heard him often in another place. On those occasions he always seemed to agree with my party and disagree with his own. It now appears that he disagrees with both parties. However, it was a great pleasure to hear him. He mentioned that we were the first in the field of nuclear energy and now we are the last. I think that Calder Hall was first opened more than 30 years ago. I take the view that it is not always so bad to be late in the queue with certain new developments.
Britain has suffered not once but over and over. again through having been in the forefront of industrial development. It happened with coal, the industry with which my noble friend Lord Ezra was involved. We were first in the field in coal mining and as a result many of our coalfields had too many shafts and too much surface equipment for the mining underground; others who developed their coalfields much later were able to profit from our experience. In the same way Japan has overtaken us in certain industrial processes. It has done so without spending a penny on research and development because it has taken advantage of the research and development that we conducted. It is no bad thing that we were first in the field and took the first steps; nor has it been a bad thing that we have had time to reconsider our position and learn a little more about other developments.
The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, said that he was convinced that there was no real danger from radiation. I accept that. I have said in your Lordships' House that the principal source of irradiation to which British people are exposed derives not from nuclear power stations but from diagnostic X-rays. I believe that to be true, though I know that radiation comes from natural sources as well.
I accept that the record of the nuclear power industry is admirable. I have spent a great deal of time at Sellafield and I believe that its safety precautions are admirable in every way. At the same time I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, that although he may believe that all the problems are solved, I do not believe that he can be saying that we have finally and satisfactorily solved the problem of the disposal of radioactive waste. I do not think that that problem has been finally and satisfactorily solved and we must look at it much more closely.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, drew something of a red herring across the path when they directed our attention to the environmental impact on the Sizewell area itself. That is important of course and has to be considered. But what must be a final consideration is whether we need a PWR now, and not where it should be. If we need it and are to have one, so be it. I accept
500
that all those matters have to be considered, and it is right that they should be brought up, but the real need is to consider the most urgent task here and now.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, will not say that I am asking for more time to be wasted. Certainly, I am not asking for another Sizewell inquiry or another Layfield report. I doubt the extent to which our nation can afford such inquiries, though I hasten to add that that one was admirable in every way. Sir Frank Layfield's report is splendid and very valuable indeed, but I am not sure whether we can go on with inquiries of that kind. We can follow the lines that have been suggested by many people in the scientific world. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, that we need to give ourselves time to learn the lessons which may come from Torness and Heysham. We ought to give ourselves time to make the kind of technical changes in relation to the PWR (and I do not fully understand them) to which the noble Earl referred. Those matters need to be considered.
However, the most important matter—and obviously it would be unwise for any of us to ignore it—is to realise that there is grave public anxiety over the question of nuclear power. That is understandable, and comes in part from something that happened overseas—the Chernobyl disaster. At the moment the Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of the Environment are still taking samples from my garden up in the Lake District, testing my vegetables and my water supply. I know that Sellafield is not responsible. The problem has come from somewhere else altogether. However, that event made people extremely anxious.
With regard to the clusters of cases of leukaemia to which the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, referred, I have to tell him that I advised my next door neighbour some time ago who asked me about her son, an enthusiastic fell racer who trained every day on the beach and bathed in the sea at Seascale. She asked me, "Is there any danger?" I said, "I think not. I have talked with Sir Douglas Black who conducted the inquiry and I personally am satisfied that there is no real risk". It is a fact that a month later that boy was admitted to the Christie Hospital in Manchester suffering from leukaemia. It is very difficult for me to give the kind of explanation that the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, has just given to the House, and to say that there are other viruses and other clusters in, say, Essex or Scotland.
If we ignore public anxieties on an issue of this kind, in the long run the power industry as a whole will suffer. We must take the right steps and be satisfied that the public believe that we are taking the right steps. At the moment there are certain things that I believe should be done. In the short term what is needed most urgently is another coal fired power station, for the reasons argued by my noble friend Lord Ezra. If I may say so, the economic reasons that he gave were based on figures given to your Lordships' Select Committee and not based on the import figures, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, appeared to suggest. On economic grounds I think that case is fully made out. There is a case for dealing with the short-term situation, not postponing matters but giving ourselves time to decide which is the right way ahead. That would be the wisest course to take.

501
I know that my noble friend Lord Hanworth warned us about sulphur dioxide in the atmosphere. As a doctor treating bronchitic patients, I have known all about that for years. I know about the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and its effect on the ozone layer, and that the mean average world temperature is increasing by a small amount every year. However, I can assure my noble friend that the polar caps will not melt immediately, though perhaps we should be unwise to take long leases on properties at sea level; but that is another matter.
Nevertheless, I believe that the best option in the short term is to have another coal-fired power station and to take further thought about alternatives before we decide which is the way ahead. I should make it clear that I believe that in the long term the whole world will increasingly rely on nuclear generated power. That should be recognised, but for goodness sake let us go about it in the right way.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, first I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, not only on his presence but on his speech. We first met—I do not know whether he remembers it—in 1943 when he was a staff captain and I was a mere subaltern. It was about a year before the Normandy invasion. He has a lively mind as he has demonstrated today, but he has also discovered that it is difficult to be interesting and non-controversial. Today he was interesting and controversial.
In my view, the Government were sensible to decide to listen to the views of both Houses and to have today a take-note Motion to which they will listen and which they will consider. Then they will take a decision. My advice to them, which I think would be reflected by many noble Lords, is that there is no need to rush into a decision on what has been a most controversial inquiry. The problem remains one of the most controversial. To that extent I agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley—and many other noble Lords said the same—that two new coal-fired stations are probably needed immediately. There should be no delay on that.
The CEGB seems to have been putting everything on the Sizewell B PWR decision. I do not think that it should allow itself to be rushed into a decision. It must understand, as has been said on both sides of the House, that there is a degree of public anxiety. Some of it may be real, some of it may be exaggerated, but it is there.
When looking at the Layfield Report we have a strange situation. The Government are in a much more fortunate position than Sir Frank Layfield was, in that he could take no cognisance of any relevant development in the past two years. That is not criticism of him. I warmly congratulate him on one of the most readable of reports. We too often receive reports which are full of facts but which do not read well. This one reads well. He was put into a difficult position. The Government are in a better position, and we are in a better position. We know that in the past 24 months economic and safety factors have fundamentally changed.
502
I mention the two factors together because Sir Frank's major conclusion was:
"There should be good confidence that Sizewell B, if built, would be sufficiently safe to be tolerable."
"Sufficiently safe to be tolerable" is not a powerful phrase. He continues:
"providing that there is expected to be economic benefit sufficient to justify the risks incurred".
That major conclusion contains three questions. Sir Frank Layfield was not able to consider two vital factors. The first is fossil fuel prices. They are crucial to the economics of Sizewell B. They have dramatically reduced since 1985. Layfield accepted British Coal's price forecasts for coal but today those forecasts are now some 80 per cent. lower. That point was made by the noble Viscount, Lord Hood. Sizewell B will incur a substantial loss of about £400 million over its lifetime, even if everything runs according to plan.
Thus, rising capital cost estimates and plummeting coal prices, regardless of oil—who knows what the movement in oil prices will be; they will probably be upwards—will turn the Sizewell project from what was considered to be a potential £1 billion-saver into a loss-maker of between £300 million and £400 million.
We and the Government now know much more than was known at the time Layfield wrote his report. As my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington said, there is a strong possibility that had Sir Frank Layfield known those facts his conclusions might have been different. We cannot tell. He is not likely to make a statement on that point.
Today's debate has centred on four major questions. They all relate to Sizewell B. At one moment I wondered whether we were talking about Sizewell B or the whole question of nuclear power. Our view on the broader issues was ably stated by my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon, who unhappily is unwell or he would have been speaking and not I. He is making good progress and I am sure that we would all want to wish him a complete recovery from his illness.
I shall sum up some of the major questions. First, will Sizewell B be an economic proposition? The signs are that it will not. The case for Sizewell B rests heavily on future fossil fuel prices, including coal. Since the end of the inquiry, fossil fuel price forecasts have changed. Layfield rejected the CEGB coal price forecasts as substantially too high. He criticised its evidence as confused, insufficient and one of skilful uncertainty. That is a lovely phrase.
He sided with the National Coal Board, now British Coal, which forecast world coal prices of 75 dollars per tonne. British Coal is now forecasting a world price level of about 40 dollars per tonne, which will increase only slowly, if at all, in the 1980s. Those lower coal prices change a projected saving, as I have said, of well over £1 billion for Sizewell B to a loss of over £300 million; and so we are dealing with a different situation.
In short, since 7th March 1985 the cost of building Britain's first American-designed nuclear power station has greatly increased, while the prices of competing oil and coal have fallen substantially. That is the economic argument. There are of course many other questions.

503
The second question is whether Sizewell is necessary. The CEGB has consistently misjudged—I am sorry to say this in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Marshall—future electricity demand. In the 10 years before the inquiry, the CEGB's projections for demand for seven years ahead were on average 26 per cent. too high. The CEGB now says that it needs to order five PWRs and four coal-fired stations by 1990 to keep the nation's lights on. I believe that that is excessive. It is probably as excessive as its previous estimates, if not more so. It has merely extrapolated a slight increase in electricity demand over the past two years and assumed that that will continue indefinitely into the future.
If new capacity is necessary, the PWR is neither the only nor necessarily the best way to meet those demands. My noble friend Lord Dean referred to, and I have already mentioned, the coal-fired option, for which I believe many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, have argued. Other options include the refurbishing of existing fossil fuel stations, extending their life for a further five to 10 years, and, as other noble Lords have said, combining heat and power stations, which are twice as efficient as a PWR.
The third question is perhaps a fundamental one which has been thrown across the House. It concerns the safety of the PWR. In the report Sir Frank Layfield said that he was not able to base his conclusions on a final safety case for Sizewell B as none was submitted. That is a powerful negative statement. He was unable conclusively to judge the safety of Sizewell B. He relied instead on the CEGB and the NII to resolve outstanding safety issues after the end of the inquiry.
The safety of Sizewell B has thus not been demonstrated conclusively to the general public or to Parliament. If we look at the risks, Sir Frank Layfield rejects the CEGB's idea of what he calls acceptable risk. He proposes instead the concept of tolerable risk. This is what I quoted from in his major conclusion. This is no more than a cost-benefit way of assessing risks linked to some knowledge of what risks the public will tolerate. All this was before Chernobyl. One cannot take a decision which simply rejects Chernobyl. After Chernobyl it is clear that with regard to nuclear power the public are not prepared to tolerate even supposedly low levels of risk.
Sir Frank Layfield concludes on this by saying that there is no wide, accepted method of risk evaluation. He also said that the quantity assessment of risk from Sizewell B has a high degree of uncertainty. In addition, he said that the CEGB's and the NII's criteria to limit the probability and the consequences of nuclear accidents has not been fully justified. He stated that there has not been sufficient public and political consideration of the basis for regulating nuclear safety. If he has stated all those factors I would submit to your Lordships' House that it would not be responsible for the Government to say, "All right, that gives us the go-ahead for Sizewell B". As I have said, this still leaves out Chernobyl.
The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, said that he could find no reactor deaths. Let me remind him about Chernobyl. Chernobyl has so far killed 31 people and there are a further 201 who are seriously ill. In the long
504
term between 10,000 and 50,000 cancers have been prophesied. In Britain—over 1,200 miles away, quite apart from the back garden of the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley—between 100 and 500 long-term cancers are likely. The accident occurred in an RBMK reactor which the noble Lord, Lord Marshall, described in 1976 as reliable. Perhaps the noble Lord thought it was; but it was not. Human error cannot be eliminated from the operation of a nuclear reactor. There is no such thing as a fail-safe reactor anywhere in the world. Layfield concludes that the effect of human error on safety is potentially large, and that there are no reliable methods yet for quantifying human error.
I therefore ask myself this question. Quite apart from the rest of the world or the rest of the country, what about the radiation effects on people in the area near Sizewell? One reason I am speaking on this subject rather than on my normal subject of health is that I know the area reasonably well. I certainly know the concerns that exist there. People are worried. It was said by the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, that some people are not worried. But many people are very worried.
What alternatives are there to Sizewell B? I believe that there are many options. If we have to produce more power now I have said what I think we should do straight away while we consider further the option that is before us for Sizewell. The most obviously neglected option is that of combined heat and power. Successive official reports have pronounced it cost-effective and have named nine suitable urban areas. There are five consortia waiting to build it. It would create more jobs than Sizewell B, many in the areas of the country that most need jobs. The CEGB did not seriously dispute its superior economic merit at the inquiry.
I think it is time to look at the legal, financial and institutional impediments which are blocking development of this major resource which is well proven in other countries. I believe that the United Kingdom is very fortunate in having unusually rich and diverse renewable energy resources both on and off shore—its large wind and wave energy resource and its major potential for harnessing the tides in the hot rocks beneath the land mass. We have so many advantages which other countries do not have, partly because we are an island and partly because of our climate. These are factors which ought to be explored more vigorously than they are being explored at the moment.
The last question I wish to put is this. What about jobs? Perhaps economically this is the most imporant issue for the public. What about exports? This is a matter which I know concerns the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick. Jobs, my Lords, yes; but exports, no. Jobs will he created whatever kind of power stations are built. All power stations require turbines. Sizewell B is supposed to create 50,000 jobs over eight years, but up to 28,000 more jobs would be created with the same level of investment in a national programme of energy conservation and combined heat and power.
Sizewell B will also destroy jobs. Building Sizewell B will employ about 8,400 people for seven and a half years if the project runs its time, whereas it would take

505
approximately 6,500 people six and a half years to build a coal station of the same capacity. But during its operating phase Sizewell B would support up to 10,000 fewer jobs than a coal-fired station and cause between 5,000 and 8,000 job losses in the mining industry.
On exports, it has been pointed out by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham, who had to leave us, by the noble Viscount, Lord Hood, and the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, that the export potential of the PWR must be a fantasy. There have been no orders for PWRs since 1978. The world market has slumped since Three Mile Island, and now Chernobyl, due to widespread and justified fears over the safety of all water-cooled reactors. On the environmental question, in a sense there has been a title bit of an argument on our own Benches as to the importance of environmental factors. The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick. said, "I have put up with nasty-looking piles of slag heaps ever since I was a kid", and he went on to say more or less that the forthcoming generation should have to put up with it as well.
Lord Dean of Beswick: No, I did not.
Lord Ennals: I may be misrepresenting the noble Lord.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My noble friend is.
Lord Ennals: But not intentionally. My noble friend Lady Nicol says that we must look carefully at environmental factors; we must do so. The decision that the Government will eventually take will not just determine the nuclear industry for generations to come but may affect the nature of our life and the lives of people in Britain for generations to come. Since there is so much uncertainty about the economics of it all, I believe that the environmental issues will become vital when the Government make their final choice.
7.48 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I should like first to add my congratulations to those already expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, for his succinct, witty and informative maiden speech. We have had, I believe, a most useful and constructive debate this evening. Many interesting points have been raised by speakers on all sides of the House. I have listened most carefully to everything that has been said and I know that my right honourable friend will study the transcript of the debate carefully before he reaches his decision on the CEGB's proposals.
In opening this debate I expressed my appreciation for the painstaking and dedicated manner in which Sir
506
Frank and his team approached their task. Let me in my closing remarks give the House a few facts and figures which help to illustrate the depth and thoroughness of the way in which the inquiry was conducted.
The formal hearings opened in January 1983 and heard over 340 days of evidence, following preliminary meetings in June, July and October 1982. Evidence was taken from 195 witnesses on 344 occasions. Two hundred proofs of evidence were presented, supplemented by over 500 addenda, and 14 written statements were read. Some 4,330 supporting documents were lodged with the inquiry secretariat. Over 4,000 letters of objection and 112 written submissions were received. The 340 volumes of the daily transcript alone are estimated to contain 16 million words.
I am sure that noble Lords will appreciate the clear and comprehensive manner in which Sir Frank has handled this amount of evidence. We also owe a debt to Sir Frank's four assessors. Sir Christopher Foster advised him on economic questions, Dr. Vennart on the biological effects of radiation, Professor Hall on engineering matters, and Professor Alexander on the transport of nuclear fuel. They had to find substantial amounts of time for this work in addition to their professional and academic responsibilities. I am sure that we are all most appreciative of the considerable contribution made by them, and by the inquiry secretariat, which ensured the smooth running of the inquiry and gave the inspector valuable assistance in preparing the report.
In conclusion, 1 should like to thank the House for the valuable and constructive contributions that have been made today. In introducing this debate, I said that we must recognise the fundamental importance for the future of our decisions on the forms of energy which we seek to develop. We shall shortly be making decisions which are likely to have an important influence on the energy scene for decades ahead. It is against that background that my right honourable friend will consider both what has been said today and what was said last week in another place with the greatest care before taking his decision.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Licensing (Restaurant Meals) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons earlier this day agreed to.
House adjourned at eight minutes before eight o'clock.

  AIR DEFENCE REQUIREMENTS
  AIR DEFENCE REQUIREMENTS
  NATO NUCLEAR WEAPON AND CONVENTIONAL FORCE USE RULES
  NATO NUCLEAR WEAPON AND CONVENTIONAL FORCE USE RULES
  US BASES ON UK TERRITORIES
  US BASES ON UK TERRITORIES
  ENEMY SUBMARINE REFUELLING ALLEGATION
  ENEMY SUBMARINE REFUELLING ALLEGATION
  THERMAL INSULATION AND NEW POWER STATIONS
  THERMAL INSULATION AND NEW POWER STATIONS
  SSSIs: WITHDRAWAL OF NOTIFICATION
  SSSIs: WITHDRAWAL OF NOTIFICATION
  NEVILLE HOUSE, PAGE STREET, WESTMINSTER
  NEVILLE HOUSE, PAGE STREET, WESTMINSTER
  HOME EQUIPMENT LOANS TO DISABLED PEOPLE: REPORT
  HOME EQUIPMENT LOANS TO DISABLED PEOPLE: REPORT
  FOETAL VIABILITY
  FOETAL VIABILITY
  CHANNEL TUNNEL BILL: PETITIONS
  CHANNEL TUNNEL BILL: PETITIONS
  COUNCIL OF MINISTERS: PROGRAMME OF MEETINGS
  COUNCIL OF MINISTERS: PROGRAMME OF MEETINGS