Development Of Rural Wales Bill Lords
As amended ( in the Standing Committee), considered.
New Clause 1
Relations Between The Board And The Agency
'In all cases within the area in Wales for which the Board is responsible, when there is a dispute or conflict of interest between the Board and the Welsh Development Agency, such dispute or conflict of interest shall be subject to adjudication and decision by the Secretary of State'.—[ Sir R. Gower.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
10.34 p.m.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. [Interruption.]
Order. It is not fair to the hon. Gentleman who is addressing the House if hon. Members leaving the Chamber do not do so quietly.
In view of the lateness of the hour I shall abbreviate what I intended to say in support of the new clause. The general objective and function of the Board set up for rural Wales as prescribed in the early part of the Bill is:
In subsection (5) there is a more detailed explanation of the Board's powers and functions. In Section 1(2) of the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975 a similar array of functions is set out. It says:"For the purpose of promoting the economic and social well-being of the people in the area of Wales for which it is responsible under this Act."
Nevertheless, I can see possibilities of a difference of opinion between the Agency, with its wider responsibilities, and the new Board, with its remit concerning the comparatively localised area of the three counties specified in the Bill. The new clause is partly substantive and partly probing. If there is a conflict between the two authorities I should like the Secretary of State to act more as a referee, judge or arbiter to balance the different views and make a judicial decision. Although the wording of the clause may not be perfect, I hope that the Minister will not rely on that fact alone in seeking to defeat the provision on technical grounds. I believe that the clause will be a valuable addition to the Bill because the decision will have to be made by the Secretary of State, who is accountable to the House. In cases of conflict, the Secretary of State should be able to consider the different views put forward by the Agency and, in some circumstances, by the Board, and should be able to adjudge the matter or to refer it to an adjudicator. I hope the Minister will feel that some provision of this nature should be added to the Bill."from time to time to prepare and submit to the Secretary of State for his approval proposals (whether of a general or specific character) for the economic and social development of the area or any part of it".
We now come to an important objection to the fundamental nature of the Bill. I wish to make one or two general observations about the course adopted by the Government in putting forward this measure and to give our reasons for thinking that it may not work satisfactorily.
I am not sure that the clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) will remove our fundamental objections or ease the uncertainties created in people's minds by these provisions, although the clause seeks to ameliorate some of the consequences. I wish to emphasise that we believe that the structure of the Bill is fundamentally unsound, but I shall put my points more fully in the brief Third Reading debate. Let me merely say at this point that we believe that there is plenty of room in the Bill as drafted for uncertainty about geographical boundaries and responsibilities accorded to the Agency and the Board. We believe that this will cause considerable difficulties in future, but I shall not be urging my hon. Friends to press the matter to a vote, unless my hon. Friend the Member for Barry wishes to do so.10.45 p.m.
The hon. Members for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) and Barry (Sir R. Gower) might be at odds over the new clause. There is no reason to expect conflict here. The Development Board for Rural Wales will have its own specific functions, like those relating to new towns—advance factories, housing and COSIRA functions for small industries—while the Agency will get on with the main business of giving direct assistance to industry, and, in the second arm of its activity, the environmental functions.
To try to reassure the hon. Member for Barry, I would remind him that the Chairman of the DBRW will join the WDA Board. I hope that this will persuade the hon. Member that harmony will be promoted and the conflict he fears avoided. As the Bill is drafted, the Secretary of State can direct the Agency under Clause 1 and the Board under Clause 2. Those powers can be used to avoid any conflict which arises. I would advise the House to reject the new clause, but I hope that the hon. Member will consider withdrawing it.Although I am not entirely satisfied, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 2
Delegation Of Functions To The Board
'Functions exercised by the Welsh Development Agency within the area in Wales for which the Board is responsible shall whenever possible and appropriate be delegated to the Board'.—[ Sir R. Gower.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Wherever possible, the functions of the Welsh Development Agency should be delegated to the new authority for rural Wales. The two bodies are rather different. I apprehend that the anxieties, concerns and hopes of the Board will he by their nature more concentrated. Its remit is limited to the rural counties of Mid-Wales. It will not be diverted by consideration of the important matters which must occupy the WDA in all parts of the Principality. It will consider the problems of the industrial South, of North-East Wales and of the extreme North-West. On the other hand, the DBRW will be concerned solely with the problems of the rural counties. It will probably, therefore, be more sensitive to local opinion and anxieties, and as time goes on it will be a more responsive instrument to deal with those problems. The Minister may tell me that, under Clause 4 (1)(e) and (f), the Board has the function of providing finance and services other than finance as agent for the Agency, but there is nothing to suggest that in most cases the Agency should seek to have its functions carried through by the new Board, especially in Mid-Wales. I should like to see something more definite in this respect. The new clause would ensure that, wherever possible and appropriate, these powers should be delegated by the Agency to the Board in the comparatively narrow areas for which the Board will be responsible. I commend the new clause as a definite improvement.As the hon. Member of Parliament for an area which the Board will serve, I want to dissociate myself entirely from the clause, because people in the area do not want to be deprived of the work of the WDA. They do not want delegated powers from the Agency to go to the rural development Board. We feel that the work of the WDA in building advance factories, and so on, should continue. The Board is a special one to deal primarily with rural functions. It is not to deal with the overall economic development of Wales. We want to continue our association with that overall economic development by having the WDA operating in our area. One of the fears expressed in the area is that we shall suffer in having a rural development Board——
Does not the hon. Gentleman recall that the Minister has said on a number of occasions that the work of the Agency will be largely concentrated outside Mid-Wales and be in other parts, predominantly in the industrial areas? If there is some work which it is doing in rural Wales, is it not reasonable to suggest that the comparatively small amount of time that it will be able to devote to it should be done through the agency of the rural Board?
The hon. Gentleman has not listened to my remarks in the past. This was one of the reasons why I was anxious to see the setting up of the Board. We felt that, naturally, the WDA would have to concentrate in the more urban areas most of its time. That is why we want to complement its work in the rural areas. We want the WDA in our areas. We know that it must look after the more serious problems of the urban areas and, therefore, we want this board to complement that work.
One remark of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) brought out the confusion which has arisen in this matter. He said that the Welsh Development Agency was the body that he would like to see dealing with advance factory building in his constituency. As I understand the Bill and the remarks of the Under-Secretary in Committee, it is the Board which will be dealing with advance factories. This is one of the powers reserved to the Board. If at this stage the hon. Gentleman is still confused about this matter—and justifiably, in my view—it is very likely that industrialists and others outside the House are equally confused. This is one of our fundamental complaints about the structure of the Bill.
It may be that the Board will deal with advance factories. But the WDA has functions which the Board will not have. It will not have the opportunity to make grants for certain developments, and we do not want to lose out on that kind of development. I do not know of anyone in my area who wants these powers transferred. That is why I felt compelled to speak against the clause.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) is right. His constituency and others will not lose out in the area of the Board.
I advise the House to resist the clause. In the first place, it lacks precision. Who is to decide when it shall be appropriate for the WDA to delegate? Then again, other changes might have to be made to the Bill now before Parliament to secure that the Agency could delegate all its functions to the Board; for example, the clearance of derelict land function of the Agency. So, to that extent, the clause is not effective. We believe in horses for courses. We believe that the Welsh Development Agency throughout Wales should have responsibility for derelict land clearance and should have investment in industry powers. It has its experts and professional people. We do not believe that we should stretch this expertise around and give the Board too many powers. Basically, therefore, for these three reasons I advise the House to reject the clause.Question put and negatived
Clause 2
Directions Of Secretary Of State To The Board And Consultative Council
I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 31, leave out subsection (1).
With this we may take the following amendments:
Government Amendment No. 4.
Amendment No. 19, in Clause 21, page 15, line 41, leave out
'Without prejudice to section 1() of this Act,'.
Government Amendments Nos. 20 and 21.
Amendment No. 22, in Schedule 1. page 25, line 3, leave out
under section 1() of this Act'.
Government Amendment No. 23.
Amendment No. 24, page 25, line 11, leave out from beginning to first 'the' in line 12.
Government Amendment No. 25.
When in Committee we carried our amendment about the establishment of Consultative Council we at the same time replaced the original subsection (7) of Clause 1, which gave the Board power to give directions, with the present subsection (1) of Clause 2, which gives the Secretary of State power only to give general directions.
The Secretary of State, by a later amendment, now seeks to remove the Consultative Council and, in this group of amendments, to revert to his tighter control of the Board, under which he can give specific directions on a wide range of matters. Incidentally, I think it wholly deplorable that the Government should seek by Amendment No. 21 to delete the moderate provision that before giving any direction to the Board the Secretary of State should consult the Board. It is this power of the Secretary of State to direct, and our anxieties about it, that led us to table Amendment No. 3 really as a basis for debate and as a probing amendment, and not as one that we wish to press at this stage. But subsequently we shall certainly seek to retain the Consultative Council that we brought into the Bill at the Committee stage. I have considerable reservations about the powers of direction given to the Secretary of State by the Bill, and there are a number of specific points which I should like to raise and elaborate upon. But, for the convenience of the House, I propose to do so during our Third Reading debate, because I think it will be just as possible there for me to make those points and for the Under-Secretary to reply to them without losing the essence of the argument at this time. The point we seek to make at this stage is that we think the Board, if it is to function successfully, should be a freestanding independent organisation, able to use its judgment with the minimum of Government interference, so that it can decide on the particular needs of its locality. Frankly, we are suspicious of the wide powers given to the Secretary of State to dictate its activities. The Government's economic record does not encourage us to the view that they will be taking the right decisions. As I shall say later to the House, some things which have occurred make us suspect that these powers could be misused. We are also concerned about questions of parliamentary administration, in the sense that throughout our debates, on both the Welsh Development Agency and the Board, we have been told that one of the reasons why the Secretary of State should have these wide powers is that, after all, he is responsible, and responsible to Parliament. We anticipated, therefore, that we should be able to press the Secretary of State for information at Question Time. We have, I regret to say, when dealing with the matters under the responsibility of the Welsh Development Agency, found very often that our straightforward Questions on such matters as advance factory building and derelict land clearance have been answered with the reply that this is now a matter which is the responsibility of the WDA. The Department and the Secretary of State are not wholly consistent in that, because on Friday they answered a series of Questions which I had put on this point, when previously they had refused to answer them. I hope that when we are dealing with matters central to the economic management of Wales, the fact that we have a Development Agency and a rural Board will not prevent the Government from giving the facts to the House in the most convenient way—where possible by parliamentary reply to Questions. There are one or two other general matters which I wish to raise, but I will postpone these until a later occasion.11.0 p.m.
I advise the House to resist the Opposition amendment. Our own amendments, particularly Amendment No. 4, will delete the limitation confining the power of the Secretary of State to give directions to the Board to directions of a general character only. Amendments Nos. 20, 23 and 25 are consequential.
Amendment No. 21 stands apart. Its effect is to remove an unnecessary provision in Schedule 1 relating to a provision in Clause 1 that was removed at Committee stage. This is not a deplorable amendment, as the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) claimed, and the economic record of the Government is good. These are crucial requirements. The Secretary of State has a responsibility to Parliament, and to meet that responsibility he needs the powers of direction. With responsibility goes authority, and the Secretary of State would need his powers of specific as well as general direction. There are many precedents for powers of direction over other bodies, as in the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975, the Highlands and Islands Development Act (Scotland) 1965, and New Towns Act 1965 with regard to development corporations, and the Industry Act 1975 with regard to the National Enterprise Board. In particular, we need the powers of specific direction. The Secretary' of State may require the Board to sell land to a local authority as he may wish to indicate that an advance factory will go to a certain town in the Principality. There is a difficulty in defining the dividing line between specific and general directions. General directions have been found to be specific in nature, and, therefore, ultra vires in the absence of provision for specific direction. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the Opposition will withdrawn their amendment.As I indicated earlier. Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is my intention. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: No. 4, in page 2, line 32, leave out "of a general character".
I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 2, leave out lines 35 to 40.
With this we may take Government Amendments Nos. 27 and 28.
In urging the House to support these amendments, obviously my memory goes back to the Committee stage. I remind right hon. and hon. Members opposite that if there were to be a Consultative Council we would have in the Principality yet another nominated body. It is very clear that public opinion in Wales does not wish to have another nominated body, and the Government's objective would be to reduce the number of bodies with interests in this area of rural Wales. For too long there have been too many bodies. The idea is to have fewer in order to make action more effective.
I urge the House to recollect that local interests are to be represented on the Board. Local authorities, we think, would want direct representation on the Board. Five members of the Board will represent local authorities and local authority associations. The Board is large. It has 11 to 13 members, and we think that this will adequately represent the interests of the area.Is the Minister suggesting that the members of the Board will not consult other organisations in Wales that are not represented on the Board?
Certainly the Board will consult widely at all times. It intends to be responsive and sensitive to the needs of rural Wales. I hope that I can dispel any doubts the hon. Member has on that score. The Board will be required to consult very widely. In another place, proposals for the Consultative Council were, in the end, withdrawn.
It is expected that when the Welsh Assembly is operative the Board will be responsible to the Assembly. We say that this is yet another very strong reason why the Consultative Council should not come into being.The hon. Gentleman said that the proposals were withdrawn in another place, but does he not recall that when this was mooted in Committee the Government did not argue strongly against it and they let it go through. They certainly did not make any strong case against it.
I totally reject the recollections of the hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) of that debate. He might cast his mind back to the response of my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman), and his very strong reaction when the Consultative Council was included.
Government Amendments Nos. 5 and 27 are major amendments because they eliminate the proposal that there should be a Consultative Council to the Board including representatives of local authorities, agriculture, forestry and such other interests as the Secretary of State sees fit.
The local authority representatives were to have been selected after consultation with the county councils and district councils in the Board's area and with local authority organisations in Wales. Other representatives of particular interests were also to have been appointed after consultation with the appropriate bodies. So I contest the Minister's view that the council would simply be yet another nominated body in Wales. The purpose of the council is to extend the representation of the interests concerned with the Board. The elimination of the Consultative Council will be very much regretted by those interests which had a reasonable expectation of being represented on it.
Is the hon. Member not overlooking the fact that local authorities would be represented rather absurdly both on the Board and on the Consultative Council?
I am coming to that point. Of course, the local authorities will have five members on the Development Board, and the Government have argued that this is sufficient. But the Government will recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) argued in Committee in favour of a smaller board, similar to the Highlands and Islands Development Board, which also has a consultative council, and which we understand works very well.
Our amendment having been carried in Committee, and the council having been included in the Bill, we thought that the Government would have accepted it with good grace and possibly would have proposed consequential amendments at this stage to reduce the size of the Board. But they have done nothing of the kind. They have sought to abolish the council and to stick to their large Board of part-timers. But that Board might be dominated by its executive and may prove to be an unwieldy body. Even in those circumstances we still feel that we must defend the Consultative Council, because we are still concerned about the agricultural, forestry and other interests which are specifically mentioned as meriting inclusion in the Consultative Council. If the council is removed from the Bill these interests will have no statutory voice since there will be no statutory requirement for them to be represented on the Board. The agricultural interests have very little protection in the Bill. We are deeply concerned about that. The same can be said of tourism. The Government may say that these interests will in all probability be represented on the Board. But we would like their representation to be written into the Bill and not left to the discretion of the Secretary of State and his successors. The main arguments against the Consultative Council are that the Board itself has almost double the membership of the Highlands and Islands Development Board, that it is already obliged to consult widely, and, finally, that it is to be responsible to the Welsh Assembly if and when that body comes into being. That last argument is unsound. The Assembly is not yet in being and should not, therefore, be taken into account. The Board is obliged to consult before submitting proposals to the Secretary of State, but those consultations to be held under Clause 3(6), will be primarily with planning authorities and local authorities and other bodies as appear to the Board to have an interest in the proposals. In other words, the initiative lies with the Board, and its consultations can be limited by the very nature of the proposals it hopes to submit to the Secretary of State. I would have thought that such consultations would preclude consultations on other specific matters as well as on more general matters. We are concerned that there should be a watchdog body representative of the major interests in Mid-Wales to advise the Board at what is bound to be a difficult time when rural development policies are in the melting-pot and when new town development policies are changing. Without the council we shall have a large and unwieldy Board of part-time members dominated by their executive. Our ideal recipe would be a smaller, more compact, efficient and effective Board capable of decisive action after consultation with a larger broadly-based and representative body with its ear close to the ground in Mid-Wales. But if the ideal is to be denied us we still believe that the consultative council is valuable and should be retained. I shall, therefore, ask my hon. Friends to vote against the amendment.11.15 p.m.
I support what has been said by the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts). On this issue in Committee, the Opposition parties were united for once because we believe that the Board should be concerned with community development in
Division No. 360.]
| AYES
| [11.18 p.m.
|
| Allaun, Frank | Coleman, Donald | Evans, John (Newton) |
| Anderson, Donald | Conlan, Bernard | Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd) |
| Archer, Peter | Cox, Thomas (Tooting) | Golding, John |
| Armstrong, Ernest | Cryer, Bob | Graham, Ted |
| Ashton, Joe | Dalyell, Tam | Hamilton, James (Bothwell) |
| Atkins, Ronald (Preston N) | Davies, Ifor (Gower) | Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) |
| Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) | Deakins, Eric | Hooley, Frank |
| Bates, Alf | Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) | Huckfield, Les |
| Bray, Dr Jeremy | Dormand, J. D. | Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey) |
| Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) | Duffy, A. E. P. | Hughes, Roy (Newport) |
| Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P) | Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun) | Hunter, Adam |
| Campbell, Ian | Ellis, Tom (Wrexham) | Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln) |
| Canavan, Dennis | Evans, Fred (Caerphilly) | John, Brynmor |
| Cocks, Rt Hon Michael | Evans, Ioan (Aberdare) | Jones, Alec (Rhondda) |
Mid-Wales and community participation in development.
In order to do this effectively, we need full-time expertise to be active in the day-to-day administration of the Board's work and, at the same time, wide consultative machinery to enable the whole community to participate in development.
The ideal structure would have been a small professional full-time Board, with a nucleus of three or four, and possibly one or two part-time members—comprising a board of, say, half a dozen—and, in addition, a Consultative Council with representatives not only of local authorities, trade unions and trades councils but of forestry, land use and recreational interests.
Instead, we have an ineffective, unwieldy compromise. We shall have a large, nominated Board of part-timers which will no doubt meet irregularly and, therefore, leave the day-to-day management in the hands of officers. We ought to have effective day-to-day management of the problems of Mid-Wales by a full-time Board backed up by a Consultative Council engaged in the whole area of the development process. We shall support the official Opposition in trying to restrain the Government from going back on the wishes of the Committee.
We regard the Government's attempt to negate the Board as a most objectionable and reactionary move. They are removing one of the most valuable features of the Bill. It would have made the Bill much better. I deeply regret that the Government have felt it proper to withdraw this valuable addition.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 86, Noes 80.
| Jones, Barry (East Flint) | Ogden, Eric | Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW) |
| Judd, Frank | Owen, Rt Hon Dr David | Urwin, T. W. |
| Kerr, Russell | Palmer, Arthur | Walker, Terry (Kingswood) |
| Lamond, James | Parry, Robert | White, Frank R. (Bury) |
| Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough) | Richardson, Miss Jo | White, James (Pollock) |
| Lomas, Kenneth | Roderick, Caerwyn | Whitlock, William |
| Lyons, Edward (Bradford W) | Rooker, J. W. | Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington) |
| McCartney, Hugh | Roper, John | Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton) |
| McDonald, Or Oonagh | Rowlands, Ted | Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton) |
| McElhone, Frank | Ryman, John | Wise, Mrs Audrey |
| Madden, Max | Skinner, Dennis | Woodall, Alec |
| Mallalieu, J. P. W. | Small, William | Woof, Robert |
| Mendelson, John | Smith, John (N Lanarkshire) | |
| Mikardo, Ian | Spearing, Nigel | TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
|
| Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride) | Stoddart, David | Mr. Joseph Harper and |
| Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) | Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery) | Mr. A. W. Stallard |
NOES
| ||
| Arnold, Tom | Hayhoe, Barney | Penhaligon, David |
| Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne) | Holland, Philip | Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts) |
| Beith, A. J. | Hooson, Emlyn | Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW) |
| Benyon, W. | Howells, Geraint (Cardigan) | Roberts, Wyn (Conway) |
| Berry, Hon Anthony | Hunt, John (Bromley) | Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight) |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | James, David | Scott-Hopkins, James |
| Brittan, Leon | Jessel, Toby | Shaw, Michael (Scarborough) |
| Brocklebank-Fowler, C. | Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith | Shelton, William (Streatham) |
| Budgen, Nick | Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine | Skeet, T. H. H. |
| Butler, Adam (Bosworth) | King, Evelyn (South Dorset) | Speed, Keith |
| Carlisle, Mark | Knight, Mrs Jill | Spicer, Michael (S Worcester) |
| Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton) | Lester, Jim (Beeston) | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) | Macfarlane, Neil | Steel, David (Roxburgh) |
| Cockcroft, John | MacGregor, John | Stradling Thomas, J. |
| Cooke, Robert (Bristol W) | McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury) | Tebbit, Norman |
| Cope, John | Mather, Carol | Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth) |
| Dodsworth, Geoffrey | Mawby, Ray | Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S) |
| Drayson, Burnaby | Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin | Vaughan, Dr Gerard |
| Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) | Mayhew, Patrick | Viggers, Peter |
| Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen) | Meyer, Sir Anthony | Walder, David (Clitheroe) |
| Fisher, Sir Nigel | Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove) | Weatherill, Bernard |
| Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd) | More, Jasper (Ludlow) | Wells, John |
| Fry, Peter | Morgan, Geraint | Welsh, Andrew |
| Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry) | Neave, Airey | Wigley, Dafydd |
| Grist, Ian | Nelson, Anthony | |
| Grylls, Michael | Neubert, Michael | TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
|
| Hall, Sir John | Newton, Tony | Mr. John Come and |
| Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) | Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby) | Mr. Spencer Le Marchant. |
Question accordingly agreed to.
Clause 3
Duties Of The Board
I beg to move Amendment No, 7, in page 4, line 17, at beginning insert 'Copies of'.
This is a drafting amendment which makes it clear that it is only copies of the Board's annual report that are to be laid before each House of Parliament by the Secretary of State, not the actual report made to him.Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4
General Powers Of The Board
11.30 p.m.
I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 4, line 44, at end insert:
Perhaps the House is in less of a hurry to get on with the Bill and we can elaborate our arguments in view of the vote on the previous amendment. I am sure the Minister will not feel that he has to hurry to reply to the important arguments we shall put forward. We seek to return to the scene of old battles. On numerous occasions during proceedings on the Bill and other Bills we have voiced anxieties about the powers taken by the Government to acquire and carry on businesses. Government bodies that do not have to commit their own money are not usually good judges of what constitutes a viable business. The recent report of a Select Committee dealing with the activities of the former Secretary of State for Industry in certain organisations bears out that judgment. About £10 million was spent on organisations that promptly went bankrupt. We are particularly concerned about the possible danger to other business in rural Wales if the Board or the Development Agency—we have to speak of the two organisations jointly because their functions and boundaries frequently averlap—seeks to establish businesses in competition with other organisations or to establish businesses that could threaten the existence of the small businesses that are the foundation of the economic life of rural Wales. It has become clear from our discussions that the health of rural Wales depends essentially on the health of small businesses. Because small businesses have been crushed by the burden of taxation and administration placed on them by the Government, high interest rates and inflation, we have record unemployment levels throughout much of rural Wales. Unemployment levels are frequently 14 per cent., 15 per cent. or more. In my constituency they are even higher. We believe that potentially successful enterprises can usually raise finance. I do not share the view expressed by the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) in Committee that there are many small businesses that can do well only if they are given a temporary helping hand. I fear that the temporary helping hand would turn into a permanent helping hand and too many businesses would become permanent loss-makers. We are told that it may be necessary for the Board to operate certain essential services. Specific reference was made in Committee and in another place to the new town powers. It was argued, not unreasonably, that it would not be sensible in this measure to take away powers that already existed in the new town in Mid-Wales. In Committee we tried to qualify the power to manage businesses and take part in business enterprises by reference to a clause that specified that these pursuits should be carried on in new towns. I recognise that that might have been unduly restrictive and that, within the framework of the Board's activities, to draw the boundaries so tightly might have been difficult in practice. We were also strongly critical in Committee of the extension imposed by the Government of the Board's powers which enabled it to acquire businesses. At the end of the proceedings our anxieties remained, and those anxieties are shared by others. The Welsh office of the CBI wrote that its committee was'which is essential for the economic and social development of the area and which the Board is satisfied after consultation with the Council cannot be provided in any other way'.
This evening we are having another go at the same exercise. The Under-Secretary will concede that the amendment is moderate in tone. It is permissive. It will not place restrictions on necessary activities, but it clearly places the onus on the Board to establish that those activities are necessary and cannot be provided by other means. That is reasonable. I have in mind particularly that the Board should consider the situation of other private businesses in the area which might be able to provide the services and the effect of its decisions on businesses within the area for which it is responsible. The amendment that we tabled envisaged consultation with the Council, but the Council has, sadly, just been swept away by a vote of the House, against the combined representations of the Opposition parties. For that reason, clearly I cannot now press this amendment to a vote as I otherwise would have done. All I can hope is that, if it is felt to be reasonable, in another place the Government will have a further look at this proposal, because I genuinely believe that it has merit. I urge the Government, when they are considering proposals to establish a development agency or a rural board or any other organisation, not just to be concerned with the actual impact that they believe their proposals will have on business and other activity in an area, but also to take full account of the psychology involved. At present industry is operating under great strains. The small business sector is faced with desperate conditions. Many small businesses find it difficult to survive. Many have had to go under. Many more have laid off one, two or three employees. It is important that the Government accept or introduce wordings that at least instil confidence that it is not their intention to weaken small businesses. There is a real fear—it was expressed in the CBI letter—that, whatever the Government's intentions, this will be the effect. In considering amendments of this nature and in drafting Bills, if they do not intend to use powers in a dangerous or harmful way the Government should make it clear in the legislation. It is no good giving undertakings in Committee. Most business men do not—perhaps mercifully—read our proceedings in Committee. Indeed, it would be a harsh penalty to ask them to do so. Many of them have to read Bills, however, and they see powers being given that cause them alarm. There is an obligation on the Government to write their Bills in such a way that proper safeguards are introduced and alarm is reduced to the minimum."still extremely concerned that the present wording of the clause gives open-ended powers to the Board and it believes that they should be closely and clearly defined. The CBI does not wish to prevent the Board from carrying out essential services but firmly believes that the Board should not be given general powers which might enable it to establish businesses which could compete unfairly with the existing private sector thus affecting employment prospects of employees of established companies."
I hope that the Government will look at this carefully. My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) has explained why we are opposed to the wording of the Bill. It is too wide and will allow any undertaking or business to be carried on. That power would be great in any part of the country but it is particularly extreme and excessive in the context of the rural area of Mid-Wales.
For various reasons many businesses and industries in rural Wales are experiencing a difficult time. I apportion no blame, but some are finding it difficult to remain solvent. Businesses in rural Wales have several disadvantages, one of which is the population, which is small and scattered. These are scattered catchment areas which are particularly difficult for distribution. Communications are poor, and excessive transport costs cause grave difficulties. Existing businesses, industries and trades in the rural counties of Mid-Wales have long lines of communication for the acquisition of stocks and should they seek to sell outside their immediate neighbourhood. In addition to the general disadvantages under which industry in the whole of the United Kingdom is at present operating, those in rural counties have extra disadvantages. Probably some of the businesses will go into liquidation in the months ahead. Let us hope they will be few. Whatever their performance in the past, such firms have every right to be anxious about the future. They face difficult conditions and would be gravely affected if the Agency were allowed to carry on any undertaking or business under the Bill. That is too wide a power to confer on any body in this context. I hope that the Government will accept our proposal as reasonable. We recognise the need for emergency action in some circumstances, and that would not be removed by our suggested amendment. But we find it objectionable to give the Agency a totally unfettered power. It could be injurious to those who have to work under the present difficulties in rural Wales. People working in rural Wales are apprehensive about this part of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will say something to lessen their fears.11.45 p.m.
The clause is objectionable primarily because subsection (1)(g) is a catch-all phrase:
That is a lazy piece of drafting. The draftsmen are saying We couldn't think of anything more to put in the subsection. We threw this in at the end so that the Board can do anything it wants." It has been done before. It is something that Governments and draftsmen go in for, but I see no reason why Parliament should continue to tolerate it. Ministers will be able to produce a number of precedents from previous Bills, but I take no responsibility for those Bills, and, therefore, feel no shame about those precedents. The Board's functions are restricted to a certain geographical area, and we have been told several times by Ministers that it is restrained in its intent and approach. It is non-party-political and non-doctrinaire. Therefore, there should be no need for this catch-all wording. The wording is particularly objectionable in the hands of a Socialist Government. We on the Conservative Benches cannot avoid being suspicious about a party which believes in State bodies carrying on, acquiring or starting any business, through the Development Agency, the NEB or whatever it may be. The Government are creating a growing host of bodies. If only they could manage the economy that little bit better they would have the money, and through this legislation the means to carry on a real Socialist State. The one thing which saves us all at present is that they cannot provide the finance to operate these clauses. I can see no reason why we should accept this shoddy draftsmanship, especially when we think of the present Government and those who wish to make a reality of the wording."to carry on or acquire and carry on any undertaking or business".
I support the amendment, which would tighten the definition of the role to be played by the Board. This is perhaps the last amendment on which it is practicable to consider the Board's role, the philosophy behind it and what it is likely to achieve.
I have made it clear in previous debates on the Bill and on the Welsh Development Agency that I am not by temperament opposed to the idea of Government intervention. It is ludicrous to claim in modern society that the State can opt out of economic development. Like it or not, the mixed economy is here to stay, and the State will have a large role to play in the direction of the economy. The problem then becomes one of balance. Associated with it there is a psychological problem, one of expectations—what people can reasonably expect the State to do. The accumulating evidence. which is now overwhelming, is that the balance has now tilted too far. It is now horribly clear that, for reasons which have nothing to do with political doctrine, the limitations on the effectiveness of Government intervention in the economy are far stricter than any of us had ever imagined. It is, alas, now clear that unemployment is going out of control in the sense that it no longer responds to stimuli which a decade or so ago would infallibly have influenced its direction one way or the other. This is the justification for the expenditure cuts which have been so strongly urged on the Opposition Benches, because it is now clear—and I am as sorry to say this as anybody else —that it is Government expenditure that is now causing unemployment. As for the reality of unemployment, there is, I fear, no possibility of disguising it. My own county of Clwyd hither- to has been one of the stablest in terms of unemployment. I know that the Rhyl area, as most seaside resorts, has a highly fluctuating unemployment rate, but in the area represented by the Under-Secretary of State for Wales on the littoral of Deeside unemployment remained steady and low for a long period. We are now witnessing for the first time a high level of unemployment in that area also. This must give great cause for anxiety to those such as the Under-Secretary of State who believed that there was scope for effective Government intervention to create employment. The Bill comes at the wrong time. The quarrel with the clause as drafted is that it gives the impression that the Board, by a wave of its wand, can create jobs in that part of Mid-Wales to which the Bill applies. I am sorry to say that it will not be able to create these jobs. For any job that the Board creates by this operation the risk is that one-and-a-half jobs will be lost in areas outside the operation of the Board. Many people outside the House see these matters more clearly than we do in this House. I refer to the self-employed and the small business men, who are only too aware of the weight of bureaucracy and taxation—a situation brought into being by the existence and activities of well-meaning bodies, such as those that we are discussing tonight. Once expectations are aroused, as they are by the provisions which we are now considering, they are hard to damp down. People who have lost their jobs because of the burdens imposed by the Government on firms, causing those concerns to contract, understandably demand that the Government should take further action to save their jobs and bring in new ones. It is our responsibility by adopting some such amendment as that which is now before the House to bring home to people the tight limits on the ability of the Government to do anything to save jobs. The best thing the Government can do, if they wish to create more jobs, is not to create more bodies such as in the Bill, but to pack up and go homeI reject the alarmist employment theories advanced by the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer). The problem in North-East Wales, put bluntly, is that for too long the area has relied on too few basic industries that are now vulnerable to technological change.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Grist) placed strictures on our wording, which he said was lazy. I would say that the wording in the amendment is slap-happy. The aim of the Bill is to stop the depopulation of rural Wales, to generate employment, and to make a better life possible for the people of that part of Wales. I also want to nail the misapprehension under which some hon. Members labour, that this Government might be against small businesses. That is not so. The Department of Industry has its small businesses section, and the Welsh Office is as friendly towards small businesses as any other political philosophers.Since the Minister mentioned the position in North-East Wales, would he not agree that the problem there really lies with the lack of profitability in firms, and that if he wants to bring employment to his part of the world and the rest of Wales, his Government should bring about conditions in which firms can operate profitably?
That has nothing to do with the Bill or with Cardiff.
The Minister said that the Government were looking after the interests of small businesses. is he aware that the Government promised an interim report five years after the Bolton Report was published in 1971 on the problems of small businesses and that the present Government have refused such an interim report?
Five years ago we did not hold office.
The amendment is incompatible with the Bill as amended. Who will specify the person or the body to decide what is an "essential" business or undertaking? To develop the point that I made to the hon. Member for Cardiff, North, the language of the amendment is unsatisfactory. For instance, one does not "provide" a business. One carries it on or undertakes it in terms of drafting legislation. But I do not say that that is our major objection to the amendment. The word "essential" is too stringent. Something may be beneficial or desirable without being essential. During the Bill's passage, repeated assurances have been given, here and in another place, that the power of the Board to acquire and carry on a business will be exercised only where it is unable to interest private bodies or persons in a business that it considers is in the interests of an area.I am grateful for that assurance, but where in the Bill does that appear? I have been unable to find it so far.
Under the powers relating to business. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop the assurance that I am trying to give him.
The whole purpose is to assist and complement the development of an area. But we cannot allow a project which the Board thinks is in the interests of an area to be balked by unreasonable objections by private bodies which are not themselves willing to undertake the venture. Clause 4(5)(c) specifically provides that the consent of the Secretary of State must be obtained by the Board to exercise this power. That consent will be given only when the proposed enterprise would benefit the local community and when the Board cannot interest private bodies or persons in the project. What is more, the Secretary of State would need, among other matters, to consider the viability of the project under consideration before giving his approval. For these reasons, I urge the House to reject the amendment.Before the hon. Gentleman sits down——
I have sat down.
Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider his remarks——
Order. I think that the Minister has sat down.
12 midnight
When one listens to the Under-Secretary charmingly giving that sort of reply, one knows that he has not a very good case. It was the kind of case that we have heard him advance so often before when he has turned to his advisers and said "We have not a very good argument, but produce some drafting points which will shoot the whole thing down in flames." I have already conceded that, as a result of the passing of an earlier amendment, this one is faulty and that perhaps it can be looked at again where the Bill started its proceedings—in another place.
Then the Under-Secretary said that it was the Government's intention and object to do all that was contained in my amendment. He proceeded to define the scope of the Board's activities as providing those functions of economic and social development which it felt were desirable and important, which would not he obtained in any other way and which private bodies refused or felt unable to provide. Once again we have the Government giving declarations in Committee which they are not prepared to write into the Bill. If they are able to give these declarations and assurances, I cannot understand why they are so slap-happy and shoddy about their drafting. Why cannot they draft a Bill properly so that they do not have to give these repeated assurances about their intentions? We would like legislation to be drafted so that the Government's intentions are clearly spelled out. It is because the Government repeatedly fail to do this that we criticise them. We would like the safeguards and Assurances on this point written into the Bill, just as we wanted them on agriculture, and we shall go on chasing the Government until we get some sensibly drafted Bills instead of the shambles usually presented to us.Amendment negatived.
I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 5, line 4, at end insert:
The purpose of the amendment is to lift into the Bill a major section of the Highlands and Islands Development Board Act which was omitted by the draftsman. In our view, the amendment is crucial to make the Bill into a measure setting up a Development Board for Rural Wales in the full sense of the word. We cannot talk about development in a rural area heavily dependant for its employment on primary industry if development does not include the development and stimulus of primary industry as well as secondary manufacturing activities. My major criticism of the Board is that it falls far short of a development board for rural Wales as envisaged by experts whom I shall not quote at this hour and as envisaged in practice by the Highlands and Islands Development Board in Scotland. I know that the Minister will say, as he did in Committee, that the intention of the Board is to concentrate on manufacturing industry, to provide COSIRA loan powers and to do some work on social development as such. In Scotland, the Highlands and Islands Development Board is to continue to function as an effective agency of regional intervention alongside the Scottish Development Agency, but retaining its financial assistance powers over a whole range of activities in primary as well as manufacturing industry. The whole thinking behind the creation of the Board is that regional intervention on a technical level is necessary because of special problems. We need a Board for a given, defined area, because there are special problems. By limiting the powers of the Board to manufacturing industry, the Government seem to be arguing that it is only in that sphere that we ought to intervene, whereas I am arguing that many of the problems of Mid-Wales are concerned with its primary industries. If we are looking to job creation it must be job creation in land use, in recreation, in tourism, in extractive industry and in the other areas of industry which I have mentioned, not merely in manufacturing. Indeed, at this time, by concentrating on looking for foot-loose manufacturing industry from outside the area, the Board may be following a dead end from the start in that we already have a substantial problem in Mid-Wales with the existing resources. The WDA has the same problem and has so far been unable to help us here. In a situation of overall economic growth in the area we could manage the migrants from the Midlands overspill if they came into Mid-Wales, but in a situation of contraction the spin-off and the spill-over are no longer there. Therefore, by looking to manufacturing industry to provide the immediate growth in jobs, the Government and the Board may be making a fatal mistake in their economic plan. In the amendment we say that the Board must have powers over a full range of activities within its area and not be merely limited to manufacturing industry. With regard to manufacturing industry, I do not want to repeat the arguments already made about the powers of the WDA and the relationship between the Board and the WDA. But, having read carefully the speeches of the Under-Secretary of State in Committee, I still fail to see the logic in giving the Board COSIRA loan powers and no other powers at all. If I were a budding entrepreneur or the chairman of a co-operative and looking for an opportunity to develop, or for investment, I might consider COSIRA loan powers or assistance, but the rate is as high as the bank rate. It would not be a type of COSIRA loan that I would feel to be necessary but a form of equity participation by a Board such as this over a short period, which would give me an opportunity later of buying back the equity. But if I wanted that kind of assistance I should have to make, for example, one application to Aberystwyth, then another to Treforest, and, if I were in a difficult situation, I should be making a parallel application to the Industry Division of the Welsh Office in Cardiff. We now have this plethora of bodies. The Secretary of State made a great peroration about it when we started off on Second Reading. That was the whole argument for creating an effective Board which would replace the many tiers of industrial assistance in the area. In place of the Development Commission and its range of assistance, we are now to have the Industry Division of the Welsh Office, the Welsh Development Agency, and this Board with its very limited COSIRA loan powers. I do not see the logic of transferring only these powers from the WDA to the Development Board for Rural Wales. Again I am concerned that the WDA will of necessity not only be looking for its development opportunities in industrial South-East Wales and industrial North-East Wales but will also be tending to concentrate on the big fish, or on trying to develop or farm the big fish, whereas the people most in need of assistance in Mid-Wales are the smaller fish. It is the small man who needs a capital injection to help him expand from six to 10 or from 10 to 16 jobs. It is not the big projects which are looking for capital, but small projects which do not automatically turn to the merchant banks. This is the whole success of Inverness as the centre of the Highlands and Islands Development Board. Decisions are made there in 24 hours on small-scale projects. That Board has been able to assist a whole range of small projects, not only in manufacturing but in other areas proposed in our amendment. I mention specifically the extractive industry, not because I expect RTZ or some other international mining company to go to the Board and ask for help for starting copper mines, but because there are smaller slate quarries in my constituency which could do with a capital injection to develop new machinery and improve—particularly now that their regional development grants are being withdrawn from 1st April 1977. A number of these small enterprises have diversified into producing craft goods for the tourist industry, and that, too, would be more successful if actual capital injection was available for that purpose. As with the extractive industry, the Board will not be able to provide any financial assistance. The position is similar with agriculture. We have specific agricultural needs in Mid-Wales. I know that the Minister will say that they are helped by ADAS and various other schemes, including the hill area special compensatory payments from EEC, and so on. In the case of Scotland, the Highlands and Islands Development Board gives assistance to expanding a herd of cows from 15 to 20, for example, and much finance has gone into small schemes of this kind. We have, in Merioneth, designated a hill project area, but this kind of development work on hill land is virtually useless unless there is capital to match it. If hill farming is to develop effectively in Mid. Wales, it will need capital injection like that provided by the Highlands and Islands Development Board, and not provided here. Agriculture is a primary source of employment in rural areas of Wales, as is forestry. Once again, the Board has no powers in this area. Our amendment would provide aid for afforestation in the areas I have been talking about—on small farms with hill land on which forests could be developed on a small scale. I am not talking here about pop-singers like Cliff Richard who have trees growing in my constituency. If we are talking about regional intervention in manufacturing industry, it is logical also to talk about the same thing in relation to afforestation. As for fisheries, fish-farming could be a major industry in areas of Mid-Wales. Much of the work of the Highlands and Islands Development Board has been in providing aid for fisheries. Our Board could do much to innovate work which would not otherwise be done.'(i) to provide financial assistance by way of grant or loan or partly by grant or partly by loan or by taking of equity in a company, to assist any person or persons proposing to carry out any activity in a manufacturing, extractive, agricultural, fisheries, forestry, land-use, recreation, tourist, or service industry which will contribute to the economic and social development of the area for which it is responsible.'
12.15 a.m.
Finally, I come to tourism and recreation. This, of course, is the major growth industry in Mid and rural Wales and it is a growth industry which has to be very carefully planned and developed. I think what applies to the Welsh Development Agency in the case of manufacturing industry and its relationship with the area and with potential developers also applies to the Welsh Tourist Board and its links with the area.
The Board's financial assistance is administered centrally from Cardiff and is not available on a local basis. I have discussed this with the Tourist Board and I can certainly say that there are many people within the Board who feel that the Board might be more effective if it were able to provide grant aid at regional offices rather than all the projects having to be dealt with through Cardiff. There might be a limitation on the amount available locally, but, as things stand, all grant aid for tourist projects has to go through Cardiff.
I am not complaining, because I have campaigned to get some of these projects off the ground and they are doing so with Welsh Office and Welsh Tourist Board money. But I am worried that the small hotelier who wants more bedrooms or who would like to carry out a small tourist development is not getting any backing.
It is the smaller-scale development which would provide jobs in Wales but it is the larger development which will have more attention when the application is made to Cardiff. The tourist industry is the major job creator now, not manufacturing industry, and it is essential that there should be powers for the Board in this instance.
The logic of the amendment is to extend the powers of the Board. It would make it into a Development Board for Rural Wales in the full sense of the word, not merely one which concentrates on the manufacturing sector but one able to assist the whole economic activity in its area. The Government have accepted the logic of my amendment by giving some social powers to the Board but they are not prepared to go the full way and give the Board the whole range of economic development powers which I believe it must have.
The hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) will know that I have sympathy for some of the things he says, though not all. I do not believe that we need a body with these very extensive economic powers that he believes would transform the situation, because, regrettably, I do not think that they would. I think that the central economic responsibility must remain with the Government. We have seen in so many instances how such organisations are powerless against disastrous decisions taken centrally by the Government.
For example, at the present time there are 53 Government factories and 44 advance factories standing empty in Wales. Needs are not met by the setting up of boards to build advance factories if the central economic management of the economy is wrong. That is why I do not go the whole way with the hon. Gentleman and cannot urge my hon. Friends to support him on this occasion. In Committee, we voted with him on the basis that we liked the case he was advancing for trying to centralise functions in one organisation. I said then that the amendment he was moving on that occasion might not be satisfactory to be finally written into the Bill, but that perhaps it could be looked at again on Report stage. The point on which we agree with the hon. Member is that the Government have produced total nonsense in the relationship between the Development Agency and the Board. I intend to say more about that if we have a Third Reading debate. I content myself by saying that we think the relationship between the two organisations will be a shambles and that there will be total uncertainty. All the extra explanations given by the Under-Secretary during our debates have added nothing to clarity. His repeated incantation that it was all a matter of COSIRA powers, a statement that he made every hour or so in Committee, did not resolve the problem. We think that more fundamental changes will be needed to sort this matter out. That is why we shall not support the amendment. It attempts to place powers which already exist with the Government largely in the Development Agency so that industrialists can look to one body rather than two or three. Nevertheless, we do not think that it gets down to the fundamentals of sorting out relationships between these two bodies. Therefore, we shall have to come back to the matter at some time to try to do the job, but we do not think that the amendment solves the problem.Everyone who served on the Committee will agree that we debated this matter at length and that we gave it a good airing. I shall therefore be brief.
The function of investment in industry, which is what the amendment is about, is a central function of the Welsh Development Agency. The Government do not intend that the Board should duplicate the Agency by having the power in its own right to assist companies or individuals by the direct provision of finance or by taking equity in a company. Investment in industry is a specialist function that in general is best left to the Agency. We think that specialist skills are required, and these will be available to the Agency. That makes that body the best channel of this type of direct assistance to industry. I therefore advise the House to reject the amendment.
The Minister's reply this evening has been almost as inadequate as was his reply in Committee. It was almost identical. I strongly support my hon. Friend the Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas), and I am disappointed that the Conservatives cannot vote for the amendment in the way that they did in Committee. Presumably that is because of the late hour.
This is a fundamental amendment which makes the difference between the Board being a success and being a rather dismal failure. We have seen many reports about rural Wales. There was the Beacham report, the Roy Thomas Study, and the Welsh Council's report, among others. Now we have the opportunity to do something, and that opportunity is about to be lost. That is nothing short of tragic. We have to see the economy of rural Wales as a sort of integrated whole. Policies which depend upon transferring entities from outside to solve these economic problems are doomed to fail. They will be subject to the rejection which is sometimes experienced in other walks of life when a totally alien development is introduced into a certain area. The Board falls between several stools. It is not a rural board for Wales. There are other rural areas with similar problems to the area defined for the Board, but they are excluded. The fundamental weakness is that it is neither a co-ordinating board nor an all-embracing board. It could be one or the other, but it is neither. A few moments ago the Minister told us that there were too many nominated boards, but here we have another. It is to be responsible for economic development, but it is given none of the necessary powers for that function. It exists because there is a difference in the structure of rural areas compared with industrial areas, but it does not have the necessary powers to deal with those different circumstances. It is to do with rural Wales, but it has no powers to deal with the fundamental industry in rural Wales. It deals with an area where the major industry is tourism, but has no responsibilities in this direction. It deals with an area with a major extracting industry, but has no powers in this direction either. The Minister said that the Board has powers to deal with manufacturing; yet the real powers to deal with manufacturing are enshrined in the Welsh Development Agency Act and cannot be used by the Board. The Minister also referred to this being a matter for experts. But who are the experts? Are they those used by the Welsh Development Agency? They are merchant bankers from London who could be equally accessible to the Board if it were thought that these were the people to be dealing with the small acorns of Mid-Wales. We want people to deal with industries rooted in an area, not those who are good with discounted cash flows and present value ratios, but are lost in a pile of statistics. The Minister spoke about the power of the COSIRA loans, but experience is not very encouraging in terms of the lack of information and reasons given to those who do not get loans. I hate to see these great weaknesses enshrined in the Bill. Is the Board or the Agency to pioneer the industrial assault, on a small scale, with industries suited to the problems of rural areas? I suspect that the Agency cannot and will not give priority to this work, because it is an area which is being covered by the Board. Yet the Board will not have the power to do this for itself. In Committee the Minister said that the Board had no powers to assist industry directly because of the expertise of the WDA. I suspect that this expertise will be hived off in a totally different direction. The Agency may know about the circumstances of Rhondda, Merthyr, Wrexham, Caernarvon or Cardiff, but what does it know of the situation in Llanuwchllyn, Abergynolwyn, Ciliau Aeron or Llanbrynmair? I remember talking to someone from Llanbrynmair when the late Jim Griffiths' new town was going to solve all the area's economic problems. It was pointed out that a factory of British Leyland might move in to solve the problems, and
Division No. 361.]
| AYES
| [12.30 a.m.
|
| Beith, A. J. | Howells, Geralnt (Cardigan) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
|
| Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen) | Penhaligon, David | Mr. D. E. Thomas and |
| Hooson, Emlyn | Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight) | Mr. Dafydd Wigley. |
the man said "But then it will not be Llanbrynmair." That is the reality of the situation. An answer to the problems of Cardiff and Wrexham will not be suitable for the rural areas. The Government seem to have missed this point.
We are dealing with small units, small acorns, family companies. It is much more important to know the background of the community in which people live, the interrelationship between them and other aspects of the community than to have analysts at arm's length who know everything about figures but are ignorant of these circumstances.
The 1973 report of the Welsh Council stated in strong terms that it had been impressed by what had been learned from the work of the Highlands and Islands Development Board. It hesitated to advocate such an approach in Wales only because of the impending local government re-organisation. No one could say that the re-organisation has provided an answer for rural Wales, and the case made by the Welsh Council for the granting of powers similar to those of the Highlands and Islands Development Board remains strong.
I thought about moving amendments to bring areas of my constituency within the ambit of the Board, but I decided not to because the Board is neither one thing nor the other. It will not add a jot to solving the problems of my area. With this amendment enshrined in the Act, there would at least be some possibility of help. At present the Bill represents an opportunity lost.
Will the hon. Gentleman vote against it?
It is not a question of voting against it. There is an opportunity, which the Government side, as much as any other, has always wanted, now going through the window. It is tragic.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 6, Noes 78.
NOES
| ||
| Allaun, Frank | Hamilton, James (Bothwell) | Owen, Rt Hon Dr David |
| Anderson, Donald | Harper, Joseph | Palmer, Arthur |
| Archer, Peter | Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) | Richardson, Miss Jo |
| Armstrong, Ernest | Hooley, Frank | Roderick, Caerwyn |
| Ashton, Joe | Huckfield, Les | Rooker, J. W. |
| Atkins, Ronald (Preston N) | Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey) | Rowlands, Ted |
| Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) | Hughes, Roy (Newport) | Ryman, John |
| Bray, Dr Jeremy | Hunter, Adam | Skinner, Dennis |
| Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) | Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln) | Small, William |
| Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P) | John, Brynmor | Smith, John (N Lanarkshire) |
| Campbell, Ian | Jones, Alec (Rhondda) | Spearing, Nigel |
| Canavan, Dennis | Jones, Barry (East Flint) | Stallard, A. W. |
| Cocks, Fit Hon Michael | Judd, Frank | Stoddart, David |
| Conlan, Bernard | Kerr, Russell | Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery) |
| Cox, Thomas (Tooting) | Lamond, James | Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW) |
| Cryer, Bob | Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough) | Walker, Terry (Kingswood) |
| Dalyell, Tam | Lyons, Edward (Bradford W) | White, Frank R. (Bury) |
| Davies, Ifor (Gower) | McCartney, Hugh | White, James (Pollock) |
| Deakins, Eric | McDonald, Dr Oonagh | Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton) |
| Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) | McElhone, Frank | Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton) |
| Dormand, J. D. | Madden, Max | Wise, Mrs Audrey |
| Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun) | Mallalieu, J. P. W. | Woodall, Alec |
| Ellis, Tom (Wrexham) | Mendelson, John | Woof, Robert |
| Evans, Ioan (Aberdare) | Mikardo, Ian | |
| Evans, John (Newton) | Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
|
| Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd) | Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) | Mr. Donald Coleman and |
| Golding, John | Ogden, Eric | Mr. Alf Bates. |
| Graham, Ted | ||
Question accordingly negatived.
I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 5, line 5, after 'include', insert:
'in so far only as they are incidental to the Board's other functions'.
With this we may take the following amendments:
No. 12, in page 5, line 6, at end insert:
but this shall not empower the Board to acquire by agreement, hold and dispose of land in their area for the purpose of affecting amalgamation of agricultural land or the reshaping of agricultural units'.
No. 16, in page 5, line 30, at end insert:
'(8A) For the avoidance of doubt, the powers of the Board under this section shall not be construed as allowing the acquisition by agreement or compulsion, the holding or disposal of land in their area for the purpose of affecting amalgamation of agricultural land or the reshaping of agricultural units.'.
In Committee, and in another place, repeated attempts were made to write into the Bill safeguards for the agricultural industry. In Committee the Government steadfastly refused to accept amendments which would have further limited the powers of the proposed Board to acquire agricultural land and to carry out agricultural or forestry operations on such land. Instead, the Government introduced amendments of their own which are now embodied in Clauses 1(4) and 4(2). The Government also accepted an Opposition amendment which is now Clause 4(8). While the latter amendment, though general in nature, is an improvement, the Government amendments are far from reassuring to the agricultural industry.
Declarations have been made by the Under-Secretary of State that the Government do not intend the Board to use its powers to restructure agricultural holdings, as was the intention of the rural development board proposed in 1969 under the provisions of the Agriculture Act 1967, but that reassurance has not been written into the Bill. The Government amendments still leave a loophole in the Board's ability to engage in agricultural and forestry operations, which can be seen as a disguised means of reintroducing the earlier proposals for a rural development board. No doubt the Under-Secretary of State will repeat the assurance that he, the Lord Chancellor and others have given on this matter. The trouble is that we are dealing not just with the present Government's intention. We are passing a Bill which when enacted will stand on the statute book for a long time and which future Governments may decide to interpret differently. In Committee the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) argued in almost violent terms that the Government were wrong to give this assurance and that he would like the power to be used in that way. We fear that there are Government supporters who, given the opportunity in future, might decide that it was not worth getting another Bill through the House and who would wish to use this Bill for the purpose. I return to what I said in an earlier debate about psychology and confidence. As the Government are slowly and painfully beginning to realise, our economy is suffering from lack of confidence in the Government's administrative apparatus Here the Government are destroying confidence in the farming industry, which is vital to our economic survival and which should be encouraged to increase production so that we have to place less reliance on imports.12.45 a.m.
At the very time when the farming industry has to cope with all the embarrassments caused by the gross distortion of the green pound, by heavy taxation, and by rising costs, it has the added embarrassment of not knowing the future intentions of the Government. It must be suspicious if the Government refuse to write into the Bill reasonable amendments which would allow them to do the things they say that they want to do and prevent them from doing the things that they say they do not want to do. We cannot understand why the Government do not draft the Bill in such a way that we do not have to spend hours debating issues of this nature.
We have accepted that it is perfectly reasonable for certain activities to be carried on. I do not argue with the fact that if someone buys land to establish a factory, it must be sensible to go on farming that land for a time before building the factory. There is land in my constituency which is bought by oil companies and used by them for other purposes before they subsequently build oil refineries.
The fears I have referred to about a loophole exist especially because Clause 4(2), in conjunction with Clause 4(1)( h). allows
"the carrying out of agricultural operations"
in a wide number of circumstances where it would
"facilitate the discharge of the Board's functions or"
be
"incidental or conducive to their discharge".
Read in conjunction with Clause 4(1)( g), it could provide the Board with wider powers than the Government suggest or the farming community would wish.
Indeed, the powers are further extended by Clause 4(3), which will enable them to be exercised in relation to the carrying out of agricultural operations outside the Board's area—that is, in the whole of rural Wales. Perhaps it is the one area where the Board is able to operate in the whole of rural Wales.
We seek in Amendment No. 11 to stress the incidental nature of any agricultural operations or any forestry operations which the Board might undertake. We do not object to its undertaking operations of the kind I described briefly in relation to the oil company or in relation to the acquisition of land. If it found itself for some reason having to carry on operations of that kind, that would not seem to be unreasonable, and we think that it could be perfectly easily written into the Bill.
The other two amendments would close the loophole I have identified and allay the fears of the farming community. I propose that we should make use of the wording in Section 48 of the Agriculture Act 1967, dealing with the powers of a rural development board to promote amalgamations or boundary adjustments, in order to exclude from the Board's remit the powers which would have been available to the Wales rural development board.
Amendment No. 12 seeks to insert the words:
"but this shall not empower the Board to acquire by agreement, hold and dispose of land in their area for the purpose of affecting amalgamation of agricultural land or the reshaping of agricultural units."
There is an express disclaimer of what the Government have disclaimed verbally in Committee. The intention of both Amendment No. 12 and Amendment No. 16 is to narrow the scope of the power granted to the Board. Under the amendments, the Board would still be able to carry out agricultural operations but it would not be able to set itself up as an old-style development board.
The Government cannot challenge the wording in principle because it is taken from Section 48 of the Agriculture Act 1947, which laid down detailed provisions for amalgamation schemes. The main introductory wording comes from that section.
I see no reason why one or other of our amendments should not be accepted.
They do not challenge the Board's functions but merely insert into the Bill that which the Minister said in Standing Committee. That is all that we ask. He said:
"I hope I can convince Opposition Members by giving them these details, and that we were in earnest in what we have per previously said".—[Offical Report, Standing Committee K, 22nd July 1976; c. 59]
He will convince us by belatedly accepting our amendments.
I support the amendment. We need a written assurance in the Bill. Safeguards are needed by the agricultural industry and especially by the small farmers. Unless the safeguards are written into the Bill, small farmers in rural Wales will be worried. When the last rural development board Bill was introduced they were worried about its being an incursion into the liberty of the individual. We therefore want to ensure that the agriculture sector will work in harmony with the rural development board in Wales.
Perhaps in five or 10 years' time members of the Board will take a different view from that now taken by Ministers. Perhaps they will want to take over non-viable units, although it is difficult to define a non-viable unit. Whether a small acreage is viable often depends upon the farmer. Farmers have an important role in the economic and social life of rural Wales, and we need an assurance written into the Bill so that their minds can rest easy in the years ahead.I support my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards). In Committee I argued strongly against the inclusion of subsection (2), which was introduced there as Amendment No. 38. The number is clearly engrained in my mind. It seemed to me then that the insertion of the subsection, which allowed
was in contradiction of the assurances given by the Lord Chancellor. The Minister claimed in Committee that the subsection was a fulfilment of the assurances given in the other place, but I have read it again and again and I cannot see that that is so. Rather, it contradicts the Government's assurances. Therefore, I fully support in particular Amendments Nos. 11 and 12, which are amendments to the subsection. They are clearly necessary to give any substance to the assurances given by the Minister and the Lord Chancellor."the carrying out of agricultural operations and the carrying on of forestry and afforestation",
I hope that I can show the Opposition that their fears are unjustified. I certainly advise the House to reject the amendments.
The Bill will not be used to restructure agriculture. Clause 1(6) states categorically thatexcept, under Clause 4(1)(h), when this"the Board shall not engage in farming any land held by it or in forestry or afforestation on such land",
To this end the Board will have to buy and manage agricultural land pending its development—as, say, an industrial estate, or for housing and related urban purposes. The Board is, however, otherwise precluded by the provisions of the Bill from acquiring land for farming or for forestry. Subsection (8) requires the Board to"is likely to facilitate the discharge of the Board's functions or is incidental or conducive to their discharge."
The Government accepted an Opposition amendment to that effect in Committee, yet the Opposition are still not content. In principle, therefore, this group of amendments is objectionable."have regard to the need to conserve agricultural land and to the requirements of agriculture and efficient land management."
Does not the Minister agree that Clause 1(6) is in itself a contradiction of Clause 4(2)?
I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's interpretation.
I advise the House to reject Amendment No. 11 on the ground that any agricultural operations which the Board undertakes in the short term on land which it ultimately intends to develop cannot be incidental to such functions but must facilitate or be conducive to the discharge of its functions. We feel that the wording must be retained in the Bill as it stands and that the amendment should be rejected.1.0 a.m.
Amendment No. 12 is defective because subsection (2) does not authorise the acquisition, holding or disposal of land, and the assumption on what the amendment is based is therefore incorrect. Again, I advise the House to reject it.
We believe that Amendment No. 16 is badly drafted. In the context of subsection (8) insertion of the words
"for the avoidance of doubt"
is inappropriate. There is no doubt that the Board could not purchase agricultural land if the only purpose was to amalgamate or reshape. Therefore, apart from drafting deficiencies, the amendment is objectionable in principle.
It is inevitable that at times the Board in properly discharging its functions will in a sense—although not in the sense intended by the Opposition—be required to increase or reduce the area of an agricultural unit. For instance, if the Board is not allowed to effect the amalgamation of agricultural land—and it is assumed that this may be construed as amalgamating fields or holdings—pending development of the land, the power of the Board to manage effectively the land it has acquired for legitimate reasons will be undermined.
Again, if the Board could not amalgamate land, it could not acquire agricultural land from separate owners for playing fields. To quote yet another example, the Board would not always want to acquire an entire agricultural unit. Yet this amendment would require it to do so, as otherwise in acquiring part of a unit it could be said to be reshaping an agricultural unit.
How does the Minister explain his assertion that the Board cannot acquire the land? Clause 4(1)(a) reads
That is not a narrow purpose but represents a general power."to acquire, hold, manage, develop and dispose of land or other property".
The hon. Member is a distinguished lawyer but I must stand by my argument. Obviously the Opposition by their amendment do not wish to prejudice the proper discharge of the Board's function. Their concern, which I appreciate, is that the wide powers given to the Board should not be used for the primary purpose of restructuring agriculture. I repeat the assurance that they will not be so used. I repeat that the Board will not restructure agriculture, and the Bill gives the Secretary of State the powers of direction and consent for the disposal of land which will ensure that the Board will not exercise its powers in such a manner as to restructure agriculture in its area. I hope that the House will reject the amendments.
I believe the Minister speaks in good faith when he says that the Board will not do these things, but as the Bill stands it gives power to the Board to acquire land. He will know that Clause 4(2) gives powers relating to
Those powers are not limited in the manner he seeks to suggest. Indeed, his assurances will not be worth the paper they are printed on in tomorrow's Hansard. The Minister's reply was disappointing and indaquate. Some years ago farmers throughout the rural areas were apprehensive about the operations of the Forestry Commission, even though those fears may well have been groundless. Similarly, for good reasons or bad, they are now apprehensive about the powers given to the Board, which go beyond any protection given by the Bill. It does not include the Minister's assurances, and that is why I hope that we shall vote for the amendment."the carrying on of forestry and afforestation".
My views have hardened during the debate. I had thought that, having fought this battle for a long time, we should, regretfully, admit defeat in the face of the Govern-men's peculiar obstinacy. But it is just that obstinacy which makes me suspect their intentions.
It is not good enough for the Government to raise a series of pedantic drafting objections. They have known throughout what our fears were, and if they felt that our amendments were technically deficient, they could have remedied that themselves. It is pretty ridiculous to say that the amendment might prevent the Board from acquiring land for playing fields. I am not convinced by the argument that the development of rural Wales could not carry on without the Board acquiring playing fields. Although what my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) and the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) said carried considerable weight, the final crunch came for me when the Minister, in his quiet and friendly way, referred again to the possibility of direction. It is precisely this power of direction which gives rise to our fears. I am worried not about the members of the Board who will carry out these functions but about members of the Government and future Governments. The Minister apparently regards direction as a protection for people: we see it as a danger in an increasingly extreme Left-wing Government— —indicated dissent.
Yes—an increasingly extreme Left-wing Government. Neither the Minister's smiling dissent nor the opinions of the Welsh National Party will persuade me that that threat does not exist. It is because of this power of direction and because the Minister has again totally failed to reply to the debate that I urge my hon. Friends to support
Division No. 362.]
| AYES
| [1.10 a.m.
|
| Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) | Lester, Jim (Beeston) | |
| Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry) | Meyer, Sir Anthony | TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
|
| Grist, Ian | Ridley, Hon Nicholas | Mr. John Stradling Thomas and |
| Hooson, Emlyn | Roberts, Wyn (Conway) | Mr. Michael Roberts. |
| Howells, Geraint (Cardigan) | Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight) |
NOES
| ||
| Allaun, Frank | Golding, John | Richardson, Miss Jo |
| Anderson, Donald | Graham, Ted | Roderick, Caerwyn |
| Archer, Peter | Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) | Rowlands, Ted |
| Armstrong, Ernest | Huckfield, Les | Ryman, John |
| Ashton, Joe | Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey) | Skinner, Dennis |
| Atkins, Ronald (Preston N) | Hughes, Roy (Newport) | Small, William |
| Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) | Hunter, Adam | Smith, John (N Lanarkshire) |
| Bates, Alf | Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln) | Snape, Peter |
| Bray, Dr Jeremy | John, Brynmor | Spearing, Nigel |
| Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) | Jones, Alec (Rhondda) | Stallard, A. W. |
| Campbell, Ian | Jones, Barry (East Flint) | Stoddart, David |
| Canavan, Dennis | Judd, Frank | Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth) |
| Cocks, Rt Hon Michael | Lamond, James | Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery) |
| Coleman, Donald | Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough) | Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW) |
| Cox, Thomas (Tooting) | McCartney, Hugh | White, Frank R. (Bury) |
| Cryer, Bob | McElhone, Frank | White, James (Pollok) |
| Dalyell, Tam | Madden, Max | Wigley, Dafydd |
| Davies, Ifor (Gower) | Mallalieu, J. P. W. | Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton) |
| Deakins, Eric | Mendelson, John | Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton) |
| Dormand, J. D. | Mikardo, Ian | Wise, Mrs Audrey |
| Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun) | Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride) | Woodall, Alec |
| Ellis, Tom (Wrexham) | Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) | |
| Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen) | Ogden, Eric | TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
|
| Evans, Ioan (Aberdare) | Owen, Rt Hon Dr David | Mr. Joseph Harper and |
| Evans, John (Newton) | Palmer, Arthur | Mr. James Hamilton. |
| Fraser, John (Lambeth. N'w'd) | ||
Question accordingly negatived.
Amendment proposed: No. 13, in page 5, line 12, at end insert—
'(4A) The conditions which may be attached to the provision of finance under this section include conditions for repayment of the whole
at least one of the amendments. Because of its parentage, in an Act drafted by a previous Labour Government, I believe that the one to support is Amendment No. 12. Therefore, I shall not seek to press Amendment No. 11, but ask my hon. Friends to support No. 12.
Does the hon. Gentleman seek the leave of the House to withdraw Amendment No. 11?
Yes. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: No. 12, in page 5, line 6, at end insert
'but this shall not empower the Board to acquire by agreement, hold and dispose of land in their area for the purpose of affecting amalgamation of agricultural land or the reshaping of agricultural units'.—[Mr. Nicholas Edwards.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 10, Noes 72.
or any part of a grant in any circumstances'.—[Mr. Barry Jones.]
This amendment refers to the repayment of whole or part of a grant. Earlier the clause refers to a loan or grant. Surely if conditions are made for the repayment of a grant it is a loan.
This amendment gives power to the Board when giving financial assistance to impose conditions, including conditions that may provide for the repayment in certain specified circumstances of all or part of any grants made.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made: No. 14, in page 5, line 13, leave out 'Subject to subsection (6) below,'.
No. 15, in page 5, line 20, leave out subsection (6).—[ Mr. Barry Jones.]
Clause 5
New Towns Within The Board's Area
Amendment made: No. 17, in page 5, line 45, at end insert
'(to the exclusion of any corresponding provision of that Act which is capable of applying within the area for which the Board is responsible)'.—[Mr. Barry Jones.]
Clause 21
Financial Assistance Towards Tenant's Removal Expenses
Amendment made: No. 20, in page 15, line 41, leave out '1()' and insert '2'.—[ Mr. Barry Jones.]
| '1. Statutory undertakers authorised to carry on any railway, light railway, tramway, road transport, dock, harbour or pier undertaking. | The Secretary of State for Transport. |
| 2. Statutory undertakers authorised to carry on any water transport, canal or inland navigation undertaking. | The Secretary of State for the Environment'. |
| —[Mr. Barry Jones. | |
Order for Third Reading read [ Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
1.23 a.m.
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I do so with some pride, but the House will forgive me if I do not do so at length. As the House knows, the Board will begin its functions on 1st April 1977, but we intend to establish the Board andSchedule 1
The Development Board For Rural Wales
Amendments made: No. 21, in page 24, leave out paragraph 17.
No. 23, in page 25, line 3, leave out '1()'and insert '2'.
No. 25, in page 25, line 12, leave out '1(1)' and insert '2'.—[ Mr. Barry Jones.]
Schedule 2
Provisions As To The Development Of Rural Wales Consultative Council
Amendments made: No. 27, in page 26, line 35, leave out Schedule 2.
No. 28, in page 27, line 28, leave out 'Treasury' and insert
'Minister for the Civil Service'.—[Mr. Barry Jones.]
Schedule 4
The New Towns Code
Amendments made: No. 29, in page 57, line 23, after 'authority', insert
'or, where the provision confers or imposes a function on or provides for a thing to be done by or to a local authority, as if the Board were a local authority)'.
No. 30, in page 61, leave out lines 7 to 12 and insert:
appoint the members as soon as the Bill has Royal Assent and before the end of the year. The Board will then act in a shadow capacity until 1st April next year, preparing for its task.
I intend to appoint Mr. Emrys Roberts as the Chairman. He has been a Member of this House, and Chairman of the Mid-Wales Development Corporation since its inception in 1968. No one is more familiar with the problems of rural Wales and the problems facing the Board. As a leader, Mr. Roberts will give guidance based on wisdom and experience.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the announcement he has just made of the appointment of Mr. Emrys Roberts will be widely welcomed in Wales in view of the outstanding contribution he has made over the years as Chairman of the Mid-Wales Development Corporation? Will my right hon. and learned Friend indicate how long a term Mr. Emrys Roberts will have?
I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's remarks. He was responsible for originally appointing Mr. Roberts Chairman of the Mid-Wales Development Corporation, which has been such a success. Mr. Roberts's term of office will run from his date of appointment to two years from the end of next March. Therefore it will be an initial period of about two and a half years.
We shall also be advertising very shortly the appointment of chief executive of the Board to be filled early in the new year. When the Board takes over its responsibilities in April 1977, it will also take over the staff of the Mid-Wales Development Corporation. At the same time the staff of COSIRA who work wholly or mainly in Wales will be taken over by the Welsh Development Agency. I am anxious that the assimilation of these staffs into their new organisations should take place smoothly with the minimum of disruption. Discussions and some preliminary meetings have already taken place with staff representatives and every effort will continue to be made to ensure that staff interests will be fully taken into account at the changeover. It is important that the staff should know that we are concerned about their interests. I should like to repeat the assurance given at Second Reading that the power conferred by Clause 26 will be used to continue the support at present being given by the Development Commission towards rural councils—successor bodies to the rural community councils—and the voluntary services committees. As to the Council for Social Services for Wales, hon. Members will know that the Council's rôle is changing. Bodies concerned with the elderly and the dis- abled have already resolved to end their direct relationship with the Council. But we are prepared to continue to make grants to the Council in relation to activities where support from the Welsh Office is appropriate in the changing circumstances. We are presently awaiting proposals from the Council.Is the Secretary of State aware that the Council is concerned about the disappearance of the Development Commission because it has been contributing as much as £18,000 to £20,000 a year to the Council? Is it intended that that sum should be replaced under Clause 26?
The rôle of this body is changing and we are now awaiting proposals from the Council which we will look at sympathetically.
I ask the House to give the Bill a Third Reading.1.28 a.m.
I should like to start by wishing all good fortune to Mr. Emrys Roberts and his colleagues, and by wishing the Board success in its activities. We must all hope that the Board will help in some way to alleviate the very serious problems that confront the people of Mid-Wales.
In order to assist the House, I cut short some of my remarks earlier in our proceedings and I hope the House will therefore forgive me if I return to just a few points now. Faced with the present situation, the Board will need good fortune. That is amply borne out by the current unemployment figures for the area. We must be thankful that in Powys the rate of unemployment in October was only 5·9 per cent., but it is 11·1 per cent. in Gwynedd, 8·6 per cent. in Dyfed and 9·8 per cent. in Clwyd. Some of the individual figures are much higher—18·4 per cent. in Cardigan, 16·3 per cent. in Lampeter and 15·4 per cent. in Tywyn PTO—and one could go on. It is against that background that the Board will have to operate. Once again it has been emphasised that the Government's overall management of the economy and not the activities of the Board or the Agency will decide the fate of rural Wales. The unfortunate Development Agency, which went into operation about nine months ago, has had to struggle against the consequences of the Labour Government's folly. The huge burden of Government expenditure, with inflation, the record interest rates and the administrative burden that result from it, has been killing off the small businesses which are the backbone of rural Wales. What can the Board do, however able it may be, if it is subject to the detailed control of an incompetent Government? How will it fare if it has to contend with the payroll tax, the crippling interest rates and the other latest manifestations of the Chancellor's folly? The one good possibility is that in some way the Board may be able to mitigate the full consequences of Government mismanagement. It may be able to use its own judgment to deal with the practical problems it will face. It is for that reason that the powers of direction that we discussed earlier are so alarming. They alarm me particularly in the light of a remarkable policy statement issued recently by the Pembrokeshire Labour Party. If taken at its face value, that would indicate that the Government intend to use their powers of direction in a way never envisaged by many of us who have been engaged in the various stages of the Bill. You might feel, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that for the Pembrokeshire Labour Party to put forward proposals for alleviating unemployment and to suggest how the Board should operate is a pretty incredible piece of effrontery when the policies of a Labour Government have put 4,213 of my constituents out of work—that is one in every five of the insured population. That is more than double the figure in any previous October since the war. What the Pembrokeshire Labour Party says, however, is directly relevant to what we have been discussing. It has proposed, among other things, that 3 per cent. of what it claims to be the Development Agency's funds of £250 million is to be devoted to Pembrokeshire and that this is more than could be obtained on a purely per capita basis. It says also that offices of the WDA and the Board should be set up in Pembrokeshire. It may be an apt comment on Socialist financial irresponsibility that the Pembrokeshire Labour Party should overstate the WDA budget by £100 million, and is apparently so ignorant of the population of Wales and Pembrokeshire that on the per capita basis it actually attempts to cheat the constituency of its entitlement. I am concerned about the implication that the Board will be directed by the Government to establish an office in a part of the country where it does not even have a responsibility and to spend a disproportionate share of its budget to deal with the problems there. If all this was to happen it would have to be by direction. But what if the Board felt that this was not the right way to allocate its resources? What would be the reaction in other parts of rural Wales where unemployment was equally high? The distribution of resources should be made equitably on the judgment of the Board or the Agency. To switch resources around for immediate political considerations seems to have dangerous implications. Perhaps the Government will say that they have no intention of doing what is advocated by the Pembrokeshire Labour Party, and that its statement is no more than so much hogwash. They should tell us. Is this what the Government have in mind, or is it a form of fantasising by the Pembroke Labour Party?Order. I should point out that what the Pembroke Labour Party has to say is not involved in the Bill.
Having made my point, I am happy to move on.
One matter which has been causing anxiety was raised with me by Mr. Davies, Chairman of the Mid-Wales Industrial Development Association, who has written about the statement by the Secretary of State for the Environment about the switch in emphasis in Government policy to inner city areas. Mr. Davies says that the Council of the Association had been concerned to note the statement and adds that it would help if Welsh Members sought an assurance that the new policy would not be detrimental to the Association's efforts to carry forward developments in Mid-Wales. I hope that we can have that assurance from the Government. Another matter which has been debated at length is the relationship between the Agency and the Board. This side of the House—not just the Conservative Party—feels that the geographical and organisational boundaries are wholly unsatisfactory. The geographical boundaries will always be unsatisfactory because the Government have sought to divide something which cannot be divided and to define something which cannot be precisely defined. Equally, we are convinced that the division of responsibilities is unclear and unworkable. It is a matter of opinion and dispute whether it is an advantage or a disadvantage to be under the Board or the Agency. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) made this clear earlier. Some feel that they would like the powers of the Board to extend to their area while others prefer to benefit from the all-Wales powers of the Agency. No one can be satisfied with the present confusion and uncertainty. That confusion is shown by the fact that there are proposals for the Board to establish offices outside its own area. The division of responsibilities is not clear to all hon. Members, and I do not blame them for that. The Secretary of State has told us that the Agency is an all-Wales body with a remit from Gwynedd to Gwent, yet we are also told that it will be too busy to give much thought to rural Wales. The Board will deal with advance factories, and I dare say that the Agency will be thankful to be relieved of that responsibility at a time when most advance factories in Wales are standing empty. The Agency will be able to delegate powers to the Board, though not the power to provide assistance under the Industry Act. The ordinary businessman can hardly be expected to know where to turn in these circumstances. Lord Goronwy-Roberts said that the Agency would retain its functions as a pump primer in rural Wales and the Under-Secretary has explained that this means that the Agency will retain its industrial investment assistance functions. The Under-Secretary said in Committee that the Board would do its bit as a pump primer by the provision of advance factories, its power to impose infrastructure and its new town functions. However, even that is not the whole answer and does not eliminate the confusion. Whenever we pressed the Undersecretary in Committee, he mouthed his incantation about COSIRA. The Agency will be responsible for direct assistance to industry, but it will delegate the COSIRA functions to the Board. The difficulty about that is that the COSIRA functions involve direct assistance to industry. We have the confusing situation that while COSIRA funds are to be delegated to the Board, the COSIRA powers and staff will go very largely to the Agency. There will be about 20 COSIRA staff of the Agency concerned with that part of rural Wales left out of the Board's responsibilities. To summarise, we think that the Government have produced a total muddle. If one has to have a separate Board, the logical boundaries should be based on the Welsh Council's definition in the 1971 report. This is something to be looked at again, fairly soon, under the powers provided in the Bill. It seems a pity that in producing a Bill which could have tidied up and helped to improve the situation in rural Wales, the Government have produced quite unnecessary chaos. It will be urgently necessary, at a very early stage, to re-examine the boundaries. Although we shall have to judge the matter in the light of experience, we may also in due course have to revert to the proposal that we put forward at the Report stage of the Welsh Development Agency Bill and absorb the powers now given to this Board with those of the Agency. I do not believe that the Bill will provide the long-term solutions that we are seeking. I agreed with the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) when he suggested that an opportunity had been wasted. It has. We shall have lo come back to this matter again to clear up the mess that the Government have left us.1.42 a.m.
I welcome this stage of the Bill. It is difficult to detect the support of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) for the Bill. He has poured so much cold water over it from beginning to end that it would have been more honest if he had opposed it wholeheartedly. I am glad that I was not tempted by the hon. Gentleman during one stage of the passage of the Welsh Development Agency Act to support his amendment to create a kind of sub-committee to perform the functions, as he said that this Bill will perform. I hope that the Bill will go from strength to strength. My faith in my right hon. and learned Friend has been vindicated in that I was not tempted to support the hon. Gentleman's amendments.
My right hon. and learned Friend mentioned Clause 26. I welcomed his remarks regarding the continuing support for the Council for Social Services and for various voluntary agencies. He says that he is awaiting suggestions from the Council for Social Services on its changing role. May we take it that he will ensure that the Council continues in its present form until it seeks a change in its structure? With those few remarks, I wholeheartedly welcome the Third Reading of the Bill.1.44 a.m.
I congratulate the Government on achieving the Third Reading of the Bill. I have experience of the Mid-Wales Development Corporation at Newtown. I know that it can and does make a substantial contribution to the economic well-being of the area. It is a matter of great reassurance for us to see that Mr. Emrys Roberts, who has performed his tasks so very well in Newtown, will be the Chairman of the Development Board for Rural Wales. The Secretary of State is to be congratulated on making that appointment. I am sure that everyone who knows Mr. Emrys Roberts and the contribution that he has made will have full confidence that he is well aware of the social and cultural implications of the policy as well as the economic implications.
I particularly welcome the achievement of the Development Board for Rural Wales because of its potential. Under the present economic constraints, we must be realistic. The Board can make but a very modest contribution. Most of its money will undoubtedly have been earmarked for Newtown, I imagine, for the next couple of years. However, it can be gradually built up and its area extended. In that way it can make a real contribution towards the economic well- being of Mid-Wales. Clearly without Mid-Wales having economic well-being, its social and cultural well-being will be in jeopardy.1.45 a.m.
I, too, welcome the Bill's Third Reading and congratulate the Secretary of State. I have been critical of some of his appointments to public bodies in Wales in the past, but in this case I congratulate him. Mr. Emrys Roberts is one of my predecessors as he was the Member for Merioneth. He has worked in industry in the Midlands and has enjoyed distinctive achievement at Newtown. That experience will stand the Board in good stead as well as the Welsh Development Agency, bearing in mind that he will be a member of both bodies. I hope that the liaison between both bodies, which we have discussed, will be substantially improved by the appointment of Mr. Roberts.
Many of us have dreamed of an interventionist authority in rural Wales of the sort outlined in the Bill. Perhaps some Opposition Members, including the official Opposition spokesman for Welsh Affairs, have not shown the sensitivity towards the problems of rural Wales when discussing the Bill that one would have expected. Perhaps I am expecting too much to except that sort of sensitivity from the Conservative Party. The lack of a framework of economic development in rural Wales has meant that the social fabric of the community has declined. We look to the Bill to introduce a pattern of economic development that will sustain the population in Mid-Wales so that it does not have to suffer from the social collapse that has affected it for so long. The Bill is at last one concrete attempt to tackle the problems. We have spoken about the problems of Mid-Wales for so long and here is a positive attempt by the Government to tackle them. I pay tribute to them for having advanced the Bill. Finally, I welcome what the Secretary of State said on Clause 26, although I should like more clarification. Many of us were concerned to see the report in the Western Mail on Thursday 28th October by the Welsh Affairs Correspondent. It refers to the axe poised over the social councils. It is not clear precisely what the Secretary of State meant in his remarks about expecting a report from the Council. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will clarify the matter.1.48 a.m.
It is in the nature of things that the Welsh Development Agency and the Board co-operate closely. That is why the Bill made provision for the enlargement of the membership of the Agency and the appointment of the Board's chairman as a member of the Agency. The idea is to secure a harmonious relationship between the Board and the Agency. I am glad that the appointment of Mr. Emrys Roberts has been welcomed so positively by the House.
The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) spoke about unemployment. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has the correct economic strategy, and that and the Development Board for Rural Wales will help rural Wales considerably in the fullness of time. The Opposition do not have the monopoly of concern for small businesses. The Government care for small businesses. Powers of direction are in part a democratic factor. If we did not have the powers of direction for the Secretary of State, the nominated bodies would be not responsible to the House in that sense. As for the inner city regions and the Development Board for Rural Wales, there is no indication that the funding of the DBRW will be in any way affected. Finally, I take up the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick), who has struggled so heroically for rural Wales, and a query raised by the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas). I repeat the assurance given on Second Reading—that the power conferred by Clause 26 will be used to continue the support at present being given by the development corporations to the rural councils—which are the successor bodies to the rural community councils and the voluntary services committees. The rôle of the Council for Social Services for Wales, as hon. Members know, is changing. Bodies concerned with the elderly and disabled have already resolved to end their direct relationship with the Council, but we are prepared to continue making grants to it for activities for which support from the Welsh Office is appropriate in the changing circumstances. We are awaiting proposals from the Council.Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.
Expenditure
Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the Order of the House of 18th November in the last Session of Parliament relating to nomination of Members of the Select Committee on Expenditure, Sir John Eden and Mr. A. E. P. Duffy be discharged from the Committee and Mr. Neville Trotter and Mr. Robin Corbett be added to the Committee for the remainder of this Parliament:
Ordered,
That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[Mr. Waller Harrison.]
Procedure
Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the Order of the House of 15th June relating to nomination of Members of the Select Committee on Procedure, Mr. Nicholas Ridley be discharged from the Committee and Mr. William Shelton be added to the Committee for the remainder of this Parliament:
Ordered,
That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]
Science And Technology
Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the Order of the House of 21st November in the last Session of Parliament relating to nomination of Members of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, Dr. John Cunningham be discharged from the Committee and Mr. Ken Weetch be added to the Committee for the remainder of this Parliament:
Ordered,
That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]
European Secondary Legislation, &C
Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the Order of the House of 18th November in the last Session of Parliament relating to nomination of Members of the Select Committee on European Secondary Legislation. &c, Dr. J. Dickson Mabon be discharged from the Committee and Mr. Ron Thomas be added to the Committee for the remainder of this Parliament:
Ordered,
That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[Mr. Waller Harrison.]
Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee)
Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the Order of the House of 3rd December relating to nomination of Members of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, Mr. Bob Cryer be discharged from the Committee and Mr. Terry Walker be added to the Committee for the remainder of this Parliament:
Ordered,
That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]
Transmission Line Towers
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[ Mr. Bates.]
1.50 a.m.
I thank the Minister for coming to the House at this late hour to discuss the United Kingdom manufacturing capacity for transmission line towers. My purpose in raising the matter is to draw the Minister's attention to the possibility of a nonsense arising by the promotion of an over-subscription of manufacturing capacity for transmission line towers through the allocation of public funds administered by the Scottish Development Agency.
I am told by the British Constructional Steel Works Association that eight companies are currently involved in the fabrication of transmission towers in the United Kingdom, the largest being Painter Brothers Limited, located in my con- stituency of Hereford, with a capacity of 18,500 tonnes per annum. There are two other companies in Hereford—Hereford Welding, with a capacity of 300 tonnes per annum, and Urry Fabrications Limited, with a capacity of 500 tonnes per annum. Two further companies located in Scotland are Hadingtonshire Fabricators and Park Lea, with capacities of 1,000 and 3,000 tonnes respectively, the balance of the 29,300 tonnes per annum total capacity of the industry being made up of Braithwaite and Company of Newport, Clarke Chapman Limited of Tipton and CGS of Peterborough, with 2,000 tonnes, 3,000 tonnes and 1,000 tonnes respectively. The Minister will note that the available capacity is spread fairly widely over the United Kingdom, although the greatest part is located in Hereford. With its location on mainline railways serving north, south, east and west, and its proximity to the motorway network, Hereford is well situated to supply contracts in any part of the United Kingdom. I have said that the current capacity is approximately 30,000 tonnes per annum, but the current market volume is only about 10,000 tonnes per annum, although the peak demand in 1966 was 70.000 tonnes per annum. Since that time there has been a steadily falling demand, and this resulted in the liquidation two years ago of the other major fabricator, Lothian Structural Development. This company previously had 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. of the United Kingdom market, but was shut down due to the decline in orders. For similar reasons Painter Brothers of Hereford had to shut down a satellite factory in Cinder-ford in the Forest of Dean. The future trends of demand are not encouraging. In 1977 the requirements of the four major customers, namely, the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, the South of Scotland Electricity Board, the Northern Ireland Electricity Service and the Central Electricity Generating Board, and area boards will require a total of 9,350 tonnes, and in 1978 the requirement will drop to a mere 4,680 tonnes. It is expected that in 1979 there will be 6,540 tonnes capacity and in 1980–81 10,300 tones capacity. If this is shown as a percentage of the manufacturing capacity available, it comes out as being 31 per cent. in 1977, 16 per cent. in 1978, 22 per cent. in 1979 and 34 per cent. in 1980–81. The dramatic fall in demand between 1966 and 1976 has forced companies to adjust their activities. Some, as I have indicated, ceased to trade altogether. Others have spread into other markets at home. Others have sought overseas work so as fully to exploit their technical expertise in transmission tower fabrication. I emphasise the technical expertise aspect of this. Of all the companies I have referred to only Painter Brothers is involved in the export market to any degree and great credit is due to that firm as it has in the first nine months of 1976 increased its exports to 54 per cent. and gained the Queen's Award to Industry for its export performance. The Minister can imagine the consternation felt in the transmission tower sector of the construction industry when it heard that a proposal had been put forward to create a company with a plant, possibly to be located in the North of Scotland, and with the objective of undertaking work for all the electricity boards in the United Kingdom. I understand that the investors or partners in this venture, if it were to be floated, would include private individuals. I have had identified to me a management consultant, an existing Scottish engineering company, and the Scottish Development Agency. If this proposal were just one in which individual and commercial interests had come together to form a consortium and only the private sector was to be involved, I should not be here tonight, but it is the possible inclusion of taxpayers' money by means of the Scottish Development Agency which I think makes it matter of very considerable interest to the House. If such a company were to come into existence, the effect on the existing companies already supplying the market could be substantial. I assume that it would have comparatively small beginnings, but it would have as one of its priorities the establishment of a firm home base. The effect on exports would not be very great by its own contribution, but it would have the effect of making it much more difficult for those companies already exporting. In saying this I have Painter Brothers in mind, as it would narrow the home base of these home companies. I mention Painter Brothers in this context because it is the only one to have developed significantly its export business. As the Minister will appreciate, it is vital to have a proper base load in the home market to be able to compete effectively in the very keen overseas markets, and for the company to bid for contracts abroad it must be secure in the knowledge that should it obtain those contracts it can fill them profitably. Uncertainty in home markets must undermine that ability. If as a result of the intrusion of a new company into the market, with Government backing, there is an adverse effect on the output of a company such as Painter Brothers, there must be a consequent reduction of the labour force employed. As Painter Brothers is located in Hereford, and as two-thirds of the existing capacity is located in Hereford, I find myself having a very strong interest, because in that event taxpayers' money would have been employed not only to create jobs in Scotland but to create unemployment in Hereford. I should like at this moment to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that in Hereford, amongst the three companies involved in transmission tower fabrication and galvanising, there are substantially more than 600 people employed. What concerns me as well is that, because of the capital intensive nature of the industry, there would in all probability be fewer jobs created than those destroyed. As I understand the position at this time, the proposal first saw the light of day earlier this year, and the Scottish Development Agency is now actively pressing the participants in this proposed venture to get something under way and to try to settle the matter. In a letter to Balfour Beaty Ltd., the parent company of Painter Brothers, the Scottish Economic Planning Department says that individual cases cannot be discussed. The Secretary of State for Scotland, in a Written Answer to me, gave a similar reply. However, I understand that the letter from the Scottish Economic Planning Department sets out the criteria for assistance to industry. It says:It is for that reason that I am here tonight. I trust that I have shown that in relation to the capacity already available to supply the anticipated market demand there is not adequate scope for a new company financed with public money not to have a deleterious effect on those already operating in the market. The figures show that the expected trends are not encouraging, bearing in mind the expected load of more than 34 per cent. capacity in 1981 and that there is today more than three times as much productive capacity available from the existing eight suppliers, two of which are located in Scotland and hold 13 per cent. of existing capacity. The project either will not survive or will inject an unacceptable imbalance into the present market structure. As the Minister has responsibility for the construction industry, I ask him to make the strongest possible recommendations to his colleagues in the Department of Industry and to the Secretary of State for Scotland to prevent a nonsense. It would be folly in the extreme to use public money to help finance this project. The motto of the Scottish Economic Planning Department is "in defens". If assistance provided by the use of taxpayers' money to create jobs in Scotland led to the loss of jobs in Hereford, I am sure that the Minister would agree that the motto should be revised to "indefensible", as that tag would adequately describe its actions.The purpose of the assistance is the provision of jobs in the Development or Special Development Areas. This purpose will not be served if the project for which assistance is provided does not survive. It is therefore an objective of the extremely thorough examination of each application to assess the likelihood of the project being viable. Viability must depend on, amongst other things, the existence of an adequate market. The Department must therefore satisfy itself as far as possible that this condition is met and to do this it must enquire about the size of the market, expected trends and the number and capacity of other suppliers.
2.3 a.m.
The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Armstrong) has made a strong case for his constituency and he has given us the opportunity to consider the problems of a part of the construction industry. I have carefully listened to his argument.
The construction industry generally is going through a very difficult period. There has been a serious decline in work coming forward with subsequent high levels of unemployment throughout the industry. Both sides of the industry have properly expressed their concern not only about the human tragedy involved in laying men off but the anxiety that if the industry continues to decline, when the upturn in the economy comes, the capacity will not be there to meet the demands made upon it. We are paying particular attention to this aspect of the present difficulties. In the present serious economic situation I can hold out no hope of increasing public expenditure on construction work. Only in July last we found it necessary to reduce public expenditure proposed for 1977–78 by £1,000 million, and of that sum nearly £300 million will fall on construction work. Nevertheless, the public sector programme is still substantial. Our continuing aim is to get value for money and to ensure that we make the very best use of the resources available. We are working closely with the industry to achieve these aims. In an effort to regenerate manufacturing industry the construction side has an important rôle, and this, of course, has been recognised in the special industry schemes for which financial assistance has been made available under the Industry Act. Up to the end of September this year, projects approved under these schemes included over £30 million worth of construction expenditure, and this attracted grants of just under £10 million. The accelerated projects scheme also stimulated a considerable amount of new industrial building. I am pleased to note that there has been some evidence of a recent upturn in new orders for industrial building. Constructional steelwork, like other steel manufacturing sectors, is a selected sector in the industrial strategy. In its first report in July the constructional steelwork sector group identified the problems facing the industry and made some suggestions for action. These include measures to ensure that steel supplies are available to meet future demand, consideration of changes in contractual procedures to improve cash flow in the industry, and efforts to increase the contribution which new industrial building makes to regeneration of manufacturing industry. All of these suggestions are being examined. The sector group has also identified areas for future study. The immediate problem facing the constructional steelwork industry is the severe cutback in the United Kingdom orders from both the public and private sectors. This has created shortening order books, spare capacity, uneconomic margins, redundancies and some closures. The challenge to the industry currently lies in winning a larger share of a smaller United Kingdom construction market and in increasing the tonnage of structural steel exported. The sector group is now turning its attention to ways of increasing exports. It will also look at some longer-term issues. These include an examination of the structure and investment needs of the industry, an investigation of the supply of designers and craftsmen and the need and scope for technological development. We are concerned tonight with that part of the constructional steelwork industry which fabricates transmission line towers. Its output is relatively small compared with the total output of the constructional steelwork industry. The hon. Gentleman reminded the House that production of these towers reached a peak of some 70,000 tonnes per year in the 1960s. But demand fell off during the 1970s and at present amounts to about 8,000–10,000 tonnes per year. As a result of this reduction in demand, some of the firms which previously fabricated towers have now moved over to other structural fabrication work, and some, in common with constructional steelwork fabricators generally, are trying to expand their sales in overseas markets. The hon. Member referred to the possible financing of a plant for fabrication of transmission line towers in Scotland and the possibility of Government assistance. Section 7 of the Industry Act 1972 enables selective financial assistance to be provided where this is likely to provide, maintain or safeguard employment in development and in intermediate areas. The hon. Gentleman fairly read to the House the conditions that apply. The decision on applications for assistance under Section 7 of the Act in Scotland is a matter for my right hon Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. He has already told the hon. Member that applicants for assistance are assured that details of their proposals will be treated in strict confidence. For this reason 1 am not able to discuss in detail the particular case to which he has referred. On the general question of assistance under this section help may be given in order to promote development or modernisation of an industry. It can also be given to promote efficiency and to expand or sustain productive capacity in an industry or in particular undertakings within an industry. The Government published their criteria for dealing with such applications for assistance, and laid them before the House in January this year. It is a basic requirement that any project which is assisted must be viable as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged. An appraisal is therefore made in each case of the market for the company's products at home and overseas. This includes the company's ability to sell in these markets at competitive prices. Other Departments concerned are also consulted. Moreover, before any offer of assistance is made, advice is obtained from the Industrial Development Advisory Board, which is drawn from those with experience in industry, trade unions and banking. Though, as I have explained, I cannot comment on the particular case raised by the hon. Gentleman, I can assure him that any proposals for assistance for projects in the constructional steelwork sector would be carefully considered in the light of the criteria that I have described. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend all the points which he has made tonight.Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes past Two o'clock.